私はあなたを愛しています。 私はあなたを愛しています。 私はあなたを愛しています。 私はあなたを愛しています。 私はあなたを愛しています。 私はあなたを愛しています。 私はあなたを愛しています。 こんにちは、アリスター・マッケンゼーです。 私はアグリスターバイザーの助手です。 私はとても失落しています。 誰もここに来ることはできませんでした。 私は夏のインターンのジェイブ・バーナットと一緒に来ました。 私たちはプロジェクトの前提について アプリケーションの過程を調べてきました。 私たちはプロジェクトの前提について アプリケーションの前提について 他の部門と話してきました。 私たちは試験に含まれたまたは私たちのアプリケーションについて 私たちは試験に含まれたまたは私たちのアプリケーションについて 多くの人の経歴があります。 例えば、 私たちはプロジェクトの歴史を取得して アプリケーションの過程を調べてきました。 私たちはプロジェクトの歴史を取得して アプリケーションの過程を調べてきました。 私たちの経歴は とても高くなっています。 およそ50年の経済経験がある 失敗した教え家の2人が 私たちの経験を誇りに思っています。 私たちは 私たちのアプリケーションの可能性や 私たちの経験を誇りに思っています。 私たちは これらの経験を誇りに思っています。 私たちは 私たちのアプリケーションに とても豊かな役割を持っています。 これらの経験を誇ると 私たちは 私たちが キャンプに参加する オンラインスポットトークスを 開催することができました。 私たちには 多くの素晴らしいパートナーが 参加しました。 私たちは BCTCと キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの ハイルシス ハイルシス ハイルシス ハイルシス ハイルシス ハイルシス キャンプの キャンプの ハイルシス ハイルシス ハイルシス キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの ハイルシス ハイルシス ハイルシス ハイルシス ハイルシス キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの キャンプの ヒロと ヒロと ヒロと ヤシロ ヤシロ ヤシロ ヤシロ ヤシロ ヤシロ ヤシロ ヤシロ ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベー MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベイ MAC ベー MAC ベイ MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベイ MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC ベー MAC はい は はい は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は は あ あ あ あ あ あ あ あ あ あ あ あ あ あ ああああああ uh 多いって ウーズ goo good nell ああああああ me bejean re re ana project engineer this project um i'm going to be doing both of these change orders this first one at 25 14 regency road um just a brief overview to summarize this i'm going to go over our initial application and concepts some of our design development the result of the bids that came back from that design development um what parts of the design that were overbid um that we believe we need as a result of the change order just the project summary this is some side photos you can see when it rains there's some ponding in the parking lot and also this building had some foundation issues as a result of that ponding and erosion over time our proposed solutions we're going to regrade some of the parking lots to improve the storm stormwater run-on resurface some of the parking with printable paper system that's separated beneath the papers to serve as water quality and infiltration basin and the sprinkler to some educational components as well explaining the printable paper system this was the initial site design that was included um in our application so the parking stalls up against the building are going to remain asphalt that'll be pre-graded but then the rest of the parking lot we were proposing printable papers with an infiltration basin underneath so our initial storm design as we got into the project there was some added piping that wasn't included in our application but we were doing this design with the assumption that infiltration rate was less than 0.5 inches per hour which for the stormwater manual means that it needs and needs an outlet um there's been some discussion that we've had in the past few weeks there are some concerns with connecting to the nearest inlet which was down the street there was some concern about being in the public right-of-way navigating through some of the utilities over in that right-of-way and then just the overall bend and some of the connections so we did a field infiltration rate test and we were somewhat surprised that the infiltration was actually much greater than the 0.5 minimum which means they could infiltrate and would need to connect through the public right-of-way discussion that we had with staff once we realized that from these averages 1.2 inches per hour was the least of the measurements they got and the greatest being 2.1 all much greater than the minimum it was proposed that we could have outlets into the yard instead of connecting through the public right-of-way as far as piping it was relatively minimal in change it was still around the same length i think it was within 10 feet or so linear the difference was the size and piping so before we had 12 inch piping going out to the public right-of-way this only needed to be eight inch piping ended up being about an $820 difference so it's relatively minimal but design-wise it was a pretty big difference briefly the bid overview had three bids jaymore construction huge construction in place enterprises jaymore was the low bid at $266,823 and then going into the actual what they had bid on they did actually bid on the original pipe going out to the street we changed that $820 relatively minimal but as far as parts of the project that required some additional funding or just labor and material costs that is pretty industry industry-wide rising costs for the permeable paver underdrains the subbase and then just the excavation costs for the four underneath the pavers some of the excavation degrading additionally there's some increased costs in the erosion control so initially we assumed that this project was so close to the size that didn't need a complete erosion control submittal per lfbcg which is a half acre i believe as we continue conversations throughout the project with division of engineering it is greater than the minimum as far as such require a full erosion control plan which increasing costs from our initial budget also for the permeable paver system for the manufacturer they suggested some concrete curving to hold those pavers in place and wouldn't move over time and these just to support kind of the rise in prices over time these are just analyzing different cost indices they're different construction analytics groups that track this information which shows post-pandemic costs have continued to rise and then more recently tariffs and supply chain disruption have added to that cost as well as just inflation as far as a labor costs so let's get on to our total change order application on the left was our initial cost estimate and then here in red you can see some of the they're small but the numbers that changed from the line items and the bid that we received from jay moore so general conditions included some of the labor costs in general storms who are bid items that we didn't capture that's largely due to inflation and the labor costs erosion control since we were thinking that it was going to be a lot less as far as the scope of erosion that had one of the biggest jumps there's going to be a lot less as far as the scope of erosion that have one of the biggest jumps as we do need you know washout pit bmp inspection reports box and construction insurance the materials in the stone we did not have a line item for piping originally so as far as the um subgrade we added some of the increased cost for the added piping and then the down here is demolition excavation and that includes the grading line items that were in the bid and that's largely going to be to excavate where the permissible pavers are going was under bid in our initial application the initial total application we thought that the project would be 234 776 dollars and 17 cents that was a 79.64 percent grant share and 20.36 organization share the organization share was 47 792 dollars and 53 cents and the grant share was 186 982 dollars and 63 cents after our change order we believe that the total project cost will be 344 000 dollars 133 the organization share has jumped a little bit to 20.41 percent at 70 232 dollars and 73 cents and the new grant share being 79.5 percent at 272 000 dollars 900.27 the total change order amount