Addendum One.pdf

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

DEPARTMENT FOR FACILITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES

DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

INVITATION TO BID NO: RFB-22-26

FOR: Re-Ad of RFB-259-25 Replace Competition Barns and Stalls Bid Package 1 Kentucky Horse Park Lexington, Kentucky

DATE: July 22, 2025

RFB-785-2600000018

ADDENDUM NO. One (1)

BIDDER SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING CHANGES AS SAME SHALL BECOME BINDING

UPON THE CONTRACT TO BE ISSUED IN RESPONSE TO THIS INVITATION TO BID.

Item 1: Refer to addendum to be distributed by Lynn Imaging for all additions, deletions, and/or changes to specifications and/or drawings.

Item 2: Official Bid Date has been moved to August 5, 2025, at 1:30 P.M. Eastern Time

Item 3: See updated Geotech report for revised page 10 that more clearly defines the boring locations, as the original boring locations on the report was illegible.

END OF ADDENDUM

Invitation to Bid No. RFB-22-26 For: Re-Ad of RFB-259-25 Replace Competition Barns and Stalls Bid Package 1 Kentucky Horse Park

Susan Ward, Statewide Procurement Analyst II Division of Engineering and Contract Administration

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

Kentucky Horse Park Barns

Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky

Prepared for: Division of Engineering and Contract Administration and the Kentucky Horse Park

July 22, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.3 SITE CONDITIONS

2.4 STRUCTURAL LOADING INFORMATION

2.5 SITE GRADING AND TOPOGRAPHY

3.0 SUBSURFACE FINDINGS AND ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS

3.1 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORICAL INFORMATION

3.2 PUBLISHED GEOLOGIC INFORMATION

3.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONCERNS AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 13

4.1 SURFICIAL MATERIALS

4.2 CONSTRUCTION IN CUT/FILL AREAS

4.3 CONSTRUCTION DURING WET CONDITIONS

4.4 PRELIMINARY LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SETTLEMENT

4.5 SITE AND FOUNDATION DRAINAGE

4.6 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

4.7 OFF SITE BORROW MATERIAL

4.8 SOIL COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

4.9 SOIL PLASTICITY

4.10 SILTY MATERIAL

4.11 PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL AREAS

4.12 GRANULAR MATERIAL

4.13 SHALLOW ROCK EXCAVATION

4.14 DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A KARST REGION

4.15 VIBRATION OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

4.16 GROUNDWATER

5.0 CONFIRMATION-DEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 EARTHWORK

5.1.1 SITE PREPARATION

5.1.2 STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT

5.1.3 PROTECTION OF EARTHWORK

5.2 FOUNDATIONS

5.2.1 BARNS A AND B - SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

5.2.2 BARNS I AND J - ROCK BEARING SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

5.2.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.3 SLAB-ON-GRADE

5.4 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION

5.5 PLAN REVIEW

5.6 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND OBSERVATIONS

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

7.0 ASSOCIATED GEOTECHNICAL RISKS

APPENDICES

Appendix A BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS

Appendix B LAB RESULTS

Solid Ground Consulting Engineers • 5027 Atwood Drive, Suite 1 • Richmond, Kentucky 40475 Phone: 859.545.4587 • www.solidgroundce.com

July 22, 2025

Mitchel Alonso Division of Engineering & Contract Administration Bush Building, 1st Floor 403 Wapping Street Frankfort, KY 40601

p. 502.545.4575

Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration Kentucky Horse Park Barns

Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky Solid Ground Project No.: 25-252

Mr. Alonso, Solid Ground Consulting Engineers (Solid Ground) is pleased to present our Report of

Geotechnical Exploration. This report is for the proposed new construction of four (4) barns to be located at the Kentucky Horse Park in Lexington, Kentucky. The geotechnical exploration was conducted in general accordance with the scope of work agreed upon in Solid Ground Proposal 110225 dated May 16, 2025.

This report contains our findings and recommendations for the referenced project detailed above. Once completed, it is recommended that Solid Ground have the opportunity to review plans and specifications. In addition, it is recommended that Solid

Ground be retained to perform observations during earthwork, foundations, and slab-on-grade construction. Solid Ground will not be held responsible for interpretations and field observations made by others.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our consulting services to you. We look forward to working with you on this and future projects.

Sincerely, SOLID GROUND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Beck Smith, PE Emily Kerns Senior Engineer Staff Engineer Kentucky License Number 37415

Kentucky Horse Park July 22, 2025

Project 25-252 Page 2

1.0 Executive Summary

Solid Ground Consulting Engineers performed a geotechnical exploration in support of the proposed four (4) new barns to be located at 4089 Iron Works

Parkway, Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky. The approximate coordinates of the site are 39.156894°N, -84.520111°W.

