Good morning, sir. How are you doing today? Good. Good to see you. I'd like to call the Water Policies Board meeting to order. The first item on the agenda is approval of our July 25th, 2020 minutes. I trust everyone has had a chance to go through the feedback of the additions, corrections to the minutes as ready. And do I hear a motion to accept the minutes, Mr. Speaker? So moved. Thank you, sir. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. I'll favor the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, vice-president? Motion carries. Item 3 is the FY23 Uber Real Estate change payment request. Mr. Chairman, we've had a cancellation of that request. Well, we've seen certain things today. I think that it wasn't appropriate at this time. So we've decided to cancel the request. So I'd just like to stress that. Do you want to take action on that? I don't think so. So the bottom line is there'll be some more money available for other projects? Well, actually, that was from the change order pool. They're just not going to request funds from the change order pool at this time. So it's going back to that pool? Yeah. Well, they never received it. They were requesting some of it. But their project will continue. Their project itself will continue. It just won't continue in the fashion that they were hoping to move forward that involved the change order pool. You all never received details on that. And they decided to cancel it at this time. All right. Anything else on that? Next item, FY25, class B construction grant solution. Yes, sir. What we'd like to do at this time is we want to review the director's recommendations. And then we can go on and decide what to do. I'll start with application number one. Those will be the forms that you've received. The application comes at the top. Thank you, determination panels. You're all followed. I'll start with application number one. This is from the University of Kentucky Research Foundation. This is for the athletics complex. We request a grant amount of $322,000. The cost share of $8,500 to a project budget of $4,202,500. This is a design and construction grant. The target donors are as follows. Install a vegetative slope system that compares to the existing infiltration basin to connect to the underground cleanup system and stormwater education. Recommendations of the director are as follows. Applicant proposed project needs to elevate the department's project score of 7.28. Include the grant application for the formal amount of $322,000. The total amount of $8,500. The cost share. Include the grant application with the following stipulations. Applicants shall retain their approval prior to working in the department. The course of the agreement shall be obtained in order to eliminate any private utility areas. Applicants shall verify the agreement and ensure all permits are received. Prior to the agreement, work in the right-of-way must be conformed to Chapter 17, the City of LFU City Code ordinance, in accordance with the LFU City standards. Drawings and inspection operations and maintenance plans shall be provided at the conclusion of the project. Finally, both electronic and hard copy of all educational materials are to be provided to LFU City for its use as part of the grant agreement. So the next applicant is United Landscape and they requested $360,000 with a cost share amount of $90,000 and a total project budget of $350,000. This grant implements items from fiscal year 21 and 23 United Landscape grants. This one is for removal of impervious area, bio-infiltration scale, redirected downspouts, retrofit gravel parking area, tree canopy, doorway lawning structure, registering along the side yard, and stormwater education. The recommendations by the director is that they met the eligibility requirements with a score of 72.96 and to approve the grant application for a partial amount of $305,250 with a minimum of $76,312 for the cost share. With the following stipulations to obtain written approval prior to work being done to verify the need and ensure that all permits are received. In accordance with stormwater manual, it shall pretend that permeable and bio-infiltration swaddles should be taken away from the existing approved buildings and sanitary sewer lines. An IOM plan should be developed. The IOM plan shall preclude storage on the permeable pavement. Because of modifications to the fronting area, the applicant will need to verify the planning on the regulatory requirements. If an underground is not proposed, a filtration test should be done. If underground diffusion is provided, the property owner will be required to conform to the code of ordinances. Tree planting shall be coordinated with the existing utilities for our plantings. Applicants should notify a rural spring software and the wellhead protection committee prior to work being done on the property. Both electronic and card copies of all materials should be provided to LFPCG. A permanent signage design should be approved by the grant manager. An IOM number 13 of the budget regarding concrete is not an eligible grant expense. An applicant is to provide UWQ with their revised budget omitting the concrete item from the grant award agreement. An application of the grants from Fayette County Public Schools for their rice in the Paddington Hills to request the grant amount is limited to $10,031.50. The cost should amount to $10,306.50 from the project budget of $113,141. The grant project elements are to install a manufactured tubing device, infiltration casing, and install permeable pavers in place of traditional asphalt. Installment is to get recommendations from the director of the Division 1 holding. Applicant will call the project and UWQ department. The project score is 70.88. Approval of the grant application