is 86 916 dollars and 64 cents that being said i can answer any questions you might have about the project i have one technical question thank you for your presentation i heard you say that the parking next to the building will still be asphalt and is that going to be asphalt that currently is there removed graded and reapplied as asphalt so it'll be it'll be milled and then the overall gradient has that parking sloshing away from the building so the grade will change it will still be asphalt uh one follow-up question why or what is the rationale of having that asphalt instead of also continuing that with the purchase papers i think it probably just be an overall cost it wasn't it wasn't needed as far as during the actual management of the stormwater so just be at a cost from our papers and it's not necessarily needed okay okay thank you for the presentation so so we have heard the report we've seen the the sheet that the staff prepared concerning the change order what is the maximum lfucp grant award is 360 000 and my understanding is correct even with this additional change order our share will be 274 75 87 so we're well below the maximum award and get that money set aside for change orders so what is the building rate would you like me to state the recommendation sure sure the recommendations of the water part of the project construction cost increases confirmed by the competitive bids received by the applicant value engineering the engineering was performed to reduce the bid amount to not exceed the maximum allowable grant award amount which has been stated the request for additional funds is attributable to increase in cost labor and materials which falls within the guidelines of the approved change of program approval of the amended grant award the organization's total grant award within the program's maximum maximum allowable for class d infrastructure grants which is 360 000 and the applicant has agreed to provide additional match to the to meet the contract percentage which is adding an additional 22 256 so the vision recommended approval all right any other thoughts comments can you remind us how much money is in that change order budget yes it's currently 177 000 converted to $21.80 i do have a document um to put up once the presentation to show me that thank you it's a little thank you thank you motion is there a second a second motion all in favor of the motion say aye motion carries so i would like to thank you for it i'm an acquaintance of the owner of this project i want to currently accuse myself because i didn't have that relationship so i do not want to get involved so i'm going to ask dave if he wouldn't mind to chair this portion of the deal so you want to begin um so this is the second project that we have on the agenda today at 2592 colombo drive and again the same formats last time i'll go through our initial design this project has very minimal change um but again just some of the changes in pricing construction analytics over time i'll present that information again go over our final change order application um so this is the the site um right now it is a open swale in the rear of this building behind this building is more so for deliveries employee parking but has two 36 inch pipes coming into it and then flowing out of it and it just kind of has an open swale in the middle of this parking lot over time just the erosion and deterioration this retaining wall has started to fail so we propose removing the retaining wall and connecting both of these pipes to capture and also inlet to capture some of the runoff from the parking lot replacing the existing swale with a bioswale and some there is it's hard to tell in the picture there is some parking spaces on the side of the swale that we're proposing putting some permacultures in um to provide water quality infiltration with the subgrades subgrade underneath those and then again i'll have some educational benefits have assigned to to show what the bioswale and what the papers are doing of course from water quality so this was our initial design it's changed slightly since then but you can see the bioswale is closing the previously open swale you'll see in the next slide we've actually switched the side of the permeable paper so the permeable papers are actually on the side of the swale now but you can see in our initial application we were still proposing those papers in the parking spaces so here's a brief exhibit of what it will look like finished you can see the open swale and then it's it's closed with bioswale that will have some piping and drainage from the subgrade of the permeable papers as well as the inlet from the stormwater runoff that comes from the building we have the same contractors for this as the previous project for this project future construction was the lowest bid at $223,487 so here's the stormwater drainage proposal for this area we have the two 36 inch pipes being connected the pavers and the subgrade draining into the bioswale these were underbid previously the rise in quantity of the storm sewer components is up 8.5 percent in the permeable pavers and insulation is up 5.3 percent and then just increasing cost of the general conditions there's overall inflated as far as construction costs go this is the same graphic previously just analyzing construction analytics from different construction companies and their projects and then also certain organizations that are tracking just rising construction costs overall shows a roughly 35 percent building cost increase since 2020 and this is more straightforward more of a typical change order just with rise in prices instead of really a change in design some of the general conditions have risen it's really a cost of labor labor due to inflation a little bit of rise in the cost of piping and the bioswale system and then a lot of these change order items at the end have to do with the grading and demolition that kind of change through design development just as far as the extent of what would be excavated and how much grading would need to be done originally we thought that this total project would cost $216,589.60 with the grant share being 79.92 percent at $173,103.56 at 20.08 percent at $45,000.486.04 with the change order the total cost of the project rises to $271,401 with the organization sharing grant share staying the same at 79.92 percent for the grant share 20.08 percent for the organization share organization share rising to $54,497.32 and the grant share rising to $216,903.68 with the overall change order amount being $43,800.12 I can't see any additional questions for the project so I'm happy to recite the recommendations which I believe were forwarded to you all the first of all the recommendations we recommend the board to consider approval of the request of $60,520.40 based on the following project construction cost increase is validated by the number of bids received by the applicants and this project was also evaluated to reduce the bid amount to not exceed that allowable amount the maximum benefit I should say the request for additional funds is also attributed to labor material costs and some design proportions I should say that um infrastructure grants which is $360,000 the applicant has agreed to an additional cost $11,028.06 I'll move approval of the change order as recommended for a second yeah a second all right uh all in favor say aye aye I'll turn the chair back to Mr. Jekielewicz. I'm discussing the FY 26 class 7 projects um the FY 26 