1.1 Summary of Findings

Solid Ground conducted a total of twenty-eight (28) soil test borings at the site and three (3) test pits, as site conditions allowed, within the approximate development boundaries.

Overburden for Barns A and B generally consisted of natural and possible fill soils underlying the surficial materials described as a hard to very stiff, brown, Lean to Fat Clay (CL-CH) with varying amounts of gravel, sand, trace organics and weathered limestone fragments.

Overburden in the area of Barns I and J generally consisted of a Silty Lean Clay

(CL), Lean to Fat Clay (CL-CH), Lean Clay (CL), Gravelly Silt (ML) Silty Gravel

(GM) Gravelly Sand, Sandy Gravel, and a Well-graded Gravel (GW). Soils in this area had varying amounts of gravel, sand, trace organics and weathered limestone fragments.

All twenty-eight (28) borings encountered auger refusal at depths between 0.7 and 10.6 feet. All three (3) test pits encountered bucket refusal at depths between 1.0 and 5.5 feet.

The FFE for barns are as follows, Barn A at 873.60 feet, Barn B at 875.40 feet, Barn I at 888.80 feet and Barn J at 890.60 feet. Based on existing topography, site grading for Barns A and B is anticipated to be minor to moderate. Site grading for Barns I and J is expected to be minor.

2.0 Project Information

2.1 Purpose and Scope of Services

The purpose of this subsurface exploration was to prepare recommendations for design and construction of foundations and floor slabs for the proposed new barn construction. Our scope of work included the following:

A discussion of site surface conditions

Project 25-252 Page 3

A discussion of subsurface conditions encountered as well as a discussion of the published geologic conditions at the site including frost penetration depth

A summary of field and laboratory testing results including a brief review of our test procedures

Boring logs and laboratory tests will be summarized in the report and listed in the appendix

A discussion of specific geotechnical conditions and concerns which may affect the design or construction of the project

Recommendations for site preparation and construction of compacted fills

Groundwater management recommendations.

Recommended general design and construction criteria for the project foundations.

Anticipated total and differential settlement

Recommendations for slab-on-grades with subgrade reaction modulus

A recommendation for a preliminary seismic site class according to

International Building Code which was adopted by the 2018 Kentucky

Building Code (KBC)

A brief review of our test procedures and the results of all testing conducted

2.2 Project Description

The project consists of the construction of four (4) horse barns at the Kentucky

Horse Park. Barns A and B will be approximately 23,500 square-feet and are located on a grass-covered area nearest to Cigar Lane. Barns I and J will be approximately 21,000 square-feet and will include demolition of the existing barns on the east side of the barn area, near Jay Trump Drive.

Project 25-252 Page 4

Figure 1: Approximate Site Location

2.3 Site Conditions

Solid Ground personnel visited the site throughout the geotechnical exploration to observe existing conditions, to help interpret the subsurface data, and to detect conditions which could affect recommendations.

The site is located at 4089 Iron Works Pike, Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky. The development area for Barns A and B is covered in low grass. The development area for Barns I and J are covered in asphalt.

2.4 Structural Loading Information

Structural loading information was not given at the time of this report. Maximum column footing loads are anticipated to be less than 50 kips and continuous footings less than 3 kips per linear foot. The slab is anticipated to have maximum loads not exceeding 150 psf.

Project 25-252 Page 5

2.5 Site Grading and Topography

The FFE for barns are as follows, Barn A at 873.60 feet, Barn B at 875.40 feet, Barn I at 888.80 feet and Barn J at 890.60 feet. Based on existing topography, site grading for Barns A and B is anticipated to be minor to moderate. Site grading for Barns I and J is expected to be minor.

3.0 Subsurface Findings and Encountered Conditions

3.1 Review of Previous Site Development and Historical Information

Based on review of historical maps provided by the United States Geological

Survey (USGS) (Figures 2 & 3) and historical imagery provided by Google Earth

(Figures 4 & 5), it appears the site has undergone construction in the past 32 years. Several barns were constructed at this time. The barns located in the area of Barn I and J appear to be constructed prior to 1993. The area where Barns A and B are located, a paved area was constructed sometime between 2004 and

2006 to house a large tent. By 2010, the tent was removed, and the site remained as a storage area for equipment. Based on topographic maps, there appears to have been some minor to moderate grading in the past 70 years.

Figure 2: 2022 USGS Topographic Map of the Georgetown Quadrangle

Approximate

Site Location

Project 25-252 Page 6

Figure 3: 1954 USGS Topographic Map of the Georgetown Quadrangle

Figure 4: 2025 Google Earth Imagery

Site

Locations

Approximate

Site Location

Barns A and B

Barns I and J

Project 25-252 Page 7

Figure 5: 1993 Google Earth Imagery

Site

Locations

Project 25-252 Page 8

3.2 Published Geologic Information

Geologic information was referenced from the Kentucky Geological Survey

(KGS), geologic map of the Georgetown Quadrangle, Fayette County, Kentucky

(Figure 6). The site is underlain by the Tanglewood Limestone Member. Locally, this unit is described as phosphatic limestone, Lower to Middle Ordovician in age. There is a mapped concealed-fault line south of the site.

