# July 25 2024 Water Quality Fees Board - July 25, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 25, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6178 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6178?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-07-25 - **Last revised**: July 25, 2024 - **Length**: 12,456 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 July 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in the North Elkhorn Conference Room at the Tate Building, 125 Industrial Avenue, Suite 180. David Lowe presided over the meeting, which included nine agenda items and resulted in 11 motions and votes. The board approved the minutes from the April 11, 2024 meeting, a change order related to the FY22 Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington, Inc., and both the FY 2025 Class A Neighborhood Grant Selection and FY 2025 Class B Education Grant Selection. A motion to nominate a Vice Chair was tabled for later consideration. The board also received an informational update on Incentive Grant Status and addressed other matters. No public comments were heard during the meeting. ## Attendance **Present:** - David Lowe - Bill Sallee - Aaron Vaught - George Woolwine **Absent:** - Donna Fogle **Late:** - George Woolwine ## Votes and Decisions All votes taken during the meeting passed unanimously with 4 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. **Approval of 4/11/24 Minutes** [timestamp: 0:00:00] Motion by Bill Sallee, seconded by Aaron Vaught. Passed unanimously. Votes for: David Lowe, Bill Sallee, Aaron Vaught, George Woolwine. **Change Order Request for FY22 Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington, Inc.** [timestamp: 0:14:38] Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by Bill Sallee. Passed unanimously. Votes for: David Lowe, Bill Sallee, Aaron Vaught, George Woolwine. **FY 2025 Class B Education Grant Selections** [timestamps: 0:25:22–0:30:43] Five education grant selections were approved unanimously: - Fayette County Public Schools [0:25:22] – Motion by David Lowe, seconded by Aaron Vaught - Bluegrass Greensource, Inc. [0:26:22] – Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by David Lowe - University of Kentucky Research Foundation [0:27:22] – Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by Bill Sallee - Redwood Cooperative School [0:29:33] – Motion by David Lowe, seconded by Bill Sallee - Living Arts & Science Center [0:30:43] – Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by Bill Sallee All votes for: David Lowe, Bill Sallee, Aaron Vaught, George Woolwine. **FY 2025 Class A Neighborhood Grant Selections** [timestamps: 0:44:06–0:50:08] Three neighborhood grant selections were approved unanimously: - Friends of Wolf Run, Inc. [0:44:06] – Motion by Bill Sallee, seconded by Aaron Vaught - Waterford II Homeowners Association (HOA) Inc. [0:46:16] – Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by David Lowe - Andover Forest Homeowners Association, Inc. [0:50:08] – Motion by David Lowe, seconded by Bill Sallee. This approval included an amendment to condition number 6. All votes for: David Lowe, Bill Sallee, Aaron Vaught, George Woolwine. **Vice Chair Nomination** [timestamp: 1:37:07] Motion by Aaron Vaught, seconded by David Lowe. Passed unanimously. Votes for: David Lowe, Bill Sallee, Aaron Vaught, George Woolwine. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included consideration of a change order request for fiscal year 2022 involving the Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington, Inc. The amendment requested a total of $60,522.40. ## Appointments David Woolwine was appointed to the position of Vice Chair. ## Call to Order David Lowe, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at the beginning of the session [timestamp: 00:00]. ## Approval of 4/11/24 Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed and approved the minutes from the April 11, 2024 meeting. Key speakers on this agenda item included David Lowe, Bill Sallee, and Aaron Vaught. The minutes were approved without noted objections or concerns raised during the discussion. ## Vice Chair Nomination The board addressed the vice chair nomination during this agenda item, with discussion led by David Lowe and Frank Mabson [timestamp: 00:00:31]. The board decided to postpone the vice chair nomination to the end of the meeting rather than address it at the scheduled time on the agenda. **Outcome:** The item was tabled. ## Change Order - FY22 Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington, Inc. The board discussed and approved a change order request for the FY22 grant to the Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington, Inc. [timestamp: 0:14:38] **Key Speakers** Scott Southall and Frank Mabson led the discussion on this agenda item. **Action Taken** The board approved the change order request, which sought additional funds to address increased costs associated with the FY22 grant to the organization. ## FY 2025 Class A Neighborhood Grant Selection [timestamp: 00:15:09] The board reviewed and approved grant applications for the FY 2025 Class A Neighborhood Grant Selection. Frank Mabson and Bailee Young led the discussion on this agenda item. The board's review of the applications resulted in approval of the grant selections. No specific concerns or debates were documented in the available meeting materials regarding individual applications or the selection process. The resolution was approved. ## FY 2025 Class B Education Grant Selection The board reviewed and approved grant applications for the FY 2025 Class B Education Grant Selection [timestamp: 00:15:43]. **Key Speakers** Frank Mabson and Bailee Young led the discussion on this agenda item. **Outcome** The board approved the FY 2025 Class B Education Grant Selection applications. ## Incentive Grant Status Update Frank Mabson presented an update on the status of various incentive grants to the board [timestamp: 1:09:32]. This agenda item was presented as an informational update, with no formal action or debate recorded. The board received information regarding the current status of multiple incentive grant programs, though specific details about individual grants, their amounts, timelines, or outcomes are not documented in the available meeting materials. The presentation concluded with an informational outcome, indicating the board was updated on the grants' progress without requiring a vote or formal decision at this time. ## Other Matters During this agenda item, the board discussed various other matters, with Frank Mabson serving as the key speaker [timestamp: 1:34:24]. The discussion included consideration of the demolition of a building on Southland Drive. This item was presented for informational purposes, allowing the board to address miscellaneous matters outside the main agenda items. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by David Lowe at approximately 1:37:37. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of 4/11/24 Minutes - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Change Order Request for FY22 Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington, Inc. - **Motion** — passed (4-0): FY 2025 Class B Education Grant Selection for Fayette County Public Schools - **Motion** — passed (4-0): FY 2025 Class B Education Grant Selection for Bluegrass Greensource, Inc. - **Motion** — passed (4-0): FY 2025 Class B Education Grant Selection for University of Kentucky Research Foundation - **Motion** — passed (4-0): FY 2025 Class B Education Grant Selection for Redwood Cooperative School - **Motion** — passed (4-0): FY 2025 Class B Education Grant Selection for Living Arts & Science Center - **Motion** — passed (4-0): FY 2025 Class A Neighborhood Grant Selection for Friends of Wolf Run, Inc. - **Motion** — passed (4-0): FY 2025 Class A Neighborhood Grant Selection for Waterford II Homeowners Association (HOA) Inc. - **Motion** — passed (4-0): FY 2025 Class A Neighborhood Grant Selection for Andover Forest Homeowners Association, Inc. - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Vice Chair Nomination --- ## Full transcript minutes hopefully everyone's had a chance to review that do I have a motion to approve so motion second second all right all in favor eyes have it our next item is the vice chair nomination the board is opposed maybe we put that at the end see that you know the way to George showed up. Sure. Any opposition to that? Nope. Alright. Moving on down. Postplements and withdrawals. No. Alright. Which takes us to the change order. Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington. So just a little bit of history. This was approved in the fall of 2021 and they were awarded FY22 Class A, I mean Class B, for example, a grant. And so they came into real trouble in terms of funding with regards to materials and supplies and that sort of thing. But we have a consultant here who's going to give you a bit more on the bones for that. Sure. Just for those that don't know me, the name is Scott Southall with her cycle design and for university. Unitary and Universal Church of Lexington are also known as UUCL. And so with that being said, I'm just going to give a quick overview of the project and where we stand. So this is the agenda. Frank's going to help me out here with just scrolling through the presentations of background design, timeline, bidding process, and where we stand with budget and budget requests. So Frank wants to slide up to the next one. This was part of a feasibility study the prior year, so this is where we came in in 2022 and requested funds for implementation. The project was to put in permeable pavement. We started with concrete. We had switched over to pavers, and I'll explain that as a part of the change order request. It was also to, this was taking out existing gravel and there was an oak barn that we were removing, so we were basically swabbing the pavement for pavement or impervious area for impervious area. There's also a relatively historic oak tree that has been undermined by the pavement surrounding it. So we wanted to preserve that. So there's some swapping of parking spaces based upon that. And then we had some issues with some erosion along the drive, the entry drive coming in, that we wanted to address. So I'm going to swing you to the next one. So this is the area that was proposed for the parking area. You can see that it's kind of gravelly right now, but there's also an old barn at that location. So that open area is where the expansion of the parking was going to go. Next slide. This is the erosion that was occurring along the edge of the drive coming in, as well as the eroded swale. So it's hard to tell the grade change here. We're probably going to end up somewhere between 7% to 8% slope on this. So expected we had some erosion. And then you can see, next slide, I think it shows the edge treatment. So what happens is when two cars try to pass, it's a fairly narrow lane. And each car kind of goes off to the edge a little bit. So we were looking to address that. from an erosion standpoint and stabilization without necessarily having to add a whole bunch of more pavement keeping in mind that you know it's only occasion that cars pass each other generally this is very low traffic and so the width of the road is wide enough to allow for cars to pass one by one next slide this is the bur oak um you can see the pavement is heating in this area so So the plan is to take and remove those four parking spaces completely to what's known as air 19. The soil to bring less and the compaction around it and open that up so that the tree has more area for growth and longevity in terms of the area. Next. And then we had some head wall that's at the entrance that also has collapsed in recent years and so we were doing some repairs to the head wall as well as stabilization of this whole slope area coming into the swale coming into the head wall going underneath the road. So this is a quick overview of what the design is. I know it's maybe a little bit difficult to see, but again, as I mentioned, permeable papers, removable pavement, the swale and bio-swale stabilization and roll replacement, and then adding some canopy trees. If you go to the next slide, it's enlarged. So this is where all those things are kind of occurring. If you follow the lines, you can see where the papers are going in, where the pavement removal is occurring, the bioswale, headwall stabilization, and again, the canopy trees. Next slide. So this was our timeline, the start of the timeline. Back in 22, we had the agreement signed. Notice the receipt was given. We started the site survey. We did construction documents. Then we did a first round of bidding basically last time this year. We invited six contractors, and after an extension, we received one bid. That one bid was $140,000 over our estimate. So we then inducted interviews with contractors and said, okay, what is it that's troubling you on the project? What is it that we could possibly change and make it easier for you to make a bid? In doing so, if you go to the next slide, we came back with a second round earlier this year. We increased the number of contractors that we sent this out to. We came back with one bidder again. At that point, they were $270,000 over. After the bid, we were able to secure two additional contractors to take and put pricing in on it. The three bids are, as you see there, from CNR, Cooch, and Green Solutions. The reason I bring up Green Solutions is because they're the little bidder on the project, and they substituted concrete pavers for the original curvious concrete, which is what we were originally going with. So we're still substituting permeable for permeable. The difference is that they were able to get pavers in cheaper than the concrete. So we were absolutely fine with that in terms of the material change. and still performs as well, if not better, under certain circumstances. So, next slide. That's, yeah, there we go. So, thank you. So, three bids. Low was Green Solutions. Estimate was in 318. The difference is 71,000 and change are approximately 17-18%. Next slide. So the difference that we found was we had some patching of asphalt that came in and we hired what we had estimated. that was due and we are interviewing after the second round of bids due to mobilization and demobilization costs associated with that and then we had just general increases we couldn't pinpoint any one particular item that had a significant increase in materials or labor costs so what we are here to request is an increase in the budget grant budget by sixty thousand five hundred twenty two dollars and forty cents which you UCL will be matching with fifteen thousand one hundred thirty four dollars and sixty cents as they noted in their commitment letter next slide and this is how the budget now would break down what the original grant totals were was was short just lie short of three hundred thousand at 299 470 70 60 with the change order that brings the total to 360 with the grant batch totaling ninety thousand for total project of $450,000. And I think that was the last slide. Yeah. So we have recommendations that I'd like to do for the board. Sure. Come on. So the Division of Water Quality recommendation states that the Division recommends that the board that the Board consider approval of the change order request that's $6,522.40 based on the following. The project construction cost increase is validated by the competitive bids received by the applicant. Value engineering was performed to reduce the bid amount to not exceed the maximum allowable for a amount of water. The request for additional funding is attributed to increase in labor and material costs, which falls within the guidelines of the approved change order program. And number three, the approval of the amended grant award as summarized in table two, and I'm referring to the document that was provided to you in the package. I'm sorry, I said it referred to the X-Force Code, which is the type of FY22 stormwater following the project that's going to be UCL stormwater improvements project. I hope you have that document with you. But that's the reference document. I'll read you one, please. You got a chance to find that. Let me show you. This document, you can have a break. So, correct. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think I can take it so. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And we should be needing a change of the package. Yeah. Yeah. So it's just a document. Got it. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Table 2 keeps the organization's total grant award within the program's maximum amount allowable for Class B infrastructure grants, which is for $360,000. And following number 4, applicant has agreed to provide additional match to meet the contracted percentage. And that adds an additional $15,130.66 to their cost. And table two, the reference to table two is the total project cost with the bid would be $450,000 and that's broken into the fact that we're asking LFUCG to increase the award amounts. total $360,000 and that would leave the UCL's cost share portion at $90,000. So those are our recommendations for the board to have a special consideration. We have adequate funds to cover that? Yes, we still have. Our change order funds currently set at... We've increased it because the program allows us to cap it off at 10% of the total revenue collected. We get 10% of whatever we receive as part of the part of our national fee to put toward the top off change of the program. And currently that amounts to $167,910. So they will be asking for $60,500 to $40 of those funds. Anyone have any questions? No questions? I think this is what project funding is for. Yes. There certainly has been due diligence trying to make it work. What's the will of the group? I know it's a great good check. It's been moved. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been moved and second. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. I would like to second. Thank you. Thank you. This chair will take it from number five. Thank you. Yes, we did. Okay. First of all, I'm sorry I'm late. I got stuck in traffic on Facebook, so every way I went, I met obstacles. All right. Item 6, FY2025 Class A, neighborhood grant selection. And so for these, we have, it says Class A, start number, Class A, but I would recommend to start off with class two. And Bailey and I would like to read the great determination for us to start class D, the class D education discussion, and then we all have a discussion after we read the record determination. So you want to read all of them? Yes. Yeah, and then you guys can discuss each one. Okay. I will start. I'm reading just so y'all know the grant determination form that was provided in their packet for class education. Application number one is from Fayette County Public Schools with a requested grant amount of $4,976.50 for cost share of, of a proposed cost share of $1,623.50, which is 4,500 percent. For a total project budget of $6,600, the project elements are as follows. Organizations to partner with Hickman Creek Conservancy and Tick Creek Elementary School's teachers to host five water-quality, watershed and native plant-based classes for 4th and 5th grade classes focused on the existing basins at Tick Creek Elementary School's side campus. Students will also take a tour to the pond after all other work has been completed. Number two, project also includes the installation of one educational sign on the sidewalk side of the basin that includes