for the full amount is limited to $10,031.50. The department will remain on the same $10,031.50. Approval of the grant application for the subdivision. Applicant shall obtain approval prior to working in the department on Monday afternoon. Applicant shall verify the need for the subdivision. All applicants are to proceed with the project work. The project shall proceed with full work until a written approval is received. It is intended to be demonstrated on the director of UWQ holding with the potential for conflict with future LPCP projects. In accordance with the LPCP stormwater management chapter 10, permeable pavement and infiltration soil shall be located at least 10 feet from the existing and proposed buildings and sanitary sewer lines. If no sanitary sewer or basement infiltration problems exist, a greater distance shall be used. If other documentation is provided, the department will be required to provide those. For the ordinances and inspection operation of the latest plan, it shall be provided in the course of the new project. The item of the plan shall include a brochure for certain materials on permeable pavement. It shall provide a map of the project area that concerns between the regulatory items of the new building and the new piece of proposal in the plan. Both the electronic and archived raw and special materials shall be provided to LPCP for its use as part of the plan. As intervals. Finally, the organization proposes a large cost share beyond that required by the plan. The budget shall reflect the 25% cost share offered in the application, which is approximately $150,000. The next application is for OPM. The grant amount was for $360,000. The cost share amount was for $90,000. The total project budget was $450,000. The grant request implements the feasibility study for fiscal year 2024 to reduce flood and hazards along Cal Branch and provide opportunity to improve water quality and reduce sewer water runoff at 938 Manchester Street. The grant project elements include removal of the impervious area, retrofitting portion of the existing parking lot with permeable concrete pavers, a rainwater harvesting system, impermeable asphalt pavement and direct drainage towards the permeable areas, tree canopy, bio-filtration scale, and stormwater education. The recommendations of the Director of the Division of Water Quality are that the applicant those projects meet the program eligibility requirements of the project score of 70.37 and to approve the grant application for a partial amount of $331,500 required and minimum of $82,875 cost share. With the following stipulations, applicant to receive written approval and agreement prior to work being handled by fees on unpaid applicant. Applicant shall verify the need and ensure that all permits are received in accordance with the stormwater manual. 10 feet should be maintained between permeable pavement and bio-filtration scales in existing and proposed buildings and sanitary sewer lines. If an underdrain is not proposed, the applicant should provide soil infiltration tests. If underground detention is provided, the property owner will be required to conform to the code of ordinances. Tree planting shall be coordinated with the existing utilities for planting. Encouragement agreement shall be obtained. Work in the right way must conform to the code of ordinances. Tree removal and planting activities shall be reviewed and approved by the DES and the urban forester and arborist prior to any tree removal or planting activities. Because of modifications to the parking areas, the applicant will need to work with planning to verify the regulatory requirements. An IOM plan shall be provided at the conclusion of the project. And project element number four, impermeable asphalt pavement, is not an eligible grant expense. Since partial funding was awarded, the applicant is to provide the agreement with the revised budget of a big asphalt pavement material item from the budget for inclusion into the grant award agreement. Impermanent signage designs should be approved by the grant manager prior to production. Application number five is from the LBCG Airport Board. Request to grant a grant of $132,000. Cost should be around $42,400. The total project budget is $106,400. The project element number six is to install a fully-sized four-wall separator, a racing trench, and a stonewall installation. Recommendation is to provide an additional quality. The applicant proposed project agreement. The program eligibility requirements for the project scope is 70.12. Approval of the grant application for the full amount of $132,000 will be part of the new $130,000 cost sharing. Approval of the grant application for the following solicitation. Applicants shall obtain written approval requirements in the name of the applicant. Applicants shall verify the agreement and show approval to proceed. The inspection operation of the grant is planned and shall be provided at the conclusion of the project. The project element shall not be utilized to the least of regulatory requirements, including LFUCG's new and redevelopment requirements. The final agreement will not be executed until the stonewall management regulatory requirements are determined. LFUCG's Division of Engineering grantee will submit documentation that the public facility view was presented to the planning commission. Both electronic and hard copies of all materials to be provided by LFUCG for its use as part of the grant deliverables. The organization proposes a large cost share. At the end of that, part of the program would represent about $23.6 million cost share. That would add up to approximately $44,400. The next project is for Media Procreative. They requested $360,000 with a cost share amount of $90,000 and a total project