class A funding looks there is a maximum of $120,000 maximum grant request with a target of $45,000 for projects there were two applications submitted for this category there's also funding available in our innovation experimentation pool in the amount of $156,800 which is available for use in any of the grant classes also available in the FY 26 budget for this year is $289,791.32 available from unused grant funds that's $166,543.75 and these were from projects of previous FY grants that were completed under budget or canceled or terminated also available from remaining FY 25 funds is $25,194.07 total available for this year is $480,129.14 we had $386,975 both of applications requested for a total of nine applications that's what our funding looks like and our first application is for principal fund um so the requested grant amount was $48,183.75 with a total project budget of $68,025.95 the project elements include recruiting, training, supplying, and supporting volunteer stewardship groups, assisting with streamside property owners, maintaining vegetarian vegetative or period buffers. they have several site locations and so the recommendations of the director are as follows. the applicant and proposed project meet program program eligibility requirements with a project score of 95. the director recommends approving the grant application for the full amount of $48,183.75. the following stipulations are required. that tree planting shall be coordinated. they should be 10 foot off of any existing utilities. encroachment agreement should be signed. tree removal planting activity shall be reviewed by ds. and then it goes on and on. and the organization did propose a larger cost share beyond what is required by the grant program and so the budget shall reflect a $29.16 share. the application number two is for seedleaf inc. they requested the amount of $39,877.50 for a total project budget of $50,277.56. the project elements include removal of invasive weeds, research, trial, test, monitoring, and demonstrations of organic survival science, plantings, post-volunteer training events, and additional formal education in the form of a seminar. the director of the division of water quality recommends approval of the... i'm sorry... applicant and proposed project meet the eligibility requirements with a project score of 93. approve the grant application for the full amount of $39,877.50. approve the grant with the following stipulations. applicant shall verify the meeting potential permits. encroachment agreement shall be obtained and work within the private utility areas. tree removal and planting activities shall be reviewed and approved by the division of ds. maintenance plans for tree planting should be provided. tree plantings should be coordinated with existing utilities, private plantings, organizations to provide research results for one year monitoring period. all handouts and educational materials should be provided to the grant manager. and then the organization does propose a larger cost share at 20.7 percent for the amount of $10,400. garden meadows homeowners association also applied. they requested a grant amount of $160,400. with a total project budget of $135,520. their project elements include evaluating and implementing a tree canopy establishment and expansion by installing 86,250 square feet of tree canopy from 150 new trees spread out over multiple locations. they also propose to install native plantings within a detention basin and to remove brush along the stream and trash removal. they also plan on doing stormwater education through communicating to their residents about water quality and stormwater related issues and also installing a permanent sign showcasing the benefits of nutrient stream restoration and enhanced water quality. they received a project score of 89 and they met the program eligibility requirements. the director recommended approval of the grant application for the full amount of $160,400. with a minimum of $29,100 cost share. they have the standard stipulations. they did propose a 0.01 percent over the cost share. so they're required to put in $20.80 more. our next applicant application number four is lake crossing farms association. requested grant amount of $18,920 for the total project cost of $23,650. this proposal aims to preserve and encourage the growth of educated canopy in the green spaces of lake crossing farms. the project elements include replacing invasive species with a variety of native trees and shrubs that are better suited for the local environment as well as stormwater education which will incorporate the installation of the education sign at the retention basin. the director recommends full approval for the full amount of $18,920. they did receive a project score of 79. they approved the grant application with the following stipulations. they have the standard stipulations without listing each one. permanent signage will be approved by the grant administrator. the next applicant is waterway flex. they requested a grant amount of $20,836.25 with a total project budget of $39,740. their objective is to provide awareness and educate including site visits and hands-on volunteer efforts with stream restoration demonstration projects and engaging property owners and installing and maintaining stream restoration projects on public and private property. they also plan to encourage additional BMPs to improve water quality including rain gardens, rain barrels, and appropriate use of storm drains. they plan on hosting the 2026 watershed summit and provide education and outreach tabling at local events and festivals. they also plan to conduct stream restoration walks and stream cleanups. they plan to host a total of eight events along stream restoration projects. they also plan on developing a steering committee and multidisciplinary groups serving as a policy-making arm that will oversee grant monitoring and reimbursement requests and reporting. the applicant met the program eligibility requirements with a project score of 52. the director recommended approval for the full amount of $20,836.25 requiring a minimum cost share of $5,209.66. however the organization proposed a larger cost share at 47.6 percent and so they will be required to put in approximately $18,903.75 and they have the standard stipulations. application number six is from the tree association. the requested landline is $9,387.50 for a total project cost of $11,198. the objective of this project is to install two french drain systems to eliminate the stormwater runoff that floods the walkway area between units one through four and five to eight and the walkway area between units 37 to 40 and 49 to 44. they also plan to provide education by developing an educational pamphlet to disseminate to the approximately 44 units in the tree community regarding the damaging effects of sand and water. the recommendation is to create more quality. the applicant meets program eligibility requirements. however the proposed project does not meet the intended goals of the program as the project elements do not provide any water quality enhancement or water quantity reductions. and we received a project score of 49. and this project was not granted. the next applicant is the Prestwick County Dynamo Association who requested a grant amount of $67,482 with a total project budget of $84,370. the objectives of this project include re-graining a swale on the southwest property line, upsizing the catch basin, and