6/24/25 Council Meeting [84:12-89:14]

That was in 2019. I mean, that's where they were in the blue lines. That's where they're written now. That's what they're jerking the heart of that. They're playing on the line. Yeah. Yeah, we're involved in the headcount. We anticipated when we were in this discussion. And I think the investment was actually larger than we thought it was going to be in 2019 when all of this was the initial agreement. Well, it just makes it easier for us to work and present at the time of the application and that this stuff being filled in makes it easier for everybody to see, you're fulfilling your commitment. We're some of these, or we don't have much in, if we make sure it all. Yes. Yeah, the total investment was over $700 million at the site. I think the things I've seen is 600 and something is what was indicated on the application. Because I think you've exceeded, well, that's what you said after what I'm saying here. Yes, and really driven by the timing of the construction and the scope of the size of the plant that was built. And, you know, as actually the original design of the plant grew, as we actually got into determining where it was going to be there. Actually, there was not a plan to have any package operation at the plant. That was done in speed at Louisville. And then as the plant started construction, it made sense to move that to much of us. So until we installed a packing operation and that was, I'm actually having to amend our environmental permit during the construction to be able to move that, that business to the Lawrence County also. Any questions for Tracey? I don't think they've done exceeded what they've set out to do a bit more I'm seeing. And again, this is a different one, but it's a bit of a question for me and Michael, on that one, if this has a lot more information on it, two different paperwork, should they not be using the same throw more needs? They did use the same form. It's what the company provides. That's the reason the information was left. No. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Any questions? Okay. There's a question. There's a question. Who has since been taken out of use? Nothing. So I'm the plant that we constructed. I'm not sure if I heard the question right, but I'm the plant that we constructed, but it continues to be operational. Okay. Did you mean the previous plant? Did you mean the previous plant was there? Okay. There's more questions. I want to give you a motion to accept the question to Jenny first. Thank you. Julie second. Any questions? I'm favoring the motion to say aye. Aye. Posed? Both passed. Thank you. You may not want to comment on this. What's the status of the current management project? I can absolutely comment. It has certainly been talking about further investment at the site. It's been probably a month ago. It could have been three weeks ago. We received a letter from the DOE that said that the $500 million grant that was awarded was part of a group of grants that the DOE had eaten between the election day and the inauguration day. And all of them went by $3 million worth of grants from the DOE where we've drawn. There's an appeal process. It's actually a pretty quick appeal process that we have started and have been in talks with the DOE over that. But at this point, the grant has been withdrawn. We are appealing that decision. But just working through that process is probably going to be 90 days at least. If the things happen as they're spelled out in the appeal process. So that's a lot unknown at this point. Without that federal grant, the likelihood of that project, the economical viable is pretty unlikely. Being with the amount of investment at the site that continues to be to have autonomous trucks operating in our court.