budget of $450,000. This grant implemented some of the feasibility items from fiscal year 24 to reduce the impact of flooding at 712 and 714 North Lansdowne Streets. The project includes regiment fitting existing parking areas with permeable pavers, installing rainwater harvesting systems to capture root rot and use it for non-clinical uses in landscape irrigation, install a concrete sidewalk along True Valley to reduce street stormwater flooding, removal of invasive species, install interior landscaping planters, islands and planning strips, and stormwater mitigation. The recommendations of the Director of DFU-Q are as follows. Applicant and proposed project meet program eligibility requirements with a project score of 60.18. Approve the grant application for a partial amount of $217,681.95 requiring a minimum of $54,420.49 cost share. With the following stipulations, applicant shall obtain written approval prior to work done on properties not owned by applicant. Applicant shall verify the need and ensure all permits are received prior to any work in the sidewalk must conform to the code of ordinances and the standard drawings. Work in the right-of-way must conform to the code of ordinances and the standard drawings. May accordance with Chapter 10 of the Stormwater Manual, permeable pavement and fire penetration scale shall be located at least 10 foot from existing enclosed buildings and sanitary sewer lines. If underground attention is provided, the property owner will be required to conform to the code of ordinances. Encouragement agreement shall be obtained working within private utility areas. Tree planting shall be coordinated with existing utilities prior to plantings. If possible, a tree shall be planted within 10 foot of an existing utility. Tree removal and planting activities shall be reviewed and approved by DPS, Urban Forestry, or Arborist to partner in any tree removal or planting activities. Because of modifications to the parking areas, the applicant will need to work with planning to verify the regs. An IOM plan shall be provided at the conclusion of the project, and since partial funding was awarded, applicants shall provide to WVU with a revised budget listing how the approved funds and associated cost share will be allocated for inclusion in the grantor agreement. Electronic and hard copies are required, and permanent signage designs should be approved by the grant manager prior to completion. Page number 7 is from Church and McGee, LLC. The requested plan amount is $262,570. The cost share is $66,000. The total project budget is $325,570. The budget project amounts are, this project is controlled as associated parking amounts for larger projects by Church and McGee, LLC. The next project is for UK Oak Lodge. The grant amount requested was $41,034, with a cost share amount of $10,360, with a total project budget of $51,294. The applicant plans a feasibility study, which is proposed in response to the previous five-year stormwater improvement feasibility study that was completed in May of 2024. It will identify stormwater MPs, address water quality issues surrounding the Oak Lodge facility, and then round off from nearby Montclair neighborhood. The recommendations of the Director of DWQ are as follows. Applicant and proposed project meet program eligibility requirements of the score of 42.59 to approve the grant application for the full amount of $41,034, requiring a minimum of $10,258.50, approve the grant application with the following submission. Both electronic and hard copies of all materials to be approved are provided to LPCG, and the organization proposes a larger cost share than required by the grant program, and the budget shall reflect the slightly larger cost share in the application. Thank you. Applicant number nine is from King Hall, Kentucky. To request the grant amount of $29,238.75, the cost share amount of $7,450.00, and the total project budget of $36,446.25. This is a feasibility program. The feasibility study will identify landscapes that stormwater MPs will address water quality issues using criteria similar to the Sustainable Sites Initiative and other comprehensive landing systems to sustain the landscapes. The recommendation of the Director of DWQ is that water quality and other proposed project meet the program eligibility requirements of the budget score of 42.22. The feasibility of the grant will be compared to other feasibility grants until the program target is achieved. The project is not recommended for funding at this time. The next project is from our feasibility project from Delaware. The requested grant amount was $52,000.00. The cost share amount of $13,503.75. The total project budget is $67,503.75. The feasibility study will identify landscapes that stormwater MPs to address water quality issues using criteria like the Sustainable Sites Initiative, weed rating system, and other comprehensive rating systems for sustainable landscapes. The others are seeking funding for a feasibility study to assess those by stormwater MP selections. The recommendations of the Director are as follows. Applicant approves project meet eligibility requirements of the project score of 29.32. The feasibility project is compared to other feasibility projects. And the recommendation is to approve the grant application for a partial amount of $13,966.00, requiring a minimum of $3,400.00 to compensate cost share, and both electronic and hard copies of all materials as part of the budget to be held in the City Council. The next one we have is from Calvary Baptist Church in Lexington. The requested grant amount was $10,700.00. The cost share amount of $8,000.00. The total project budget is $26,700.00. This is a study about identifying values that can determine the best and most feasible path forward