Figure 6: KGS Geologic Mapping

Project 25-252 Page 9

The KGS mapping (Figure 7) indicates that the underlying rock units have intense karst potential, with a few sinkholes mapped east of the site and a concealed fault line to the south. Solid Ground should be contacted if any karst activity is encountered during construction for remediation recommendations.

Figure 7: KGS Karst Potential Mapping

3.3 Subsurface Exploration Program

Solid Ground conducted a total of twenty-eight (28) soil test borings and three

(3) test pits, borings were located within the approximate boundaries of the development area, as site conditions allowed.

Boring surface elevations were estimated utilizing ArcGIS and LiDAR data.

Therefore, the locations and surface elevations should be considered approximate. It should be noted that the subsurface conditions will vary, and the representative profile is based upon the number of borings drilled during the field operations. Boring locations are shown in Figure 8 below.

Project 25-252 Page 10

Figure 8: Approximate Boring Locations for Barns A and B

Figure 9: Approximate Boring Locations for Barns I and J

Project 25-252 Page 11

3.4 Subsurface Conditions

The soil samples were classified by Solid Ground personnel according to the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS ASTM D2488; USCS ASTM 2487 for select samples). A description of each soil layer is as follows.

Surficial Materials – Borings 1 through 12 encountered a surficial layer of asphalt

(~4 inches). Borings 13 through 28 encountered a surficial layer of topsoil (~4 inches). It should be noted that thicknesses of these materials may vary across the site. The thicknesses presented in this report should be considered approximate.

Natural and Fill Soils – The in the area of Barns A and B, borings B-13 through

B-28 encountered natural and fill soils underlying the surficial materials layer described as a hard to very stiff, brown, Lean to Fat Clay (CL-CH) with varying amounts of gravel, sand, trace organics and weathered limestone fragments.

In the area of Barns I and J, borings B-1 through B-12 encountered a Silty Lean

Clay (CL), Lean to Fat Clay (CL-CH), Lean Clay (CL), Gravelly Silt (ML) Silty

Gravel (GM) Gravelly Sand, Sandy Gravel, and Well-graded Gravel (GW). Soils in this area had varying amounts of gravel, sand, trace organics and weathered limestone fragments.

Auger and Test Pit Refusal – Borings B-1 through B-12 encountered auger refusal at depths between 0.7 and 5.2 feet. Three (3) test pits were performed near borings B-1, B-2, and B-11 to confirm shallow refusal in these areas and encountered refusal at depths between 1.0 and 5.5 feet.

Borings B-13 through B-28 encountered auger refusal at depths between 2.6 to

10.6 feet.

Detailed descriptions and strength characteristics are included on the boring logs in Appendix A.

Groundwater – Groundwater was encountered only in Boring B-11 and Test Pit

T-11. Free groundwater levels fluctuate with seasonal weather conditions and may vary. Therefore, the borings and the test pits may not be representative of the actual free water levels. To achieve an accurate measurement of free groundwater levels, water wells or piezometers should be installed.

Project 25-252 Page 12

Solid Ground should be contacted if groundwater is encountered during earthwork operations. Please note, the groundwater table can fluctuate significantly which could have an impact on the subsurface soils. Table 1 summarizes our findings.

Table 1: Boring Summary

Boring

Number

Approximate

Surface

Elevation (ft)

Auger

Refusal

Depth (ft)

Final Elevation

(ft)

B-1 892.6 2.6 890.0

B-2 893.2 0.7 892.5

B-3 893.0 1.0 892.0

B-4 892.7 5.1 887.6

B-5 892.3 5.2 887.1

B-6 892.2 3.9 888.3

B-7 892.0 1.8 890.2

B-8 891.9 0.8 891.1

B-9 891.2 4.0 887.2

B-10 891.0 3.8 887.2

B-11 891.0 4.7 886.3

B-12 891.2 2.0 889.2

B-13 872.5 7.2 865.3

B-14 873.0 6.7 866.3

B-15 870.2 5.3 864.9

B-16 872.6 4.4 868.2

B-17 868.9 6.3 862.6

B-18 868.7 7.0 861.7

B-19 868.4 5.8 862.6

B-20 871.8 7.2 864.6

B-21 866.6 5.3 861.3

Project 25-252 Page 13

Boring

Number

Approximate

Surface

Elevation (ft)

Auger

Refusal

Depth (ft)