information on the water quantity and quality benefits of the basin. The target ordinance is approximately 611 students. The recommendation of the Director of Education and Water Quality. applicant of the post project new program eligibility requirements with a project score of 98.25. Approve the grant application with a full amount of $4,976, requiring a minimum of $720 per portion. Approve the grant application with the following situations. Applicant shall obtain a bit of approval prior to work being done on properties not owned by the applicant. both electronic and hard copies of all materials are to be provided to LFCCG for its use as part of the grant deliverables, including the four billion after total of the mini grant activities. Applicants shall specify educational materials that are water quality related or that were key water quality nested. Applicants shall provide voting in-records for personnel listed in the project budget to build a water quality prior to the drafting of the agreement. The agreement has done to provide student teacher evaluations as part of the project following the report. And finally, the organization proposes a larger cost share beyond that required by the grant program. The budget should reflect a 45.1% cost share altered in the application, which is approximately $1,620. So the next one is for the grants grants. and so they requested $39,630 for the cost share of 23.9% sitting at $11.5 grand. The total project budget is $51,121 and they're interested in hosting an Empower program with public education and involvement campaigns designed to empower local residents to improve water quality and address water quantity on their own property and this includes for rain barrel workshops where as attendees learn about runoff they also meant to allow eight participants to build and take on their own rain barrel and the organization works to educate less than 10 and 3k through 12 youth and their families to understand their connection with water and its importance about the city um the director's recommendations the applicant and project immediate program eligibility requirements with a score of 90.25. The grant application is approved and the full amount of 39,600 is very requiring a number of 9,600 for cost share and the following stipulations will be required. Written approval, required work being started, electronic and hard copies of all materials provided to LPCG. Appian shall specify the educational and promotional materials that are more quality related applicant shall provide grant payment and application reference to the US Bureau of Differences for the Indian hourly wage. And applicant is to provide student inter-evaluations as part of the project final report. And the organization is supposed to be larger cost and require that 23.9%, so approximately 11.5K. Application number three is from the University of Kentucky Research Foundation. It requested around $30,698. Costs are around $6,954. It's 2.1%. The project elements are to elevate the potential effects of urban reforestation, both in the stormwater bases and in reforetment sites. on stormwater management by evaluating infiltration rates, soil water storage, and potential evaporation. This is what it's designed. Evapotranspiration, etc. Education and outreach programs will be provided through a multi-modal approach to communicating results, including infographics, field day, conference presentation, table, and public engagement. The director's recommendations are as follows. Applicant is close to the full program. That is the requirements for project scope 80.75. Improve the benefit of $30,690. Or a minimum of $6,930.40. And cost share. Improve the benefit of the full-time attendance. Both electronic and hard copies of all materials are required to have VCD for its use as part of the grant. The ability to fill in that form of the package. Applicants have specified educational promotion, number two, one quality of the aid, but that will include one quality of the aid. That's an occupation of the public, paid effort for personnel that's in the project budget organization, proposing a larger cost share beyond that requirement program. Legislature reflect the 20.1% cost share of the valuation, which is probably $54. The next applicant is Ransom's Cooperative School. They requested $40,000 to the cost share in 2017 at 21.4%, the total project budget is $50,070. Their project elements include regrading the front side of the school to slow water, installation of permeable papers, installation of two bioretention rain gardens with substance drainage, installation of four educational signs about rain gardens and permeable papers, and posting a volunteer plan to date for the rain gardens. The applicant needs program eligibility requirements, however the feasibility of the proposed submission is questionable. Some necessary elements are missing from the application including evaluation from the license engineer, consideration of capacity and elevation limitations can be used to stay out of UCG storm sewer pipe, budget information for aggregate sub-base, and budget information for permanent signage. The project is scored at 88.25 and is not recommended for funding to dismiss the legal Application number five is from Living Rights and Science Center. They request $40,000, cost of $17,730 to 32.2%. For a total project budget, $57,730. Project elements, FY25 grant to allow our educators to develop plans and implement exhibits and educational programs that will be part of the field days science explorers discovery saturdays ceans and esteem those school days and summer camp programs uh lasc continues to promote these programs and initiatives through emails newsletters social media channels and private printed materials including program schedules brochures postcards and flyers we're going to science center promotion activities ensure that the larger community is aware of and involved in and all these programs. Director's recommendations are as follows. African meets program eligibility requirements. However, due to the minimal proportion of water quality related program elements to non-water quality program, the proposed project does not meet those with the program. Project scores 36. And this project is not recommended for funding this dispute. So those are educational, class-based educational recommendations. Okay, good. Good. Good. Well, we'll start with this going to be the same order and discuss the Fayette County Public Schools project. Any comments, questions, discussion? But here's the role of her. Okay, 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. I would like to say. Motion carries. Thank you. The second project is the Bluegrass Green Source Inc. project. Any comments, questions, discussion? Thank you. 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. Opposed like so. Motion carries. Third project is the University of Kentucky. Reforested stormwater basement project. This is interesting because they're using trees that we've talked about for some time. Yes. So, interesting project. Any comments, questions? I move to the perimeter. Thank you. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All are favoring the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. Those like so? Motion carries. Next is the Redwood Waterloo School Project. Okay. So we're kind of on the right course here, and so we share feedback with the applicant. Yes, we actually went out on site to just kind of survey and see what we thought about the terrain out there. And the scores have a lot of concerns about where the DMPs were positioned, proposed to to be positioned, it was our opinion that they were in close proximity to the structure, and so, and there was also an issue with how they were going to connect to our storm system along with some other case areas that were listed or summary of recommendations there. And so, it was our recommendation to the director champion to not fund this process. Have you shared that with them, or I guess you're waiting to tell after this? Yeah, we've shared our concerns. Okay. We gave them some, I wouldn't call it advice, we just kind of told them where we park on the positioning or what we thought would probably work better. And they just weren't in a position to change it at the time. They actually had construction going on at the time we was out. They were actually in their parking area at the time. So they're going to consider a future application. Okay. By chance, are they here today to comment on the preparation? I would think so. I would move to accept staff's recommendation. Thank you. I'm not funded further. Thank you. 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. Opposed, like a second? Motion carries. And the final project is the Living Arts and Start Center. Do they have any on board projects? No funding for the homework projects? FY23, they didn't put in for FY24. I would imagine it's because they were experiencing a lot of turmoil in terms of their leadership. And so, it's because of that reason, along with, well, I would recommend that they're basically the merit of the application. Right. So let me just say that right. Okay. It would be water quality for lack of a better name. Thank you. Okay. Any comments, questions? Move to deny. Okay. Thank you. It's been moved. Is there a second for clarification? Is that a denial to the recommendation? or are you moving to support the recommendations? Accept the staff's recommendations, do you deny it? Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. Those like a second. Motion carries. Thank you all. We will start with the class A. and then have the board discuss those. Then we're reading the recommendations for Class A, for the FY25 Class A grant proposals. I'm going to start with application number one. It's from Friends of War Fund with a requested grant amount of $46,435. amount of $46,435. Also they have a cost share of $22,716.95. That's $22,716.95. That's $22,716.95, which is a 32.5%. Total project budget is $69,151.95. The grant project elements are as follows, recruiting, training, suppliers, and supporting volunteer stewardship groups to assist streamside property owners in managing vegetative proprietary buffers along with one edge tributaries. The project site location with individual budgets are followed. Follows this. Number one, customers paid, spring woodland, stream buffer repair, Doleville Drive, Green Space, High and Metal, New Good Park, and Right of Lake Buffer Maintenance, Gardenside Park, Stream Buffer Maintenance, Torbett's Trace, Spring Garden, St. Raphael's Episcopal Church on the Park and Run, Big Am Fork, Stream Buffer Demo Project, Stream Buffer Browser, I-Certie Go Project, Wolfram Park, Southwind Park, and they include engagement, 10 plant material propagation, distribution, and and the project coordination administration and accounting. So those are components of their project elements of the directors of recommendations. Applicant and proposed project meet full, meet program eligibility requirements. Projects go 79, approve the grant issues of full amount of $46,425 requirement minimum of $13,340. Since approved the grant application following stipulations. Tree planting should be coordinated with existing utilities prior to the plantings. and if possible trees shall not be planted within 10 feet of an existing utility. Approach would be that shall be obtained when working within any public or private utility areas. Applicant shall obtain written approval, final work being done on property not owned by the applicant. Number three, applicant shall verify the need and ensure all permits are received prior to any stream bank stabilization work. Project shall not proceed with the fieldwork until written approval to proceed is obtained from the grant administrator or director of water quality because of potential conflict because of potential for conflict with future LFPC projects. Applicants shall obtain quotient evidence for each site from the Division of Department Services and then finally organizations will propose a larger cost share beyond that requirement program but shall reflect the 32.5% cost share offered in the application which is a product of $20.76 million in that effect. The next applicant was Waterford II and the Moiner's Association. They requested about $20,000 with a cost share amount of $30,000 of 20% with a total project budget of $150,000. The project continues efforts from Waterford II's Fiscal Year 19 Feasibility Study and Fiscal Year 23 Engineering Design and Fiscal Year 24 Hardscape Infrastructure Removal the Google and Stream Restoration Phase I construction project grants to restore the natural stream. And the project elements include restoring the natural habitat within the Pond Foot Grant by using a series of pools or pools runs through water quality and stream aquatic habitat, encapsulate sediment captured within the existing Pond, reestablish the enhanced riparian buffers as in its own educational side, documenting the stream restoration work under project elements the applicant enters the director's recommendation of the applicant and because project meet program eligibility requirements of the project score of 71. the grant application for the full amount of 120 000 require in the minimum of 30 000 cost share with the following circulations tree planting shall be coordinated with existing utilities prior to plans needs encouragement agreement shall be obtained True approval and planting activities shall be reviewed by PES. Applicant shall obtain written and approval agreement prior to work being done. Applicant shall verify all necessary permits. Educational signage is to be approved by the grant manager or administrator prior to production. The MP locations are to be modified to apply for the setback distances stipulated in engineering handles. And inspection prior to the plan shall be provided. application of the project. plants habitat control education sign back new stream restoration work other project recommendation program 7 for a full amount of $125,000 all share applications all project elements The grant application shall verify the need and ensure all permits are received. The applicant shall obtain good approval prior to working in the grant on the property of an applicant. If the project shall not proceed to fulfill both until we approve these proceedings, the plan from the grant administrator of the record of the law calling with potential for confidence in the project. An operation and maintenance plan shall be provided at the conclusion of the project. Consider selecting plans from the suggested by grant species list of the last-needed county government's small-mart manual. permit signs and designs to be approved by the money and through or administrative product production. The next applicant is the Loma Residential Station, a top-question of $8,000. The cost of the amount of $20,000 is the 20% of the total project budget of $100,000. The project elements include elevating the existing walking trail onto a pre-pass concrete water block, pregrading the existing swale to clear the defined path of travel from the stormwater, consolidate cleanings along the swale, and stormwater education listed on volunteer and then permanent signage. The following are the recommendations of the director. Applicant proposed project elements, most of them meet program eligibility requirements, sorry, program elements 2, 3, and 4 meet program eligibility requirements for the project's floor at 33. This project is not recommended for under this facility here, but if the grant application is approved by the board, the following stipulations are required. The applicant shall be reminded of any other permanent. Applicant shall obtain written approval prior to working on the property. The project shall receive the real work, shall not receive the work until written and written approval is obtained. and O&M plan was necessary at the conclusion of the project. You should consider using the planting list located with the mix A of the summer label. Permanent signage design shall be approved by the grant manager. And item number one, elevating the same walking trail onto a big house company boardwalk is not eligible for funding. Applicant to provide the WP with a revised budget, admitting the cost to search you from the track walkway, The Canadian materials have the rate of 6,000, an installation of 12,000 for regulation of the grant. The President, the President, the Community Association. The question is, the requested bed amount is $67,182, cost share amount is $16,888.10, which is 20%, the coverage is $61,207.10. Project comments are as follows. The great existing swell located on the southwest and off the line to allow for better drainage. The swell according to LiDAR has a slope of less than 2%, which results in pondering with issues such as mosquitoes. The rain will involve making the cut through the ditch in order to achieve bigger than 2% slope. Initially the catch basin is still trying to be replaced with the larger catch basin that appears to be undersized. The pipe drain catch basin is 12-inch pipe and also appears to be undersized to replace a 24-inch pipe. The project also incorporates the stormwater education which includes developing the educational flogs. The project is a project for the next program. The director's recommendations. Applicant proposed project and new program held by the departments of the project. The project, unfortunately, is not recommended for the project. The last applicant is the plan. The request to grant an office $3,570, share amount of 6,030, sitting at 20.4% of the total project budget of $29,600. The project is a study that will identify value by its select P&P is capable of following, restoring or roading banks by removing rate features, sliding bank slips, and starting to talk to the library, reducing bar quality impairments from impervious surface areas, reestablishing and enhancing repair and stopper zones, implementing a trash collection system, establishing an outdoor space, a local front, and provide access for educational opportunities, evaluating the functions of developing educational signage, documenting the project elements. We have again a proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with a project score of 30. This project is not . So those are our recommendations. The board would kind of consider a discussion on the side of it. Okay. Good. The first project is the Friends of North Brown. Yep. Score is set today. Mm-hmm. Any comments, questions on this project? Certainly a number of areas that they were touching throughout the basin. Okay. that we want to speak to with our recommendation. I'd certainly be interested if anyone's here to speak. I know Ken Cook is not here to speak to that one particularly. I believe the other one out here could say them. Yeah, STATEC, we help them with the feasibility study one. Okay, so let's go. What's your little group on this first? I'll move approval of the Friends of Wolf Rond application as recommended by the Black Prime Director. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and accepted. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Next project is the Waterford 2 Homeowners Association project. Any questions, comments on that? I do have a question on this one. Item 2 of the project governments encapsulates settlement capture in existing meetup. What does that involve? How much of the material will actually be removed from the site? What is the encapsulation process? What does that involve? I think settlement is coming into the pond from upstream. It's a different thing that to reduce the amount of sediment that's coming in to it. I understand that, but what about the sediment that's already there? You can go on. Want me to take this one? Yeah, please. So, the pond's about 18 inches deep on average. So, to turn the pond back into what it wants to be, who's the sediment in the stream complex, you grade your sediment back out, you create a deandering channel through the middle. So the idea there is not just taking the sediment and releasing it downstream, but placing it on the banks and then covering that with a protective layer. So that's what the work of encapsulation uses. So we're retaining it on site. That's what we're trying to say. Okay. So you're just rebraiding it and then plating grass to stabilize it so that it will work. Grass, a couple of great control features, hard armored rock features to This is a very careful assessment balance act when you turn a pawn back up the street. If done incorrectly, it'll push all the elements up. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments, questions on this project? Move to approve. Thank you. Is there a second? I second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so. Motion carries. Thank you. The next project is the Andover Forest Hummers Association project. Any comments, questions? I'm concerned that we have a lot of letters of support. We have to get written approval and permission from people who are doing work on their property. Yeah, this is their second grant. We've never had any resistance in the past. This is one organization that unfortunately passed. This is his organization. I'm sorry. They found him on the link. I forgot his name. You remember him? Yes, Mr. LaRue. So this is his association. This is his former association. They're just taking up his work from where he left off. So we actually did a site visit out here. And there was some concern about the fact that we were sort of dealing with minty ponds and what have you, but I think after the while they kind of missed this thing. The bank did do some stabilization, and actually you can speak to this as well. Yeah, so a question was, there's a support from neighboring partners, the entire H-O-H-O, the barstool. Yeah. So they're not on anyone's property per se. They're voting collectively on property that... Yeah, the association itself champions the project. Thanks. David, is that satisfying your question? Yeah. Thank you. I also have a question. On condition number six, recommended by the director, that's not really mandatory. And I guess I'm wondering the consequences of planting the species not on the recommended list. Usually it's like a root growth issue, and it doesn't appear there's any real hard infrastructure. Maybe that would impair, but I'm kind of questioning the fact that's not mandatory. A mandatory condition. That's a good point. We can revise it. Yeah, we can revise it. We can make it mandatory. It was just a strong suggestion because we have a little bit of guidance in our stormwater manual for plantings, and so it was just a strong suggestion. We can certainly require it. We can adjust it. I'm saying plants shall come from the situation. Yeah, you can, and just have it re-signed by the director before you're second. Yeah, okay. I think that's a good point. Yeah. Okay, any other thoughts, comments? I would move to approve with the amendment to item 6. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like so? Motion carries. Thank you. Next project is the Beaumont Residential Association. You know, when I was reading this, I was looking at the boardwalk. I didn't think that would have been a whole lot as far as the stormwater. Which is the reason I will recognize the public causes of my game. And that's a major part of the whole project. Comments, questions? I had kind of the same comment as with the last application about condition 5 on this one, but the difference between this one is not recommended for 4 years. I'm sure it is. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole purpose of referencing that particular manual, It shows, it recommends plants that require less maintenance, more hardy, more self-sustaining. Yeah, more native to our area. And I think that, I mean, we have it. So I think, yeah, I think that's a good point to encourage or to require that so that we're not getting the maggots issue down the road. Okay, good point. So no need to write that one? No. Well, let's... Any other comments, questions? Hearing none, what is the rule of three? Move to support Stokes' recommendation and not fund this application. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Those like so, motion carries. Thank you. Next project is the Crestwood Condominiums Association. We do have some representatives that may want to come along. Okay. I just want to speak to a recommendation to not vote. I couldn't really hear all your recommendations. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. There was a recommendation not to vote. Not to vote. Yeah. And if you would like, I can read off our concerns. Sure. Yeah, why don't you turn around so that you can hear it. So for the press group, the concern of the staff was we felt that there was a lack of stormwater reduction or quality benefits to the project. And then there was a note of high cost committee surveying and inspections estimated for the project. So those were our reasons because we didn't receive a benefit in terms of water quality and there was no reduction. So the mission of the program is to reduce stormwater runoff, but to improve water quality for it to provide. So this is supposed to reduce stormwater runoff? Yeah, I don't think the proposal provided with reduction is more or less a challenge for the water to flow and not necessarily reduction in the liquid. So I think that's why we would see there wasn't a component that was going to reduce the stormwater runoff, So if there was a component to allow for reduction in that quantity, then I think we would pay more points. And that reduction is from a runoff from another property? From another property, yeah, which would make it a private issue between those two property owners, not necessarily something that LFUCT could really intervene in, but we just didn't feel there was a component that would improve our quality or restore water. There was a brand approved in 2022 that... Yeah. Unfortunately, that was a different scoring panel and a different... that evaluated, and I'm not sure those are not out here, so I don't... Because the runoff from the property that adjoins us is significant water and trash, and we just hope we're... Did you want to say something? We pulled up the previous applications and so some of the previous ones had more plants being installed so it could be more quality benefits. Had more plants? Yeah, plantings and native plants being served. And so this one was just a re-grading so we didn't think that it had more quality benefits. Will that be provided to us, minority? Your recommendation? Sure, yes, yes. Well, just to add on to that, this is a competitive program where you have to have an application asking the score, and unfortunately your project was significantly lower score than others. So I think that comes into play. And what you might want to consider doing is get someone that's knowledgeable of this program that can guide you and lead you to put a stronger stronger application something for consideration we had gone with an engineer that you all previously recommended to write this application out of it okay i don't know that i would i don't know that i would you know recommended i think i think if we would do anything about the list of consultants to choose from i don't know when we're pointing No, we didn't say it specifically. We did a list, and we did choose, and it was somebody that had worked on the program in the previous grant application. Okay. Well, again, I guess the bottom line is that you're being compared to others in the cycle. I understand. So, anyway, certainly. Okay. Any other thoughts, comments, questions? Okay, what's the rule of the group? The Presbyterian Condo Association Project. The board does have a discretion to disagree. Sure, absolutely. I'll move denial of the application based on the staff report and the recommendation of the character. Okay, for this, Ms. Peter. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. All the further motions signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like so? Motion carries. Thank you for coming. I appreciate it. Last project is the trends of Wolf Run feasibility study. Is the basis not recommended based on the project's score and lack of funding? Well, this is a list of concerns provided in summary recommendations. I'm providing the summary recommendations from the staff and the director, and I'm glad to do those. I wish you were. The report was concerned that the proposal did not reduce stormwater quantity. The proposed location conflicts with the ongoing RMP and recently completed claims in the old road widening project. The project was proposed on LFECG's Greenway property, and the Greenway manager who was present to move stormwater had no notification that this was into consideration. Scores were concerned over the high hourly costs for activities like project management, PNC, which could only make an association coordination to project leave. Scores were concerned over proposed trash rack locations, that the proposed trash rack locations were ineffective based on previous experience. There was an already outdoor classroom nearby, a long-winded drive within 150 yards of the proposed classroom location. Conceptual design narrative and budget do not address existing trees, and proposed that meaning there were no, the existing trees did not exist in a drawing, nor did they speak to it in terms of removal or how the plan to deal with those. A source of concern is extreme restoration. It's not feasible at proposed location due to the fluctuation between high velocity flows and no flow periods. Schools also note the limited space to flatten the bank slopes due to the proximity of the residences. So those are our concerns. Now the weekend consultant is here. Yeah. So this is a tough spot. It's tight. I will say there's a really interesting opportunity here to look at Wolf Run in its worst conditions. So right now it is a concrete line channel. The right descending bank has been stabilized, what's called soil creep. So you take concrete and spray it on the ground. So it's not a natural feature. So the site definitely has opportunities and Frank, you're absolutely right, it's covered in utilities and no space really out all the move. The entire left bank is built up with houses right next to the stream. So the site is tough. The feasibility setting will be interesting to take that and put those concepts in words. But kind of the most interesting part of this site I think is the hardscape replacement of a stream. Turning a stream that's a trapezoidal concrete channel back into a creek. And if it's it's not feasible due to utilities that it might end now. And then some of the other concepts too, the early rate and kind of the management considerations, that was a little closer now as well. But just the, I guess what excites us as engineers is the opportunity to look at it and see what sticks to the wall when you change. We'll find it back to something more natural. Thank you. I appreciate that. I guess from one perspective, this is a feasibility study, and that's what we're trying to do is look for alternatives that might, the best alternatives to solve the problem, the solution to the problem. having said that I think the fact that it does I'm understanding this correctly the conflicts with some of the so rehab work that's recently been done so that certainly is a concern but it is a feasibility and we're looking for a solution in any of it Comments, questions, what are your thoughts on the Wolfhorn Plotchip? Frank I'm interested in your opinion so if there you know there are ongoing efforts in this area you know do you repeat the feasibility study conceivably if the feasibility study goes well there would be a full project that would occur in that area there's ongoing work to turn a forecast here the work that's going on is related to the Santa checkups on the PEE project and recently the Clay's being widened out in the area you know and I think from our perspective it was just more or less you know feasibility of life is it practice this a practical location for an outdoor classroom is there is there a need to to create a tributary from the stream in that area without kind of there even be flow in that area. So from a practical perspective, our opinion is nothing. So we didn't even, we felt like there would even be a way to see the good numbers. Even after a feasibility study was done? Yeah, we felt like it just wouldn't be something that would push forward or even as a need per se. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be nice to naturalize that channel there, but on one side of it, it's just flat out houses where there would be no adjustment made on that side. So if anything, it would be one-sided kind of a naturalization thing going on. And so we felt like that just this area was exactly right. Okay. Any other questions, comments? What is the will of the group? I'll move to support staff's recommendation and not the finalist project. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, right side? Aye. Motion is carried. Thank you. All right. Then to the next item, we have two settings. The second set, remaining funds, recommendation, discussion. So moving back to Class B. So for Class B, after those recommendations, that we're actually doing. The total, let's see, the total FY25 class being granted out funded, in terms of our recommendation, is 75,000 and 54.50%. The budgets remaining will be $38,101.26. It would have been our recommendations to use those on class A projects that we needed to. So we're looking at the, And I'm looking at the summary of recommendations document on the back of it. The total FY25 Class A general funded were $286,025. The budget funds remaining total $72,980.57, and that's broken up into $34,880.31 remaining remaining from FY25 Classic Advocations, along with the $31,101.026 remaining from FY25 Classic and from its total remaining, again, is $72,982.57. To, as our recommendation is used for next year's advocacy, we will have the Board of Trustees. is to actually use it for the classic infrastructure of applicants as well as coming out. If the Board wanted to allow us to move them, that would be fine. Yeah, I think it's worth it. We had to use those funding to navigate classes that we needed to cover projects that score well. We spent some of our change order money. What is the environment? Has that environment changed at all? Are those things coming down? Yeah, we're seeing and hearing. Yeah, I'm hearing a couple more that may come our way. So I think there's a need to just leave those funds as is. Of course, there will be a reduction. is 60,000 that you've already approved coming out of 167,000. You know, approximately, as you said, we'll see that balance. Is there any thought to adding more to the change order fund? I think, you know, the program, as you all approved, you know, allows for the 10% capture, And I think that's enough. I think we don't want to get into a situation where we're paying for engineering errors or anything of that nature, things that are being missed. We just want to base it on materials and supplies that the program is approved for. And so I think, to me, that would be enough. If we see a greater need, I think we just recommend that staff would recommend an increase in that. So we're going to have a later year. I think a lot of the increases we've seen have been supply chain issues. Open value has stopped by a lot of times and we have to deal with that. I think it's pretty bad that we'll be able to help with projects moving. They're doing strong projects. I know we had a pandemic, you know, there was certainly that we saw an exponential growth in just labor, supply, materials, everything. So I think it was a good thing to introduce the change in the program, and I think it's even better than continue until days before stay and make sure that later the board decides to let us know in for it and to utilize those funds elsewhere. Of course, that would be fine. Thank you. Any other thoughts, comments on this? There's no action being tight. Okay. Going to the next item, in City Grant's status update. Yes, sir. And for that. TV might be off. TV off. That's all by the man. yeah I think I think it does so I'm still speak to the unborn the private Our first project listed here, these are in order by the class of grants. What year is this? So here, the year is noted in this column here. Oh, okay. And this is organized by class. So we'll go through the class A's, then we'll go through the class B education, and then the class B infrastructure. Okay, so it's not by year like we had in class. Yeah, exactly. It's by class and then by year. Oh, okay. because we're using our grant tracker reports and so that's the format that that's going to happen. Yeah. The Hartman Homeowners Association, we're down to the maintenance agreement that we needed all the homeowners to sign. We are down to one single signature needed for that project to get closed out and we have the executive director tracking that person down so hopefully when we return we will have that as a closed-out project Scott if you don't mind speaking to Hickory Creek and services I'm really very good wanted yes so both of these projects had some longevity to them and we're we were hoping that we were having partly closed out three months ago so turn our focus to closing out Hickman but Hickman's in the queue to close out as soon as we get West Hickman I'm sorry as soon as we get Hartman resolved. Thank you. The next one is Carpenter Valley Neighborhood Association. We have a three grant. This is a simple maintenance. We have an award here. The work is done. The person that was working on the administrative part of the grant is a lobbyist in Frankfurt and so she just kind of got caught up in heading her road. She's working on the project final report document. She's going to anticipate having nothing in town now. So that one is pretty much ready to close out. It's a real second. Ellers, Leah DeLong, punchless. It's done. It's done. The work is done. I believe we're just waiting on the final report, right? Yeah. Close out. Yeah. Close out documents. and the final request for funds on that one. Sorry about that percentage. Friends of Wolf Run, Courtney Kinkaid has said that most of the FI 23 items are done, a few remaining, so they have a few funds that they want to expense on remaining plant materials needed, so that one's also close to closing out. Next one is LUCIC and the project is complete. And we're waiting for the final report on that one as well, as well as the maintenance agreement. Friends of the park, the design kickoff meeting was held. Reimbursement request number one has been turned in. The construction will not start because UWQ also has a capital project that we're kind of coordinating once. That work will be done first, right, Mark? I believe. The Dogwood Park. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So the capital project is kind of moving forward with the design project, and so the grant portion will succeed the capital portion. You got bids on that, right? We just had a pre-construction meeting this week. As soon as the capital project wraps up, we will move along with the grant portion, because it needs to happen first. of the capital project. The Wilder Hill Club, they asked for a new extension to 2025. They give the reason the owner's not allowing access along with high initial cost estimates. It's likely to sign the underwood for this one. That was an issue that they're having that they shared with us, which is a whole lot of value. Next one is the Part 2, the Homeless Association. I believe this is for the design work, and I believe this one is pretty much . We've got a sewer conflict in the top two. Oh, bigger picture. Yeah. So we have a sewer issue with this one. So we are having to rethink the design portion of the design right now. So that's kind of the holdup. This is the one that precedes the just approved for construction. Bowmont Residential Association. This grant got a call and the MLAU that was set to do the work when this grant moved away. And so they actually called to terminate this. I'm in the process. I think they just emailed me formally to terminate this grant. So this one will be closed down. Cancel. Which project? This Bowmont Association. Okay. So I got that. This one, and it was just like the Friends of Wolf Run, kind of a stewardship program, it's a public involvement, but unfortunately they don't have the personnel or the vision. The person that left has your vision. Yeah, they have to do it, so they're going to cancel that. Does that say $6,000? Yeah, it's just $6,000 that will end up, you know, back in the pocket for a future application. Friends of Wolf Run, this 2024, they're finishing up the 2023 elements before they start spinning this money, so they're going to start with this work soon. Sunny Slope, Susan Ray mentioned that they started with the cleanup phase and the program started clearing out at this project over at Waveland, at 475 Waveland, so that work is done and ongoing. Again, this is just a 2024 project, so they just received a notice to proceed kind of late last year. The World Review Club of Lexington, they've submitted their first grant request that a corporate is just cost share. So they just termed a request to report the cost share. No funds requested at this time. They plan to move forward with the board, and then they will request new funds. and the state physically made some successes on the run. Let's see, part of the tomb, of course, we're in no change here. We just spoke to that. They're kind of in a redesign on portions of that project. So that will begin once the design phase is completed. We've dispensed on those things and completed the design work. University of Kentucky, then we're going to be education, by the way. I'm sorry. And then the same word by year. University of Kentucky. This is one of our older projects. I had just recently been on them about getting this grant closed up. I finally made contact. As a matter of fact, they sent me over an email wanting the money, but I told them we needed the deliverables first. That's kind of like parking deals. So we're getting on the right track. And of course, this is UK, so you know you got to go through all these times. You got the people doing field work, and then we got the administrative work. So we got to get them on the same page. I think they're on the same page. I'm looking to close that one out within the next, honestly, within 30 days. Bluegrass, GreenSource. We're waiting for a response. Jennifer and Maya mentioned that the work on this one had been pretty much completed. This is their mini-grant activities. They've given us a lot of some of the documentation on those mini-grants. They didn't get a whole lot of applications on that, So they asked the project to reallocate some of the funding to some of their normal programming. I believe that has been allowed, but that project is moving forward. It's at 75% at this time. Living Arts and Science Center, the 2023 grant. This one, we had some event communication issues because of the change in leadership with them. We just paid request for funds number one, two, and three. They kind of culminated because we weren't getting all the materials and all the reconciliation we needed for prior to turning in more of them. But we finally got on the same page and got those items reconciled and were able to process again request for funds number one, two, and three. So that work is moving forward and hopefully they're getting that whole entire project wrapped up. We're expecting probably one last final report from them, the final request for that one. Providence Montessori project is complete with insulation of the rain garden, and he's just waiting for them to get other people up for that one. Fayette County School, this one, the final report document is admitted and approved, and so I believe we're just waiting to process the paintbrush. is all the finish bluegrass being such as 2024 um i believe they are again looking at the page of 22-3 elements before moving forward with this program so it's about expensing those funds of the right orders so they have two grants 2023-2024 trying to close out 23 before they begin to run on 24 and that's what we got with that one uh finally we have fayette county public schools. The president said that he had been in contact with them and sent them the paperwork that is trying to get them to where they signed the request for, or review the request for the funds documents that we have put together and get those turned in. The project itself, they're trying to get it progressive. And then finally, our class week infrastructure in the same word by year, Kentucky American Water. They asked for an extension on this one and they're just trying to coordinate the coordination in terms of the dumping and how the logistics on how that I believe the agreement so far is to have them bring those to the front portion of that location. I don't know if you're familiar with this. Yeah, so these people may not be. I don't think they'll go. Just kind of. That's one of the one of the reservoirs of trash and kind of it's kind of like a feasibility project that starts trying to find ways to get trash out of the reservoir in an efficient way and this is since 2020 so yeah i was going to ask him to speak to them too because they're the consultant how did the public meeting go which one the at the trash drive wasn't there a Yeah, the meeting went well. I believe we met with some of the other people. We met with them and the meeting was just more or less about how to logistically get that trash rack to the dock. The idea was to build a dock. That was the meeting was how do we get it empty. The idea was to build a dock so they can get out there and access it to land. to land it. But they haven't got a means to collect their collections outside. Yeah. So as it had been, they had to get in the boat to unhook it and bring it. So now the idea is to get a dock out there of sorts to bring it to shore and to take it up to the front off Richmond Road. Because LFUCG, unfortunately, it would be trouble getting one of those collectors back through that little road to collect it and go back out. Of course they can't kind of open that fence right there that occurred with Squad Road. It would create a lot of wrecks that can't hold traffic right there. So the agreement was to get it to over at Richmond Road in front of the Fishman's Club. And then LFCCG would be picking up food here. So that's where we're at with that. It's just how it worked out to go through the distance. University of Kentucky, this is the 2020. This is for the rainwater harvesting. We're just waiting on magnitude. Everything is done. We have past deals. we have everything with a maintenance grid. And of course, UK's, theirs is a little bit more customized because of their artistic kind of operate. And so they're just getting the signature moved up the ladder. And we should receive that every day now. So this project will be closed out within a month. Assuming that they get that signature from that tire. Let's see. Colt Engineering. I went over to actually put an eyeball on this from yesterday. I think this project turned out great. The permeables are in. The rain garden area isn't beautiful. So construction-wise, this project is done. We're waiting for a maintenance agreement to find a report, punch list items, and to get that proposed. construction wise I'm glad to show you all that next year just to show you how it goes. Community Montessori again these papers are in place this is over on Stone Road papers in place I believe we're working on the educational signage and then just making some great portion had been already recorded for this so we're waiting on just the educational signage portion and a funding fund. That's the Center Corporation. This is their construction grant. They just turned into the custom fund number three. I know you've gone past there. The work is ongoing. The MTU is in place. The paving activities, which the grant fund are in progress or mostly completed, actually. Then they're just working on those water features and just the layout of the park. So the painting and the NTU, which the grant funded, are pretty much complete. So we're just waiting for them to make some paperwork, term them in the final cut. But I think they're just trying to make sure that the most of the construction is completed before they term the final cut. We're happy. Universalist Church, we just approved the chamber for those for this one. So they'll be happy to learn that they will approve and move forward with this work. Probably from St. Mary Church, this work is... Remember this week? Yeah. Yeah. I believe this one... Just waiting on Army Corps, my name is an upstream work. We're working on Army Corps just to do the streams