replacing the 12-inch outlet pipe with a 24-inch pipe. they also plan on conducting stormwater education by providing an educational flyer to the 170 residents of Prestwick and Shetland neighborhoods. the flyer will describe the improvements and benefits for water quality drainage. the applicant does meet the program eligibility requirements but the proposed project does not meet the intended goals of the program as the project elements do not provide any water quality enhancement or water quantity reduction. the applicant received a project score of 36 and was not recommended for funding by the director. the next applicant is Willow Oak Homeowners Association who requested a grant amount of $39,000 with a total project budget of $48,870. this is a feasibility study to identify green approaches that could be used for stormwater requirements and create a more natural system. the recommendations resulting from the study could include what may not be limited to stream restoration, wet meadows, riparian buffers, and tree plantings. the applicant proposed project meets program eligibility requirements and received a project score of 32. feasibility-only proposals were compared to other feasibility-only proposals until program target funding was reached, was achieved in time. approved the grant application for a full amount of $39,000 requiring a minimum of $9,050 per share. the stipulations were just the standard but the organization that did propose a higher cost share than required by the program which was at 20.2 percent and in the amount of $9,000. and so on. The next applicant is a technician at Park Edge Council Association. They requested $27,888 in grants. The total project budget is $34,860. This project is a feasibility study to explore the opportunity to address current issues with stormwater runoff, flooding, and better use of green space by residents with implementation of green infrastructures for water management. The owner's mission is to make the residents safer from potential flooding situations in a sustainable manner, while making better use of available land for recreation and habitat. The applicant and proposed project met program eligibility requirements and scored 27. Since this is a feasibility-only proposal, it was compared with other feasibility-only proposals. Full funding for this project was the result of the applicant, which here is recommended, and was the result of the applicant receiving partial funding from the remaining feasibility-only funds, and the rest of the project was subsidized with cost-gain funds. The director recommended approving the grant application for the equal amount of $27,888, with a $6,972 cost share. Okay, thank you. You guys can drink water if that's all right. Okay. So I guess we can put this in the same order, but at the same time. First project would be the offensive mold flood. Questions, comments on this project? I move to approve the non-structural conditions. Thank you, Peter. Is there a second? Seconded by Donovan. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by saying nay. Motion carries. Second project is SeedLink Incorporated. Question being asked, $31,977.50. So the condition was to approve this. Any questions, comments, concerning this application? I think I missed one. SeedLink noted it had a 10-year lease with the property, so that's not of any concern, typically. Well, these are class A projects, and they don't have a 15-year or 20-year appreciation schedule, so I don't think we anticipate. That one's also in herbicide treatment, like in plots, like a research study and repairing buffers, so since we're not installing major infrastructure. Okay, thank you. Just a little bit further. Thank you. I'll move approval of the SeedLink application as recommended for the staff recommendation. Thank you, Bill. Is there a second? I'll second. Seconded by Donovan. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by saying nay. Motion carries. Thank you. The third application is Garden Meadows Farmers Association requesting a minimum of $116,400. Any questions or comments concerning this application? I just wanted to say I'm Tom Dostart. I'm president of the Garden Meadows HOA. I wanted to thank Bailey and Frank for all their help and their staff in this. We have two large water detention basins that are bare of trees, so we really would appreciate getting the trees. We had applied to the Wet's Grow Trees program and we came in very close, but I failed to answer one question and that cost us the grant. We want to put in on our butterfly way station. We may end up with five of those on our butterfly way stations for prairie situations, for prairie grass, et cetera. We want to clean along the railroad tracks. There was a fire across Greendale Road from us that burned along the tracks. We want to clean that up and get rid of the fire hazard, clean out the creek, et cetera, that comes through. We really appreciate your consideration and if you have any other questions, I'm here to answer them. Thank you. Thank you for coming to our group today. We appreciate you showing an interest in being here. Well, Bailey invited me and I thought I've got to show up. Well, I think that's probably a good reason. Okay, any questions, comments, concerns? What's the rule of the group? Move to approve the landless tax recognition. Thank you. It's been moved by David. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Bill. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. If I could just make a comment. Thank you for your good application as indicated by the project score from the staff. Thank you. Motion carried. All right, next application. Lake Crossing Homeowners Association. Question right now is $118,920. Comments or questions concerning that? What's the rule of the group? Thank you. Thank you. It's been moved by Donna. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Bill. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Motion carries. Next project is Waterways Lex. And this project, I guess, was discussed by a previous speaker. It's the background of Waterways Lex. Any questions or comments? Really just a comment. I think this is, I'm just like floored by this. And I've attended that summit, and I know that this was really one of Ken's major goals coming out of this summit was to establish this organization, and it appears as though they've done it, and they've really made progress. They have 19 letters of support. It almost feels like we're witnessing like the birth of the next Civic Lex. I think this is really thrilling. So I would move enthusiastically to approve this and align with staff's recommendation. Great. Thank you. Is there a second? Seconded by Donna. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Motion carries. The next project is the Henry Tree Condominium Association. The requested grant is $9,387.50. Staff recommendation was not to approve this, although it had to help the other departments do not address either water quality or water quality reduction in the condominiums. That's another group. One question. Sir? Sure. Again, noting the project score as to what it is, I presume there was good communication between staff and the applicant? Yeah, so again, the applicant met, meets the eligibility requirements for the proposed project, simply didn't provide any water quality or reduction, just more of a conveyance of water. So we just felt it would be better not to support the project. Certainly, there are basics to the grant. I understand. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. Any other comments or questions? That's all. Agreed? I'll move to accept staff's recommendation to not fund this project. And then is there a second? I will second. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like I said. Who carries? The next project is the Prestwick Condominium Association. Requesting a grant amount of $67,482. This is also a project that is considered to not address the water quality and enhance water quality reduction goals. So any questions, comments on that? Very good, that's a vote of agreement. I will move that the board follow the recommendation of the director to not grant this application as recommended. Is there a second? Seconded by Donna. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like I said. Motion carries. The next two projects are the feasibility only projects. First is the Willow Oak Homeowners Association. Requesting a grant amount of $300,000 for a feasibility study to identify green approaches. Any questions, comments on that application? What's the vote of agreement? Thank you, Donna. It's been moved by Donna. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Donna. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like I said. Motion carries. And the last, let's say application is running the tradition at Park H Townhome Association. Requesting a grant amount of $27,898. This is a feasibility only project. Any questions or comments associated with this? Thank you. Hearing none, what's the vote of agreement? Thank you. It's been moved by Donna. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Bill. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like I said. Motion carries. Okay, we'll move to the February 2026 Class B application plan. Yes, and some of that will just be put to the funding. There's a maximum of $40,000. You can request a maximum of $40,000 for this project. The target of $12,500 for the project is less than $3,000. There were no applications submitted for this category. Also available are the innovation experimentation funds of $956,050. Available in the FY26 budget, $102,279.29. Available from unused grant funds is $48,715.15. Available from remaining FY25 funds are $8,139.18. Total raised by FY26 is $169,198.52. The total amount requested from submitted applications is $63,157.56. The first applicant was Bluegrass Area in the Pelham District. They requested $46,000 with a total project budget of $51,361. The organization hosts the Empower Program, a public education involvement campaign designed by Utah Rapids to improve their water quality and address water quantity on their home property. This includes rain barrel workshops where attendees will learn not only about runoff and how that affects quality and quantity, but also ADP's will be able to build and take home their own rain barrel. They also work to educate Lexington pre-K through 12th grade youth and their families to understand their connection to water and what's important throughout the state. The applicant met the program eligibility requirements with a project score of 85.6. The director recommended approval of the grant application for the full amount of $20,000 requiring a minimum of $9,250 cost share. They have the standard stipulations. They did propose a larger cost share for HONA at 23.3%, which requires them to put in $11,261. My application is Fayette County Public Schools. We requested a grant of $23,157.50 with a total project budget of $28,922.50. The Fayette County Public Schools STRING team is designed to build a system through partnership between FCPS, the Tech to Watershed Watch Base, and Tech to Cooperative Extension for H-Youth Development to strategically engage Lexington's youth and teachers in aligning the grants with the FCPS STRING team with watershed science education and engagement for FCPS teachers and students, enhance utilization of existing stream data and watershed assessments, as well as increase capacity of community water quality monitoring and engage youth with community service projects to create a board of Lexington youth who will be the adult volunteers in the use of the future. Project will include following elements, deliver project educational watershed protection and water quality programming, certify at least five teachers and staff as Tech to Watershed Watch assemblers, plan and implement a community service project to improve and fair water way on the school grounds where adjacent, develop and implement a Fayette County-based 4-H STRING team, and the final is to develop a Tech to Watershed Watch support hub to continue engagement with the volunteer sampling. The recommendations from the Director of Water Quality is, the Division of Water Quality, sorry, the applicant proposed Project LEET, Program Eligibility and Requirements for the Project Score of 83.7, approve the grant application for the full amount of $23,107.06, with a minimum cost share requirement of $5,039.38, and approve the grant application with the following stipulations. They are standard, these are the standard stipulations for educational applications, and the organization does propose a larger cost share of 22.2%, which is the amount of $5,765. Thank you. The first project is the Bluegrass Area Development District, and the grant amount is $40,000. We're an agency based in the education room. Are there any questions, comments, associated with that application? No. Move to approve. Accept the staff's recommendation. Moved by David, is there a second? Second. Second by Bill. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, one, seven. Motion carries. And the second project is the Fayette County Public Schools Class D education project. The question grant amount is $23,157.50. Any comments, questions concerning this project? No. I think sometimes, or at least for me, sometimes words and sentences in these applications kind of jump off the page, and this was one for me in response to Project Sustainability C1, the applicant notes, because FCPS students will be exposed to water sampling parameters and methods, we envision that some may become certified adult Kentucky watershed stream samplers on 2018. I certainly hope that's the case. That's a great organization, and I just have, I think it makes it really easy to support this application. Thank you. So it's been moved in for the project? I'm sure. I thought that's where you were going with that. I feel like I'm getting a little bit of a bog this time. We'll move to support the staff's recommendation. We'll appreciate your patience. Been moved by David, is there a second? Second. Second, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. I have one second. Motion to approve. Thank you. Okay, the next item is remaining in front of us, recommendation discussion. Okay, so for the class A grants, the remaining funds available to see, the total FY26 grant funded amount was $310,055.50, and the remaining funds are $170,123.64. I'm sorry, I can't see the next one. And so the staff recommends utilizing that $170,000, approximately $170,000 for class B infrastructure applications that are coming in. We also recommend the same for the class B remaining funds, which are in the amount of $106,041.02. We are asking, requesting to allow us to utilize those remaining funds for class B infrastructure grant applications, which are due tomorrow. Does everybody understand that? We got money left over, so we're trying to use