Final Elevation

(ft)

B-22 870.7 2.6 868.1

B-23 866.3 6.1 860.2

B-24 865.2 7.3 857.9

B-25 869.4 10.6 858.8

B-26 872.1 5.9 866.2

B-27 873.0 3.2 869.8

B-28 875.9 2.7 873.2

Table 2: Test Pit Summary

Test Pit

Number

Approximate

Surface

Elevation (ft)

Bucket

Refusal

Depth (ft)

Final Elevation

(ft)

TP-1 892.6 2.7 890.0

TP-2 893.2 1.0 892.2

TP-11 893.0 5.5 892.0

4.0 Geotechnical Concerns and Construction Considerations

Based on the results of the subsurface exploration and our experience with similar projects, we believe the project site is generally suitable for the proposed development. However, some concerns exist with the subsurface conditions as discussed below.

4.1 Surficial Materials

Based on the information gathered from the borings, the site has a surficial layer of topsoil (~4 inches) and asphalt (~4 inches). These thicknesses are representative of conditions encountered at the boring locations only, thickness and aerial extent of the strata may vary across the site. Construction plans should adequately address stripping and the disposal of these materials prior to earthwork operations. Topsoil should only be used as fill in landscaping areas.

Project 25-252 Page 14

4.2 Construction in Cut/Fill Areas

Cut areas have the potential to be overcut, disturbing the in-situ soils to depths below proposed finished grade. Areas to receive fill are stripped of topsoil and are also sometimes disturbed to depths deeper than intended. Both cut and fill areas should be proof rolled prior to construction taking place. Soft, loose, or wet areas should be identified and remediated in accordance with the recommendations provided in the “5.1 Earthwork” section of this report.

4.3 Construction During Wet Conditions

It is understood that potential development could occur during wet conditions.

Based on experience with construction projects during wet conditions, subgrade remediation is often required. In addition, delays of earthwork/foundation operations could occur. Clays swell and silts break down when high moisture conditions are present. To stabilize the subgrade materials, drying and recompacting could be required. During wet conditions, the on-site materials may become saturated and are unable to dry in a timely manner.

Typically, remediation methods consist of undercutting soft and/or saturated soils, moisture conditioning, and recompacting or replacing with a granular stone that is “capped” with dense graded aggregate (DGA). The extent and depth of the undercut is on a case-by-case basis depending on the soil conditions. We recommend contracting Solid Ground to observe earthwork operations and foundation and slab-on-grade construction. In addition, we recommend that the earthwork contractor and the design team adequately budget for remediation repairs.

4.4 Preliminary Liquefaction Potential and Settlement

Liquefaction is the phenomenon where saturated soils develop high pore-water pressures during seismic shaking and lose their strength characteristics. This phenomenon generally occurs in areas of high seismicity where groundwater is shallow. Liquefaction can produce excessive settlement, ground rupture, lateral spreading, or failure of shallow spread foundations.

Three conditions are generally required for liquefaction to occur:

1. The soil must be saturated (relatively shallow groundwater)

2. The soil must be loosely packed (low density)

3. Ground shaking of sufficient intensity must occur to function as a trigger mechanism.

Project 25-252 Page 15

Based on our recommendations for the foundation the soils should be considered to have low liquefaction potential.

4.5 Site and Foundation Drainage

Experience has shown that the onsite materials are prone to degradation during wet periods of the year and/or under heavy traffic. Surface and ground water should be controlled while the subgrade fill materials are exposed and use only enough compactive effort to achieve stability and job site requirements for compaction. In addition, it is recommended that foundation concrete, or a concrete bearing medium, be placed the same day that foundation excavation is performed.

The final grade should be sloped away from the structures and pavements a minimum of two percent to promote positive drainage. Roof drains and foundation drains should be installed and should discharge surface runoff away from the structure to provide positive site drainage. It should be noted that drainage should be designed and constructed without impacting neighboring properties. Drainage design is beyond our scope of work.

It is imperative that dewatering be maintained during construction and after development. If positive dewatering methods are not continually applied and maintained, the potential of remedial subgrade measures and long-term settlement is greatly increased.

We anticipate that a concern and difficulty during construction will be properly dewatering the site. The contractor should observe the site and understand this report. Drainage design is beyond our scope of services, but Solid Ground can provide drainage design for additional negotiated fees.

4.6 Underground Utilities

Design and Construction plans should adequately address the concern of potential settlement of underground utilities. Please note, all excavations should adhere to applicable codes such as OSHA.

4.7 Off Site Borrow Material

There is a potential that fill material may be required to achieve the proposed

FFE(s). Offsite borrow material could be required. Construction plans should include this consideration as well as ensure the offsite borrow material meets the recommendations detailed in this report.