portion, but I believe all the other components are completed, right? I think we got permanent this week. Oh, right. That's where you tell it, right? That's where we're going. Yes. Yes. So that one's moving along quite well. Most of the components are completely, like I said, they just weren't going to be able to wait and then commit to do that string portion of it. First United Methodist Church construction drawings were complete. This grant here, they had to change consultants. Barnhart, the consultant, had to back out. It was one of the parishioners. It was more of a donated professional service, but the permissioner and parishioner that went on board, he retired from the organization. So they decided to go with another consultant on those. So they're kind of resetting and kind of agreeing on the design and whatnot. And so we met out there with them. That's when we went out there to . So I believe they had thought about creating another access point from the . I don't know if they had to go through planning for that. So I'm not sure where that landed. But they're moving forward with design with the new consultant, and so we're going to make some more progress in the future before the season is. Huber Real Estate, they're going to proceed on construction, and so they're looking to move forward with that construction on that project. I believe they just had a meeting out there, as a matter of fact, to discuss how to move forward with the actual work on that one. Fayette County Public Schools, I believe, he said they're getting closer to the paper portion. This is part of the CTU project, and they're waiting for them to finish with the building and all other components before they build the parking lot. They don't want anything on the interior set by painters and so on. But that one is moving forward in terms of the overall project, but we just have to start with the next question. University of Kentucky 2023. This is a feasibility study. Working to close this out. The report is complete. Their first request will be done on this one. University of Kentucky 2023 will be briefed by the University of Kentucky. According to the grant manager, they are waiting new design plans, making some modifications to plan cost savings and better for constructability. They also met with a sole sale rep. He mentioned UK won't allow their employees to completely donate all the time to do the job on the county and will have to get modified slain. But will make this known with the next request for funding. I believe I heard somebody speak that the soil sales were a little more expensive than they probably had mentioned in the anticipated, so it kind of makes some adjustments on that. But the project is moving forward. Windswept plans are well beyond 5%, stage, and recent, and submittal, so they just return the request for funds, and they're moving forward. Brandon Roses kickoff meeting was held on in May. Site survey is... Fayette County Public Schools. This is a tree canopy grant. Rush reports that there's been no significant action in this quarter. Most of the work will be underway in September when the school is back in session. But they feel like they're still on schedule. Mediocre, no change this quarter. This was just a feasibility study. We had the kickoff meeting, I met out there with Amon. They performed a kickoff meeting to see how the move proceeded to result in. OPE innovates site surveys complete and data is being entered into design files. So that's where they're at. Partner Lex, no progress in this report. I believe he's just in touch with them to see how they can move forward with this one in a little bit more timely fashion. Another raw property of the Gibson Company. Still need to have a kickoff meeting for this. This one happened really right off the ground. University of Kentucky Research Foundation. This is for the project over at University of Florida. Do you know what's going on? They're waiting for funding. They're funding it to match this year's second-minute. Like, wait. So they're going to cover your community. So they sort of ask for a request for extension because UK kind of defunded their portion of it. So the request is to allow them to hang around just to see if that's going to free up before we, if not, then they're going to request a term. Is that our policy, to get it in the breaks for a year? Well, we've had grants last longer than that. And so we said that when their budget season comes up, we'll see if they are included. included and if not we'll just decide at that moment just we did speak to them and it felt like we that would be something we could do as opposed to just throwing it out of one thing we felt like it's a good project yeah i think it's a great project as well i hope that we should be holding our money up to be somewhere else if they're not there to go yeah if it's the board's discretion then we can certainly communicate and just tell them that it's in the best interest to just go and well I don't have to. Something to consider. Yes. So maybe a way to address that is maybe in a stipulation to put some kind of verbiage in there about time. So it's in progress. Yeah, there needs to be progress within X number of days or X number of months is a better way to do it. Rather than if everybody held off their project for a year, we'd be in a mess. So I think we need to use some discretion. I think we spoke to the timing of it when we speak to them. I don't think we just said, take your time. I'm sure there's a limit to that grace. Kind of gave them the impression that another year maybe after that. Yeah, and it wasn't a hard decision on our part. It was like we will consider it with the board and with our staff, with our leadership. and if it's the discretion of the board and leadership to tell them that, you know, we would prefer to put an even shorter time frame on that, then we would be glad to be able to do that. Something that I can put to the direction of our discussion connection. Yeah. Which is to put some stipulation in there, identifying a time frame of when they need to make an action or ask for a meeting to discuss it. I'm sorry. Wesley United. The construction we have obtained the site survey and are looking to coordinate with the church to kind of do their kickoff and just confirm what we had started with on the grant and make sure that they're still good to go on that. So we're between survey and kind of kickoff. And this one stems from a feasibility study, which the board loves, you know, they were awarded a feasibility study, it was successful, and this project champions those proposals in that feasibility study. And that would be it. You have to ask. So, go ahead. Frank, I think maybe on the very first page, you know, a class A project for Ellersville. Yes. I was not on the board when that went through. I'm just curious if that's the entire site or if it's just an area kind of near the reservoir and a little more sense of it. You recall? This one, this is their second project, and this was back in the area, I believe, where a sinkhole had been identified. Back in that area. Yeah. So it's just that part of the project. one you come in off Richmond Road, what's that, Brandon Park or something, there's a big, big open. If you're coming in off Richmond Road, there's a big open area behind the townhomes on the left. There's just about drainage coming to them and there's a potential sinkhole and then some erosion like at the outlet end of a pipe under Ellerslie Park. So it's just a portion of the development, right? Yes. very good any other matters why the board may be interested in this you may not the the old dry cleaner on Southland Drive is gone building building came down at the end of June yes now we have shield in there they have done some drilling and sampling to come up with a remediation plan for the site being a former dry cleaner we all know what happens there yeah yeah it is gone that was one of our loss probably wasn't it not anymore years and I also like the schedule time to sign the numbers that we made the changes so any other number three I'm sorry number third vice chair nominations all before you came in and we went past the meeting. Okay, I'm sure you're in the president. Okay, thank you. And so, I agree just to say the board would consider it. Absolutely. I think it's right up there. So, we, you know, we have anybody, you know, it's up to the board's discretion to decide who would be, We will volunteer for that, hopefully. Of the three gentlemen sitting next to you. Can't be a chair in my chair. Right, exactly. So unfortunately Donna's not here. Her father passed. I'm sorry. She's out. And so since you are all the present, the hope is that one of you gentlemen will be okay. We do have a group of very intelligent, articulate people, I think, they're forcing that regard. David has been on the board for quite a while and is very knowledgeable. And I would, that's not to disparage the other student members of our group. I think David has a keen understanding of the virtue of him being on the board longer. so I agree okay well I'll second your question if David is willing to so we have a motion from mr. but and we have a second from the chair that allowed the chairman to second I didn't stay at home That's right. And, of course, acting on the wrong side would be willing to accept the vice chair. Thank you, President. Will you finish the motion? Yes. Thank you. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed like so? Thank you. Motion carried. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. I think it's now time to adjourn. Motion. So moved. It's been moved. Is there a second? I second. It's been moved and taken. In all favor, motion signified by second. Aye. Aye. No, Senate. Aye. Opposed? Thank you, Senate. Motion carries.