those on class B infrastructure. I think our change order budget is now down to around $46,000 from $177,000. Yeah, I wanna bring that up, I'm sorry. I was just gonna bring it up on the screen, I'm sorry. And I just, you know, my thought on the change order budget is it seems like we're kind of potentially moving out of the COVID-19 effect, but we're moving right into potential tariff effects, and I just don't know what percentage of these materials are produced domestically or what the inputs are or where they come from. I think it's reasonable to continue that. I understand there could be some potential hazard in having change order money sitting out there, but I do think it's interesting, but I would be interested in what staff thinks in terms of what to do with this $276,000 that we're discussing now. You mean in terms of? Well, yeah, I think your recommendation is to move the $276,000 to class B, and I'm thinking, well, if we only have $46,000 in the change order budget, that would go very far, so to what degree do we need to be? Well, I just want to note that each year, we top the fund off with 10% of the allocation for that fiscal year, so come January, we will top it off with whatever that 10% amount is. That's a change order? Yes, so it's replaced each year, yes. So then all we have left for this year is to move into class B infrastructure. Exactly, so because if we end up with more applications than the fund, we want to be able to supplement whatever allocation we have. This shows the history of the change orders, the first, and it shows the impact of the current change orders that you all approved today. It was $177,331 is where the balance is, and then with approval of the UR property, which would be for that amount, we would be looking at a balance of $133,031, and then approval of the second change order, the balance would look like $45,925, as you noted, but it would be topped off at 10% of next year's fiscal year. So really, this set aside for change orders to accomplish what we're trying to do. The projects that were put in the endow, the risk of not being constructed, probably wouldn't be constructed because we set these funds aside to be able to do that. But I would note, we're not out of the woods yet because we're still in the year, and so this is what's left, and so I would advise our clients that this would be all that's available for the remainder of the year. So we hope, we've seen the last of it for the year, and we hope the rest of it survive, and are able to complete without additional funds, with the exception of whatever's remaining here. We'd like to zero it out, I mean, if it's needed, I mean, but we prefer to just sit it there and top it off. I think, also, the expectation is that the applicants will do their due diligence in trying to find ways to reduce project costs. Yes. And step up, and they're putting more money in, they have more spending to do, as well. Contractors, you know, have a lot of leverage with these bigger projects, and so the bids are just easing their way up, but we hope that kind of levels off, and meet whatever the initial cost that we see on the proposed. I know a lot of them are using COVID, and they're not applying to return on investment. So, with the change order, is that kind of patting that out, patting it off at this point, or is there any, or will you use that as opposed to, as he said, will you use it just to make sure that you get the best cost, but if you're not taking it, by this point, you know, what you're doing, or is this just something that we're supposed to do right now? Well, I'll be honest with you. COVID was one thing, but our economic climate is still fluctuating, because of various components of it. I mean, I think that still, it's not a COVID excuse, per se, but it's still economical, you know, moving in terms of supplies. Which means that you have more responsibility to do than it does to get the pricing, because, I mean, once you cap off, or, like you said, say somebody come, I know it's done on the first come, but you know, most of the places I've been, basically. So, what happens this year, some project comes in, there's a COVID issue, and we're just kind of tapped out at that point for a year, so we can just want to make that as an excuse, or if they're gonna be able to just, you know, let's just do our due diligence to make sure that we do it properly and get it done. I'm just saying, like, they're submitting applications on the front end before they've done design, and so they haven't got cost estimates. So it's very much like a dart on the wall. So I think to expect it to be really tight before they've done some work iterating is pretty stringent. So I guess I would expect to see changers, personally, in infrastructure projects, because they're putting in a proposal, they're not putting in a 100% contract document. Right. But that's my option. Right, in fact, you know, the design, like you said, they're submitting conceptual pieces and so when they actually get to do actual design work and what have you, sometimes it just looks a little bit different. Now, I would note that Kentucky has a hyper-capital construction projects going on right now, so there's a lot of demand for the contractors. So that's, labor is one of the issues, is that they have many options. So, again, there's a nice little piece of time, like almost a year from the time they propose it to the time we get it to the agreement phase, and so that's one of the issues is that, we're trying to figure out, if there are ways to expedite it, because it's really tough with having to go through approval of the board, approval of the council, and then, of course, the drafting process. That timing is part of the issue, too. So we can expect these changes to continue? Well, not, you know, we hope they're not as frequent, but I don't expect them to ever, per se, stop, and not all the organizations that are able to meet the additional costs. Some are, you know, there's a contingency, but this is why we thought the changeover program would be necessary, to try to salvage as many projects as we could, and work to bring these projects to fruition in the first place. So this is something that will continue? Frank, I like your use of the word salvage theory, because the time that this takes, it's definitely distancing it, especially when, in fact, it's on, like, construction season, or something. They have a lot of other reasons to try and make it work without them. Okay, thank you all, appreciate it. So I think we probably need a motion, then, to move the leftover funds from A and B into Class B, and I'd be happy to make that motion to move the $276,000 and change to Class B. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Second? Seconded by Donald. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. I was a lot excited. Motion carries. Okay, considering we're at staff's update, let's see what we have here. All right, this used to be easier, because now we have a different screen, we have a projector. So, I'm going to start with the first. Again, these are organized by grant type, and so we're gonna start with our Class A grants, starting from the oldest projects to the most current. So, the first one on our list is Hickman Creek Conservancy. According to the grant manager, he's trying to push to get this one wrapped up, so I think he's just trying to, I think the work is done, and he's just trying to get the final documents in his hand to get this one closed out. The next one on the board is Friends of the Park, Dogwood Park, I should say, Friends of the Park in Fayette County at Dogwood Park. The sign, at this stage, when they're trying to install the sign, I think they're holding a, they're planning to hold a community event on August the 23rd, if I'm not mistaken. The closeout documents will follow, so if you haven't had a chance to go over there to see that project, it's actually beautiful. If you just didn't grasp the scene, and the last touches on the structure, it's vegetation, and a lot of the work around the spring is done on the first project, over in Dogwood, it's in Dogwood Trace. The park that sits in Dogwood Trace, they have a beautiful employee to stop by and check it out. Water for two, the work started in June on the pond. The water cut down to lower the pool. I've also went out there, and the pond is essentially gone, and so they're just trying to continue that work. This was one that came from the feasibility stage, so we ended up with that, I think, phase one and phase two, and this one's from FY23, so this is the initial portion, and I think there's an FY24 grant as well, and we continue the second phase of that project, but it's moving along quite well. Friends of Wolf Ryan, we just received the request for funds. The request for funds, and they also requested a request for extension on this one, which was granted to complete the project. Let me see. Fall of 2025. Oh, I'm sorry, he plans to wrap the project up in December of 2025, so he asked for extension on this. The work, they had just closed out the FY23 project, so they're continuing to work. There's a slight lag with the Friends of Wolf Ryan project, because they depend on the school year. They kind of do a lot of partnerships with the students and what have you, and a lot of the partners, so it's pretty typical of them, but they're moving along just quite well for the FY24 project. The next one is the Rotary Club of Lexington. This project is also completed. They did a pollinator garden out there off of New Circle Road. The neighborhood just off New Circle Road, behind the Speedway, they just installed a pollinator garden in that area, and it's looking beautiful. We're just in the process of completing the attachment, the maintenance agreement to establish those, and this was a bit of a customized agreement, because LFUCT owns the park, and so we're just negotiating who's responsible for what, knowing that LFUCT has the rights to access the project, so we should have that one wrapped up, I'd say, within the next two weeks or so, because that's when my project took over. One for two, this is the second phase. You mentioned that the work on this one, so with phase one and phase two, the coordination was to go ahead and get it mobilized and transition from phase one to phase two, and so that project is moving along well. The program, I mean, the funding was just phased out, in terms of the funding, so they put in an application in 23, and they wanted to have it by 24, and so that project is moving along quite well. Andover Forest Neighborhood Association, they did submit a request, their first request for funds on this project. It's moving along quite well. They requested a design meeting, and we already held the pre-construction meeting for this one, so we anticipate a transition from design to construction here shortly on that project. This will be their second project grant that they've received out there at Andover Forest. The next one is Friends of Wolf Run. We're working on FY24, and so this one has essentially been off the ground yet, but they have signed a contract and the project is underway. Waterford 2 Association, this is the FY24. That was the second phase of the project. The initial one, I'm sorry, was the feasibility design phase. FY24 was the first phase. FY25 is the second phase of the construction project. They went from feasibility to a design grant because they received a partial, then they received two projects, FY24 and FY25, phase one and phase two respectively. Then we have our Class B education grants. Bluegrass Green Source, we are working on the request for funds, the first request for funds, and I'm looking to reconcile a few items before we sign off on that first payment for them. The FY25 grant, I requested an update and I'm waiting to hear, and I believe it's because they are still kind of in the phase of FY24, the project, so they typically kind of lag those like Friends of Wolf Run, so I don't believe the work has started fully on the FY25 grant, so that one will begin once we wrap up the 24. So excuse FY25, the manager says no change since the last report, so we'll anticipate an update for that before our next meeting. Class B education, University of Kentucky, site selection is underway, monitoring equipment has been installed at one site. Then we move on to our Class B infrastructure grant and starting with the Kentucky American Waters, FY20 grant. Doug says the design team is working on continued design for the dock. This is the trash collection for Squires, they're just trying to design a dock that would be appropriate to bring the trash collector back up, and they're going to have to haul it around the Fisherman's Cove area out to Richmond Road, because obviously we can't open up the gate for solid waste or waste management to pick it up, so that's where their project is. We're trying to push them to get this done, but we realize it's really challenging in terms of logistics on the frequency on who's going to pick it up and how frequently they're going to pick it up and just how to access it, because initially so far we've had to boat out there to drag it back in through the mud and what have you, but they have collected some interesting items. So, I think it's worth it. It's unbelievable how much trash comes through that. I was driving through there and seeing just the overwhelming amount of trash. Yes, and this was a pilot that came from Lexmark a small version over at Lexmark and so Kentucky American Water heard about it and wanted to try this and so it's still piloting essentially in a larger form for this out there at the reservoir so if it works, maybe there's some additional locations that they can try around the city. Community Montessori, their FY22 grant educational component is underway but the park lot is already built and it's good. Compton Office on the road if you're in the area, please feel free to swing around and take a look at it. You can see it right from the water. Lexington Center Corporation this is their FY22 grant the time extension accepted through September of 2025 but the work as far as the grant is concerned is completed. The grant's portion was to do pavement, to fund the pavement removal and to install the water quality unit. Unit is in, pavement gone if you ride past there you can see the park's underway, the amphitheater's up so progress certainly on the grant's portion and progress I mean I believe the park is set to open in less than a month for some of these areas. Yeah, and I think the Beach Boys will be coming in September so stop by. Unitarian Universalist Church Lexington this project is also completed essentially and I think we're working on the attachment B and their final report documents. Huber Real Estate another project that as it relates to construction is completed, they're working on the educational component and final documents. Feel free to ride past there, 7th Street there was a huge