Project 25-252 Page 16

4.8 Soil Compaction Equipment

The soil compaction equipment should be selected by the type of fill anticipated for the site. Smooth drum rollers should be utilized for clean sands and silts, while clays may be compacted utilizing sheepsfoot rollers. We anticipate utilizing a sheepsfoot roller for in-situ soils and a smooth drum roller for granular materials.

4.9 Soil Plasticity

The subsurface soils were classified as silty lean clay and lean to fat clay. These soils can have high plasticity characteristics and be subject to volume changes with fluctuations in moisture content. The near surface on-site material is not considered highly plastic. Care should still be taken to mitigate subgrade degradation and reduce subgrade remediation. Therefore, we recommend minimal mitigation efforts consisting of the following:

Improved site drainage to minimize exposure of these soils to moisture fluctuations, especially near building foundations and slab on grade.

Minimize exposure of these soils to excessive wetting or drying.

Deepen footings below the frost line.

4.10 Silty Material

Lean clays can be comprised of silty material which is prone to breaking down under high moisture and repeated traffic. Care should be taken to not allow water to pond on the site and to reduce the construction traffic across the building pad and paving areas.

4.11 Previously Placed Fill Areas

In the area of Barns A and B, a paved area was constructed on the south side of the site. Also, on the west side of this area, during construction of the adjacent barns, several areas of undocumented fill and unsuitable soils were removed. If fill in this area was not inspected and documented during construction, soils may require subgrade remediation including undercutting and replacement utilizing structural fill as discussed in section 5.1.2 of this report.

4.12 Granular Material

Some of the on-site soils consisted of granular material (gravels, sands, rock fragments). This material often does not allow “neat” excavations for

Project 25-252 Page 17 foundations and utilities and will slump from the banks into the excavation. We anticipate that this will require additional backfill material and time to backfill.

The contractor should account for this additional material and time during the pre-construction phase. If the gravel is to be reused as structural fill it will require blending with the fine-grained soils to allow for proper compaction.

4.13 Shallow Rock Excavation

In the area of Barns I and J, shallow refusal was encountered in the majority of the borings (between 0.7 to 5.2 feet). This was further backed up by encountering shallow refusal in three test pits excavated after the borings were performed. There is a potential for rock (boulders, cobbles, and rock) excavation to occur within the underground utilities, foundation excavation, and slab-on-grade, based upon the preliminary finished floor elevations. We believe these materials will most likely have to be removed with a pneumatic hammer.

Construction plans should address the method of rock removal and the amount

(if any) of rock to be hauled off the site or utilized as fill. In addition, construction plans should adequately address underground utilities as recommended in this report.

4.14 Development within a Karst Region

Solution activity in areas underlain by limestone generally results from a slow process of dissolving the underlying rock units by surface runoff or rainwater.

Sinkholes at the ground surface are caused from either a general raveling failure within the soil unit or by rock collapse. Either phenomenon typically results in depressions at the ground surface, which, if large enough, can be identified on topographic maps. In addition to the natural causes of sinkhole development previously discussed, sinkholes may form as a result from water leaking from subsurface piping and drainage systems such as buried water and sewer pipes, septic lateral fields, and roof drains beneath the building and floor slabs.

As previously stated, the Kentucky Geological Survey rates the site with an intense karst potential. It is not possible to remove all risk associated with construction over known sinkholes or in sinkhole-prone, karst areas. The natural rising and lowering of the ground water table and surface water migration downward through the subsurface soils can create the risk of continued soil migration into solution voids in the underlying limestone.

There is some potential for sinkholes to be encountered during construction, especially in cut areas. Solid Ground should be contacted if a solution feature or

Project 25-252 Page 18 other karst features are encountered during construction. Repair methods of sinkholes and other karst features exist. When sinkholes are encountered, the common practice is to excavate the soil from within the solution feature down to hard bedrock. The two most common methods of remediation are a concrete plug or an inverted filter. The repair method will be dependent upon several factors. Therefore, Solid Ground should be contacted to provide a repair method.

We believe the risk with this development is no greater than with similar developments in the area. To further reduce the risk of unidentified sinkholes at the site would require the implementation of more sophisticated and expensive geotechnical exploration methods including borings on a tightly spaced grid or geophysical methods. However, this approach is considered expensive and is likely cost prohibitive for this stage of the project.

4.15 Vibration of Construction Equipment

It is recommended that the vibration impact from the construction be considered and addressed. It is highly recommended to contract a third party to perform pre and post construction observations and monitoring of nearby and adjacent structures. Solid Ground can perform this service.

4.16 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered during our exploration and there is a possibility that an active groundwater table exists.

Please note, a detailed groundwater study and analysis is beyond the scope of our work. There is a possibility that dewatering methods that are both temporary and permanent may be required to achieve positive site drainage both during and after construction.