for non-flooding properties in the form of erosion patterns. The study will determine the best ways to eliminate the inability to load, load, and rest in the next few months of the project. No storm is out there for the moment. The project will also be able to meet the minimum cost for site permits as well as improve stormwater education. The name of the project is Outdoor Educational Sciences. This is a recommendation from the Director of the Regional Water Quality Academy. The purpose of the project is to improve the non-flooding environment. The project is going to include non-flooding properties. The two non-flooding properties will be included in the feasibility plans. The project is achieved. This application is not recommended for funding purposes. This is a recommendation from the Director of the Regional Water Quality Academy. Thank you. I want to, Chairman Piano, I would like to also recite or give some of the funding. Okay. That way you know it's okay. The entire 25,000 infrastructure funding is as follows. $360,000 maximum per grant. Requirements. Part of the $55,000 for feasibility upgrades. We also have a part of the $192,279.57 for Project $75,000 per last year, to which they owe. It's a medical issue. Accumulation and experimentation forward has $1,156,800. This is better for the secure class. And we also have modifications. The available budget in FY25 is Monday, $281,135.36. Also available for Monday's grant funds is $165,136.96. Available from previous FY grants that were to be under budget for cancer. Also available is $72,982.57. Available after funding FY24 class A education grants. Available from remaining FY24 funds is $117,923.43. Also, total available for FY funding is $1,693.05. $1,693,053.45. There was a total amount of $2,269,619.25 requested in the application. So that's a summary of our funding that we're working with for allocation. Okay. Okay, time for questions. Okay. I guess I'll go through each one individually. Okay, the first project is the University of Michigan Research Foundation at Lake Commonplace. Any questions, comments on this? I assume that everybody received a copy of the summary. Summary? Okay. Any questions? I move to approve the application. Thank you, sir. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. I'll defer to the motion to certify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a seven. Motion appears. Our next project is the United Landscape and Landscape Pictures Project. This is one that had a modified grant amount. Oh, yes. Yes. Correction to the original information that we received. Any comments, questions? It's been approved. I move to approve the student's recommendation. Thank you. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. I'll defer to the motion to certify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a seven. Motion appears. Our next project is the Fayette County Public Schools Glass Stem Academy for Girls. Any comments, questions on this project? It's been approved. I move to approve the student's recommendation. I move to approve. Thank you. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. I'll defer to the motion to certify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a seven. Motion appears. Next project is OP Innovates LLC. Mr. Chairman, I'll move to approve the OP Innovates application as recommended by the board. Thank you sir. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. I'll defer to the motion to certify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a seven. Motion appears. Next project is LFUCG Airport Ward. It's been moved and seconded. It's been moved and seconded. I'll defer to the motion to certify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a seven. Motion appears. Next project is the appropriated LLC. Any comments or questions? Mr. Chairman, I'll move approval of the mediocre created LLC's application as recommended. Thank you. It's been moved. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. I'll defer to the motion to certify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a seven. Motion appears. It's been moved and seconded. Thank you. I'll defer to the motion to certify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a seven. Motion appears. The next project is Churchill and LLC. Any questions or comments? No, we've got the next item on the agenda. The next project is the University of Kentucky Research Foundation Hope Lodge for a feasibility study. I'll move approval of the UK Research Foundation application. Thank you. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a second. Motion carries. Okay, the next project is the AVOL Kentucky Ink Project. And I've got a question on this one. It's a feasibility project and it was not reviewed by the funding. And the project after this is also a feasibility. It has a... This project has a higher score than the project after this one. I guess my question is why are we not approving it when it has a higher priority score? I called it on partial funding. I checked the box for it. Okay. Thank you. Okay, sorry about the inversion. Any questions on the AVOL Kentucky project? I have to follow up. And maybe it's not the right time, but the next project is the AVOL Kentucky Project. So I have a question on the AVOL project. What is the AVOL project? I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question on the AVOL project, and I have a question on the AVOL project as well. I have a question prior to that. Sure. So, whenever we're looking at each year's fiscal year fund, do you have an idea of what the percentage growth rate is between each fiscal year? I'm sorry, can you repeat that? Do we have an idea of what our growth rate is in available funds for each fiscal year? In terms of the funding? Yeah. Look, it seems to be perhaps like a 1% increase. Okay. It's not very much. I mean, for example, we had 1.5 last year in base funding. Now, when you talk about the total funding, we're looking for projects that came in under budget and things of that nature. So, we go back and kind of reconcile from the items to try to pull in funds that are unused to try to up the total. Yeah, yeah. But in terms of our funding, 10% of what we're receiving from revenue still really seems like it's been about 1% of that. Okay. And then as the growth boundary gets extended and those parcels are developed, the water quality fee is starting to be assessed at the time of – when does that fee start to get assessed on those parcels? Because then all of the acreage that is being developed two years down the line, then we'll get that fee revenue. Does that make sense, what I'm saying? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Yes, you've got two forms of growth there. One is increased impervious area within the service area is obviously going to increase the annual revenue. And then also the fee itself is tied to the consumer price index. And so, it goes up each year. There was one year that we waived that. The council decided to waive that because new inflation and the pandemic, oh, it was way off the charts. It seemed like it was better to tamp the brakes on that a little bit. So, there's growth in it every year from those two areas, from those two ways. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay. We have the status of it. And instead of filling them up with trees and cutting them all in, nobody can probably read. We just decided to put it up on the screen. And you can kind of get a view of the status of that form. The first one here, and these are in order. We start with the class A's, and we kind of go through the class A's, and then the B education, and then we'll talk about the class B infrastructure. So, starting with Hartman. Scott? Yes. We're done, right? We're done. We're done. We have submitted the final act, I mean, every day. I just received the attachment meeting, the maintenance agreement. And so, we're in the process of getting the final report and final payment reviewed in the process of this project. You will not see on the list the next time I see you. So, that needs to be prepared. Hickman Creek Conservancy, this one is close to being. Yeah, Otter and Uppers were. Carter Valley, I just received the final report and some final items on those. This one is just about done. The work is completed. I believe we're going to leave some funding on it. I don't think we were able to spend all the money on this particular project, but it's going to be closed out. And we're going to just put some money back into the general pool. No question. All the outstanding projects are just about what fiscal year? Oh, the fiscal year, I'm sorry, is referenced here. Oh, Conservancy. Yeah, I'm sorry. Is there any way you can? Yeah. Is that a little better? Yes. Okay. I just spoke about Carter Valley. As you all know, the grant manager states that he's reviewed the draft project signage and sent comments back in August about the signage. Construction is complete and the closeout documents are awaiting to be received from Mr. Baldwin. Next is Friends of Wolf Run, FY23. This is a fairly long explanation that the major providers put here. But it generally just basically says that they each turn back and they're pretty much completing the FY23 activities. They're pretty much preparing to move forward to FY24, but he's turning in these reports with each of his stewards about their various components. So we look for that one to be closed down fairly soon, too. And that'll be a report for FY24, but they receive one of those as well. It's that they're focused on completing FY23, getting it closed down before going to FY24. So that's where they stand. Neighbors United for South Elkhorn Creek. The stream bank construction is complete. A plan is in place for the area plantings and signage. Local closeout activities have been completed today, so they haven't gotten to the point where they've drafted the final documents yet. But they have completed the construction. Good question. Do you know if they're planning their plantings this fall? Or they're going to wait until spring? I believe that they are attempting to, but they're trying to get the volunteers, got what they need. So that's where they're at with that. And hopefully they'll be able to do that. Okay. The column on the far right was the amount that's left. And then other than that, another percent of the last project is what is completed. Yeah. In this particular case, the grant manager forgot to go in and get the percentage up to match the dollars. Because typically they're kind of like in the same room. But it should be closer to probably 90% complete with construction being done. In most cases, you'll see that kind of corresponding to the dollars. But not in all cases, because some people wait until the very last minute to do the money. Friends of the Park, this project received 30% plans in return. LQCG comments in August. This project right here is going to be one that we're in coordination with a capital project for DWQ. They needed to take care of some issues with the conveyances to lead to their project site. So they won't get filled with silt coming from the stream and what have you. So we're going to do some modifications on our part before they start construction on this particular project. So they'll move forward with the design. But they're in coordination with our capital project. So it's kind of slow moving. I think that our capital park is about ready to get started. It's been bid and awarded and they were out there. They've been putting up erosion control last week or two. So