sinkhole there and now it's filled in bio retention area and what have you with a unit, a trash collection unit and this is also in coordination with one of the water quality capital projects as well so that project's looking really nicely. Class in Fayette County Public School Fayette County Public School Education Foundation Corporation working on the final closeout documents and the amendment so this project is going to wrap up soon. Fayette County Public School Education Foundation has another one for FY23 I'm sorry I think this was listed twice because the grant manager might have entered two status updates on the same day so that's why it was listed twice so I'm sorry about that. University of Kentucky FY23 he says email Shane to see if he'll be ready for the October board meeting so that's the current status of that one. Which project was that? Oh I'm sorry that was for University of Kentucky Room to Breathe this is the tree sale soil sale yeah that were at the Coliseum so what is the meeting? Oh I'm sorry so it looks like that they're going to have to propose they're going to come to the board and request to switch locations because there were some issues at the Coliseum where I think one of the proposed sites may be the operating parking lot over at the operating there were some issues utility wise and with the cost over at the Coliseum because I think the university wanted them to include some additional conduits for future use and that project they received a bid for over two million dollars so it was well over what the grant was going to be able to support to salvage the project they're proposing to try to relocate the project and we anticipate that to come to you all sometime in the future that's the nature of where they're at with their project Windswept Ventures formerly United Landscape Services the demo work was completed, the grading flat work and stairs completed, stormwater pipe structures and French drains completed the project is about 80% completed in terms of construction sorry I forgot to update that completion that sits out that you can't see but it is actually 80% completed as far as the construction is concerned Fred and Roses would be the next one the grant manager indicated that he's received a draft feasibility study already so we anticipate moving forward and probably receiving those final documents in their future but we've already received the actual draft feasibility study we've sent back some comments to the organization and so that was moved along Fayette County Public Schools FY24 project the grantee submitted the request for request for funds number four here this month and I have some reconciliation items that we're going back and forth on so we look to approve that here in the near future but that project will be steadily mediocre creative this is their FY24 this is a feasibility study that you all also approved a construction project a design and construction project for FY25 but the study was completed already and he said he anticipates commence such KEW company construction of the new water pipe line installation so I believe there's some work done out in front of that parcel for this project to occur right now but the feasibility study is done the design work is completed and we look to move it to the construction phase which is a part of the FY25 grant here shortly part of the grant the change order that you all approved and so that's where they are with this is trying to secure additional funds to be able to ensure that that project stays on course for completion Rob Properties is another one that you all approved for the change order and as you know the state is establishing that they need additional funds to complete but it's coming out of design and hopefully they'll be able to move toward construction shortly Wesley United can you speak to that one slightly yes I can we in late June received May received conditional use status as part of VOA because we were removing parking spaces um it's a real thing so we are kind of getting back on track in terms of completing the documents and getting it ready to go out for bidding so that's where we're at 1000 Delaware LLC according to the grant managers the status report should be submitted any time now feasibility is on track for completion and we plan to submit a FY26 application yes CDC which was forming OP no progress reported at this time from the grant manager but I believe that was well yeah we just got notice to proceed because of some paperwork because there's the grantee and then there's the property owner and so there's a lot of back and forth so there was some delay they have just finished an interior fit up so they kind of wanted to get that one project done before they started in on the next one so we're about ready to kick off with the design the implementation of that that's a project where the tenant is the grantee yes Fayette County Public Schools FY25 project was held back in June no progress to date back in October Fayette County Schools yes and where's it located Mason-Heatley which was formerly 2160 Purcells Road so that's the hole that sits right there at Purcells Road and Mason-Heatley okay so if you're going down Purcells Road going into county right on Mason-Heatley that's it all that construction is going on okay yeah okay thank you LFUC Airport Board kick off meeting was held back on July the 1st and so they're just moving forward to get that project off the ground Mediocre Creative just spoke about Kentucky Left Water doing some work out in front there but the kick off meeting was held back in April and they're working I guess they're working on hiring a surveyor to get that project going off the ground there University of Kentucky athletics complex and this was one where they were denigrating damages to the downstream infiltration basin and I believe the grant manager doesn't have anything to report apparently for this project so they're just waiting to get this one off the ground apparently they've not too long to go and receive the notice of receipts this is a FY25 project and then the Hope Life project you have I think it's the same thing most of these FY25 projects just received a notice of receipts so we don't have a lot of progress off the ground for these yet for the next one which is Windswept Ventures yeah this is phase 2 we're working to complete the phase 1 elements before we jump into the phase 2 it's on deck and that concludes our status update as I mentioned most of the FY25s are just now getting off the ground so we don't see a lot of progress right now but hopefully we'll have some a lot of things going on yes is there anything else to bring up anybody else have any comments to make to the audience again we appreciate you finishing with us and we encourage you to come back anytime we appreciate it I did want to mention that the UK one of the UK projects the stormwater harvesting project they did receive an award that says UK's utilities and energy management team received a grant award for stormwater harvesting so they received this award from the American Council of Engineering for 2025 engineering excellence awards for that project so we're pretty proud of that another project received another one of our grant fitting projects I went out to to see that project off Virginia Avenue it really is pretty cool we're just proud to report that absolutely just want you all to know any other comments hearing none I'll be adjourned motion to adjourn second second adjourned