5.0 Confirmation-Dependent Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on the information gathered and subsurface conditions encountered during this limited exploration. We have developed these recommendations under the assumption that our sampling performed on the site accurately portrays conditions that are not immediately visible due to earth, rock, water, or time. It should be noted that Solid Ground cannot be held liable for fill placed or performance of the subgrade without observations to confirm that conditions in the field are consistent with inferences from the samples we obtained.

Project 25-252 Page 19

Please note, if earthwork construction begins during wet weather conditions there is a likelihood that the schedule will be prolonged and extensive remediation, or a more robust geotechnical recommendation will be required.

5.1 Earthwork

5.1.1 Site Preparation

Topsoil and other surficial materials should be stripped to prepare the site for construction.

o In-place density testing should be performed to check that the previously recommended compaction criteria have been achieved.

o Fill placement should be monitored on a full-time basis by Solid

Ground during site grading.

o Fill placement should extend to a minimum of 10 feet beyond the building footprint.

After stripping and cutting operations, the subgrade should be evaluated by Solid Ground. Possible remediation methods may be required if the subgrade and site soils are exposed to wet weather conditions.

The building pad may require stabilization prior to new fill placement or for slab-on grade-construction. Solid Ground should be consulted to assist in selecting the most appropriate method for site conditions. These methods may consist of any or combination of the following:

o Tensar geogrid reinforcement.

o “Walking” No. 2 stone into the soft subgrade.

o Application of consolidated No. 57 stone.

5.1.2 Structural Fill Placement

Final grades have yet to be established at the time of this report, however we anticipate minor to moderate fill placement based on the preliminary FFE(s).

Backfill materials for structural fill placement may consist of soil or durable crushed stone. The following steps are recommended for fill placement within the building pad. We anticipate that the onsite soils may or may not meet the requirements of structural fill. Offsite borrow material may be necessary to achieve finished grade but cannot be ruled out without a review of the final site grading plans.

Structural fill material, if required, is defined as the following:

Inorganic natural soil with maximum particle sizes of 3 inches.

Project 25-252 Page 20

Plasticity Index of no greater than 30 percent and liquid limit less than 50.

Solid Ground should observe the material to confirm the soils meet applicable standards for structural fill.

Other sources of structural fill should be verified by Solid Ground.

o If other sources of structural fill are anticipated, Solid Ground should collect a bulk sample for standard Proctor testing.

The following are recommendations for placement of soil structural fill:

Structural fill should be placed in 6-inch to no greater than 8-inch-thick layers.

Structural fill should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D698).

The moisture content of the fill material should be maintained at about 2 percent (above or below) of its standard Proctor optimum moisture content.

In-place density testing should be performed to determine if the previously recommended compaction criteria have been achieved.

Fill placement should be monitored on a full-time basis by Solid Ground during site grading.

Fill placement should extend to a minimum of 10 feet beyond the building footprint.

Solid Ground should be contacted if any unexpected subsurface conditions are encountered during earthwork construction. It is important that Solid Ground observe earthwork construction.

5.1.3 Protection of Earthwork

Common earthwork construction practices can leave soils exposed for long periods of time while work is performed in other areas of a site. Care should be taken during the earthwork phase to protect soils from degradation caused by sunlight, wind, precipitation, and other factors. Solid Ground recommends that any exposed soil be protected by straw, seeding, rock, or other methods if the area the soil is in will be left unattended for more than three days. Any soil left unattended or unprotected for more than three days should be re-evaluated prior to continuation of work.

Project 25-252 Page 21

5.2 Foundations

5.2.1 Barns A and B - Shallow Foundations

Once grading operations are to be initiated, the building pad should be thoroughly proof rolled with a loaded truck, and any soft or unstable areas should be stabilized prior to new fill placement in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report. Solid Ground should be onsite during the proof rolling.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, information gathered during this exploration, and past knowledge of the site’s development, we recommend that foundations be designed as shallow spread footings bearing on stiff or better in-situ material.

We recommend the use of a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000

PSF (pounds per square foot) for foundations bearing on these materials.

A detailed settlement analysis was beyond the scope of this report. Based on the assumed structural loads, the available site grading information, the recommended bearing pressure, knowledge of the site’s development and empirical correlation for the subsurface conditions encountered beneath the proposed structure, we estimate the total settlements of the foundation to be about 1 inch or less. Differential settlements are estimated to be about 1/2 inch or less.

Once the design is finalized, we recommend allowing Solid Ground the opportunity to review the plans and specifications.

5.2.2 Barns I and J - Rock Bearing Shallow Foundations

Once grading operations are to be initiated the building pad should be thoroughly proof rolled with a loaded truck, any soft or unstable areas should be stabilized prior to new fill placement in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report. Solid Ground should be onsite during the proof rolling.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, information gathered during this exploration, and past knowledge of the site’s development, we recommend that foundations be designed as shallow spread footings bearing on bedrock.