we're getting some track on that. Hopefully, I doubt we'll be able to get this one going until the spring. However, as long as the capital project is moving forward with construction, I'm sure we'll get it out in time. Walnut Hill Club, the grant manager says the HOA is still considering the project. We met with Jonathan and Jim Hansen to explore options for the project. This is one that they were considering a changeover. But they didn't want to be able to get their paperwork in the changeover application. And so they're still up in the air on whether or not they'll be able to fund the remaining dollars that they'll have when they come up with the money. Or they may request changeover funding for this. I'm just not sure. Waterford 2. Charlie is okay with doing a point repair. There's been a recommendation after we all reviewed the recent CCTV. We have not reviewed anything in the sanitary lines that runs under the park. Desire came down. So this is the one out there at the pinnacle area. We're then going to return it to a natural product. It's moving along in design, so they haven't gotten to the construction. So it's the turning of being able to put the money into- Yes. It's the bottom number one. I spoke about this earlier. This is what we fund, FY23. And then we'll get this one. I received a letter from Jim Hansen. He mentioned that they will be scheduling volunteer planning days. They'll also be spraying herbicide, putting stumps, grounds, and debris on cover along the corridor. He also sent some initial questions that I've sent back that I've since answered. But that project has moved along quite well. They just took home what they planned to do. They cleared and removed all the intensive materials out of there. And so we're just looking to do the planning phase. That was about 50%. I think I would say that they also have the educational components to wrap up those assignments. Early Club of Lexington. Grantee focused on the final development of stormwater education materials. Grantee also preparing a draft of the requested funds for the building. This one's kind of just now getting off the ground in terms of the work. And we're waiting to receive our first official report. We have to report on this one. The prior one that we saw was for the design work. Those were funding for design only. And this will be the construction component. And it's waiting for the design report, obviously. Hopefully we'll see some progress once the design is in and out. And then we'll move toward education grants. Our first one is the UK RF. And this one, we're just waiting for a revised final report. I'll go on back and forth. We're reconciling that. And so we're just trying to get the numbers back and make sure everything is reconciled. I was going to ask a question about that date. It doesn't wait until April for the final report. Well, yeah, UK's been a difficult challenge. Because you're dealing with the people on the ground who's dealing with the people in the accounting department to make sure we have the proper documents. So it's a struggle. I just wanted to make sure I was written down. So you might see a month or two between emails. That's kind of how it is. We're hoping to improve that. We've had some turnover in staff, too, as people move on. And so I'll have to go back to the Toronto Board and bring a new person up to speed a couple times. Hopefully it'll run a little smoother. We have Bluegrass Greensource next. And this is their FY23 project. This organization also had some high turnover working on late in terms of their accounting. And so I've been working with staff there to bring her up to speed. And we are in the process of reconciling her. The question was number two. I'm their field office. And hopefully we'll get that approved, worked out, and approved on May. But as far as the activities, they are 75% complete in terms of their programming activities. We're probably focused there before they move on to their FY24 grants. Our next one is Living Arts and Science Center. I believe I'm waiting on an update from them. But this has been another challenging one in terms of staff turnover. They have a new director, Jim Ed. And so I've had to pretty much direct the Toronto Board. Not just with the director, but all of their accounting staff as well. So we hope to get this approved. So the activities are complete. We're just trying to get the final report, the final items worked out. They did not receive an FY24 grant to allow them to reset and get things back in order. They didn't even apply for that one. I don't think they received that. They did receive an FY24 grant. No, they didn't. So this will be their last grant before coming. Until they can get their payment back on track. We did tell them that we wanted to make sure that we were getting our quality messaging. We wanted to see more of the products. Because a lot of our funding was going to the staff. And we felt like they kind of got off track in terms of what we needed in terms of quality. And we had to present it to us and approve it. So I kind of warned them on that to make sure that we started getting it where we needed it. Because y'all had to come in and present a couple years ago. Right. They did a good job. They did a good job there. So we want to make sure that we keep that focused. As far as Monticello School, this project is completed. I think we're just waiting on the final report. Bluegrass Green Service, I spoke on that one earlier. They're just focused on FY23. They launched these activities here for this FY24. Dade County Public Schools, this is for their FY24. And Rush Terminal Services provided me with an update that occurred back in between July and September. And currently, they're working in following on the request for funds. Request, I'm sorry, for access and utilization of existing data and maps to provide an accurate baseline for student engagement projects and educational presentations. This request is limited to FCPS properties. It includes categories such as impervious cover, repair years, and storm water utility fee assessment, utilization assessment date, tree canopy cover, and land cover type use, etc. So it's just kind of providing me some details in terms of their student engagement and their activities. I know it's moving along for them. It's just now getting off the ground. We have a kickoff meeting. And we're just kind of moving things forward to get the students involved. Then we'll go to Class B infrastructure, protecting vertical water. They're working on the design of the walkway. This is the one where they'll be trashing the unit. And they're trying to design the walkway to be able to go out there and bring the unit back in. Because as it grows, you have to phone out there and drag it in. Again, trying to coordinate with the waste management to get that done. So I think we're going to have a walkway get it rolled out onto the land and bring it up front. And they've arranged for waste management, or they're making arrangements for waste management to pick it up right on the street level. Is the trash system itself collecting the trash as it was intended to be? Yes, it is. So the problem is getting that unit offsite. Yes, and where the trash collection is occurring, which is where Spires Road cuts through there, obviously we can't have access there. Because there's a curve on the road. You can't run away with the traffic there. So they have to get it out on Richmond Road. And that's going to deliver. It's how to coordinate to get that up in a timely fashion. Who's going to do it and what the frequency is and things like that. They're just working on the logistics of emptying it. They're also trying to build this walkway to be able to bring it up without somebody jumping in front of it all the time. It's not much problematic along the bank there. University of Kentucky 2020. This right here is completed, actually. I'm actually going to report that attachment B, the maintenance payment, probably today or tomorrow. And then we'll process the final payment. This is a water harvesting grant. So we're finally going to get this one. It's a long road. But we're happy to report that this one is pretty much completed. The code engineering project is completed. This one is off of North Broadway over there. If you want to prepare to stop by it, it sits right off of North Broadway. I think Craig is just going to file a report, and we'll report the maintenance payment for that as well. Community Montessori, another project that's completed over on Stone Road. The permanent parking lot is done. I think we're just waiting on some educational material to be completed. I think he says also happy to report that 100 cents of all trees is red, that we installed. I think he says also happy to report that 100 cents of all trees is red, that we installed along the perimeter. Details have to be more than this hot summer we've had. Lexington Center Corporation. This is the construction right to Town Bridge Park down there. Our involvement with the corporation is just removal of the impervious area and installation of the manufacturing treatment device. Those items are actually done, but we have an educational component that goes along with that. That are on Wednesday times and items that we didn't pay for the rain garden and all the water quality features. We're just waiting on those items to be completed for breakfast. But our components in terms of removal of the impervious area and installation of a new T.U. are done. And we're just waiting on the educational component of the project. And finally, we'll report on it on time. Community Montessori versus Church of Lexington. Scott, do you want to speak to that one? Sure. As you recall, we requested and received additional funds for the project. And we have moved forward with some elements of the improvements that were associated with the maintenance. But due to the church having a conditional use, the Board of Adjustment has gotten involved. And we go to them on Monday to seek approval, which we've gotten from staff, for the parking lot itself. Even though we're basically reducing the amount of impervious area because we're removing an existing barn and a gravel parking lot. And replacing it with a permeable. The Board of Adjustment was notified, and so we're seeking their final approval on Monday to keep that project moving forward. Do you have a question? Yes. Do you have a chance to be heard from any neighbors? No, we have not, nor have staff. Thank you. Secondary church, according to the grant manager of the project, signed Fall 2019. The only items remaining, along with the closeout package. So we're at the end of that. First, United Methodist Church. The church is considering action as to other low-cost options they may have as the bids so far that they've received have been pretty high. The lowest bid that we've seen today is $710,000. Is this the one that had tree canopy? No, they had landscape dollars, and they wanted a permeable lot. This is the one right now for High Street. Right. And, you know, one of the issues was there's no storm up there. They've had issues with high bids coming in. And they already received max. It's kind of like their dilemma right now, trying to see if they'll be able to move forward. They've said they'll come up with it. They just don't know how long it's going to take them. They may end up requesting an extension. Let's see. Let's have a look at Huber Real Estate. Huber Real Estate was one of the ones considering the changeover request. In this project, you know, there was some water