The foundation excavation should extend to bedrock and then backfilled with lean concrete to planned bottom of footing elevation.

Project 25-252 Page 22

We recommend the use of a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 5,000

PSF (pounds per square foot) for foundations bearing on bedrock.

A detailed settlement analysis was beyond the scope of this report. Based on the assumed structural loads, the available site grading information, the recommended bearing pressure, knowledge of the site’s development and empirical correlation for the subsurface conditions encountered beneath the proposed structure, we estimate the total settlements of the foundation to be about 1 inch or less. Differential settlements are estimated to be about 1/2 inch or less.

Once the design is finalized, we recommend allowing Solid Ground the opportunity to review the plans and specifications.

5.2.3 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations

The following typical construction considerations are recommended:

Column footings and strip footings should be at least 24 inches wide and

12 inches thick.

All exterior footing bottoms should be at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade for protection against frost penetration and plasticity of the soil.

Clean the foundation bearing area so it is nearly level and is free of ponded water and loose material.

Dewatering methods may be necessary if the foundation excavation takes place during wet weather.

Solid Ground should be on site while the foundation construction is performed.

Perform Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing in each spread footing and every 20 feet of continuous footings for soil bearing shallow foundations.

Once fill operations are completed and foundation excavations begin, it is important that the foundation excavations be protected from wet weather conditions by placement of concrete or bearing medium immediately after. Please note, providing positive site drainage is critical to the performance of the foundations.

There is a possibility that during foundation excavations that perched water may be encountered. If perched water is encountered, it is recommended to dewater the site. This may be achieved by constructing

Project 25-252 Page 23

“bleeders” or trenches from the site to an area with lower elevation and allow water to be gravity directed away from site.

5.3 Slab-on-Grade

We assume that the slab on grade will be utilized for light loads with 150 pounds per square foot maximum. If this assumption is incorrect, Solid Ground should be contacted to modify recommendations.

It should be noted that if the site soils are exposed to wet weather conditions or continuous construction traffic, the soils have potential to degrade and will lose their strength. This could require a more robust subgrade improvement design.

It is imperative that dewatering be continuous and construction traffic be controlled away from the building pad.

It should be noted that the means and methods of construction that will be performed by others will heavily dictate the suitability and sustainability of the site conditions and building service life during and after construction.

The following recommendations should be followed:

Solid Ground should observe the finished subgrade utilizing proof rolling once grading is completed. If excessive pumping and/or rutting is observed remediation may be required. Typical remediation methods consist of undercutting the unsuitable soil and placing recompacted soil or granular material.

If construction is to take place during wet periods of the year, there is a potential that remediation methods will be required to stabilize the soil subgrade. Solid Ground should be consulted to assist in selecting the most appropriate method for site conditions. These methods may consist of any or combination of the following:

o Tensar geogrid reinforcement.

o “Walking” No. 2 stone into the soft subgrade.

o Application of compacted DGA.

It is imperative that quality control be performed specifically for the slab on grade to ensure that moisture contents, as well as compaction efforts, are within optimum.

Project 25-252 Page 24

It is recommended that the floor slab be constructed with an open graded stone base of a minimum of 6 inches in thickness. The floor slab should be constructed with a minimum of 4 inches of reinforced concrete.

A subgrade modulus, k, of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for design of the floor slab supported by granular material.

Control joints should be placed per the most recent ACI standards and guidance.

The floor slab should be fully ground-supported. This will reduce the possibility of cracking and displacement of the floor slab due to differential settlement.

It is recommended to perform proof rolling prior to placing stone to serve as the slab working base, and again immediately prior to constructing the slab.

5.4 Seismic Site Classification

The Seismic Site Classification assumes that shallow spread and strip footings will be utilized. This classification is based on the seismic standards and design values from the 2009 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions and the 2010

ASCE-7 Standard. Based on the results of our exploration and the geology of the area, we assign a site seismic classification of “C”.

5.5 Plan Review

To better ensure confirmation of the final design documents with the recommendations contained in this report, and to better comply with the building department’s requirements, Solid Ground should review the completed project plans prior to construction. The plans should be made available for our review as soon as possible after completion so that we can better assist in keeping your project schedule on track.

We recommend that the following project-specific note be added to the architectural, structural, and civil plans: “The geotechnical aspects of the project, including site grading, utility and foundation excavations, slab on grade construction, placement and compaction of engineered fill, installation of site drainage should be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the

“Geotechnical Report prepared by Solid Ground Consulting Engineers, dated July 22, 2025.”