coming in from public waters coming through their site. And we were trying to add some components to allow LFTC to help manage. And we will, but I think we're going to do a capital project to try to help, as opposed to them trying to incorporate those items in this project, which is why they decided to not do the changeover request. They're going to allow us to do some of the work there. So we're trying to work out what that looks like. And they're moving forward. They're going to move forward with their original plan for this project. Let's see what that one says. Fayette County Public Schools. This is their FY23. Met with Scott on site to walk papers. This is over at the CTE, one off of Midland there. They're kind of getting the building, finalizing the building. No earlier than that. Yeah, we're finally getting to the part where we want them to complete as much of that as possible to try to protect our papers. So now we're getting to the point where we're moving forward with constructing our papers. I believe he says he's working on drafting the maintenance agreement to try to get that done. Get that. So the construction committee will be ready to close this project down. But it's looking good so far, that building. University of Kentucky, FY23. The report is complete. We've sent an e-mail to Brittany to get this one closed down. So we'll get back to the reports. University of Kentucky, FY23. Meeting at UK with the design team and stakeholders to go over plans. We gave notice that the normal paving and dumpster pattern not part of the grant in any way. The plan should be completed this fall. We have Winstead Ventures. And this is Phase 2. Phase 1. You want to speak to them? Yeah. So this is Phase 1 of construction. Phase 1 of construction. Yeah, because Phase 2 was just the main approval. Is this United? This is United. So the property owner is Winswept. Yes. The business is United Landscape. So they are one and the same as far as ownership. But because of property being Winswept, the grant is per Winswept. But United Landscape is doing the work. We have received permits, approvals, and we are underway with starting construction. Yeah, and this is one, like you said, you just awarded for Phase 2, right? Yes. Red Roses LLC received an existing site plan reference in August. Concepts under consideration is to wash the tree down on 9-27-24 and damage the greenhouse. We're not sure yet if it will impact any of the concepts. Unfortunately, it lost the tree. It's there. Tate County Public Schools FY24. And basically, FY23 is what they're focused on. That's one of our first map out at the time. Okay. New Worker LLC. They're a site evaluation, building measurement, and schematic design loan. The existing facility has been completed and submitted for feasibility study. Again, to be determined as to what type of stormwater will be utilized over the next month. So they're just kind of getting the recommendations ready for their feasibility study. We have Oakey Innovates. Scott is working on a draft of the feasibility study documents, I believe. Yeah, we're finishing up the feasibility. Yeah. There was another one just received funding for construction at this point. So this is part of the feasibility. Partner Lex Acquisitions. The grant manager says he has no partners to report at this time. I think he's been trying to poke the consultant on us when we're trying to see where they're at. And they haven't gotten to us yet. Rob Properties, LLC. They hope to have a kickoff meeting in the next several weeks. He spoke to the grant manager. So they haven't gotten that launched yet. University of Kentucky Research Foundation FY24. No changes this quarter. The project is still delayed in funding. This is more in the U.K. And the funding, the cost-share is stripped, and so they're trying to see if they can get it back quickly more than being designed to cancel this project. For some reason, they stripped this particular funding to move it toward some other project. We're trying to give it a little time, not too long, but we understand the concerns of the members about holding that funding. We have Wesley United Methodist Church. We are proceeding with the design documents right now and confirming with planning that there's no issues with the conditional use permit. Thank you. That's it. Let's continue. Okay. I guess the next item is reviewing our aims for calendar year 2025. We're hoping to receive a full list of aims. So they are recommended to be January the 9th, April the 10th, July the 24th. If I may ask you, what does that mean? I believe that date is passed with our normal, the second Thursday of July because I think there are typical conflicts with conferences or something. With conferences or something. KSA conferences. Okay. I get it. Okay. So we're hoping that people will consider this time. And then the work is October the 9th. Yes. I'd like to check there. So we typically meet the second Thursday of each quarter. I can see that. July the 24th. Yes. For the past couple of years. Okay. So this is just, like I asked, this is just more information. Unless we have a conflict. Right. Okay. Greg, you might want to have them vote on that. Okay. Okay, I'll move approval of the proposed 2025 calendar, including the change to the July meeting. Thank you, Greg. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded that all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I know we had a house vote. Anybody else need to say anything? Okay. Very good. Thank you for your attendance and your interest. Call me and your source to let us know. I'll move you back. I think that's pretty efficient of you to give us a lot of good information. That's great, man. Not bad at interviews. dettaination. Yeah. Very good. Thank you so much, Greg. Thanks Joe.