Project 25-252 Page 25

5.6 Construction Monitoring and Observations

Based on past experience; in order to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy for this development, you may be required to directly contract a qualified and certified inspection firm to provide special inspection items consisting of observing the following:

Soil Construction

Foundation Construction

Concrete Placement

Reinforcement Placement

Steel Construction

It is advantageous to the owner to contract with Solid Ground to provide construction monitoring and observations for this project. Some of those benefits are as follows:

As the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GER) for this project, we will provide confirmation that subsurface conditions exposed during construction are substantially the same as those interpolated from our limited subsurface exploration, on which the analysis and design were based.

The recommendations in this report are based on limited subsurface information. The nature and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until construction. If variations are then exposed, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our recommendations. In the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated, we as the GER will provide recommendations if deemed necessary.

6.0 Report Limitations

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Division of Engineering & Contract Administration and the Kentucky Horse Park for specific application to the project site. Our recommendations have been prepared using generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering practice in the

Commonwealth of Kentucky. No other warranty is expressed or implied.

The recommendations provided are based on the subsurface information and other findings obtained by Solid Ground as well as information provided by you.

If there are revisions to the plans for this project or if subsurface conditions

Project 25-252 Page 26 detailed in this report are encountered during construction that are different than our exploration, we should be notified immediately to modify the foundation recommendations if deemed necessary. We cannot be held responsible for the impact of those conditions on the project if those impacts are not made known to us.

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, and unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for informational purposes.

Project 25-252 Page 27

7.0 Associated Geotechnical Risks

The analytical tools which are used by the geotechnical engineer in this area are generally empirical and must be used in conjunction with professional engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the recommendations presented in this geotechnical exploration should not be considered risk-free and are not a guarantee that the proposed structure will perform as planned.

The engineering recommendations presented in this are based on the information gathered during the subsurface exploration, information provided by you and past experience with similar projects.

Project 25-252 Page 28

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – BORING LOGS

APPENDIX B – LAB RESULTS

Soil Boring: B-1 Project: KHP Phase 2

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.155530, -84.516901

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 2.6'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25

Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger

Surface Elevation 892.6'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3

2.6

(ASPHALT)

Silty Lean Clay, hard, moist, brown

(CL)

Auger refusal at 2.6'

Samples

D ep th o f S am pl e

(f t)

2.5 ft

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Bl ow

C ou nt s

50/0.2'

U nc or re ct ed

N -V al ue

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

20.40

Graphics Legend

Asphalt

CL

SS - Small Split Spoon

Water Levels

Solid Ground Consulting Engineers, PLLC

Soil Boring: B-2

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.155714, -84.516811

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 0.7'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25 Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger Surface Elevation 893.2'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3 0.7

(ASPHALT)

Gravelly Sand, dry, light gray Auger refusal at 0.7'

Samples

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Graphics Legend

Asphalt

Gravelly Sand

Grab - Grab Sample

Soil Boring: B-3

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.155894, -84.516710

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 1'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25

Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger

Surface Elevation 893'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3

1.0

(ASPHALT)

Gravelly Sand, dry, light gray

Auger refusal at 1'

Samples

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

Graphics Legend

Asphalt

Gravelly Sand

Soil Boring: B-4

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.156076, -84.516618

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 5.1'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25 Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger Surface Elevation 892.7'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3

5.1

(ASPHALT)

Sandy Gravel, firm, dry, gray, (limestone)

5': very dense Auger refusal at 5.1'

Samples

D ep th o f S am pl e

(f t)

2.5 ft

5 ft

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Bl ow

C ou nt s

19-15-8

50/0.1'

U nc or re ct ed

N -V al ue

Graphics Legend

Asphalt

Sandy Gravel

Soil Boring: B-5

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.155588, -84.517084

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 5.2'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25

Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger

Surface Elevation 892.3'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3

5.2

(ASPHALT)

Lean to Fat Clay, very stiff, moist, orangish brown (CL-CH)

5': black mottling, hard, little sand, little gravel Auger refusal at 5.2'

Samples

D ep th o f S am pl e

(f t)

2.5 ft

5 ft

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Bl ow

C ou nt s

5-8-8

50/0.2'

U nc or re ct ed

N -V al ue

Lab

At te rb er g Li m its

(L

L-

PL

-P I)

47-24-23

M oi st ur e C on te nt

24.40

Graphics Legend

Asphalt

CL-CH

Soil Boring: B-6

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.155772, -84.516991

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 3.9'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25 Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger Surface Elevation 892.2'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3

3.9

(ASPHALT)

Lean to Fat Clay, hard, moist, orangish brown, black mottling (CL-CH)

Auger refusal at 3.9'

Samples

D ep th o f S am pl e

(f t)

2.5 ft

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Bl ow

C ou nt s

4-8-50/0.4'

U nc or re ct ed

N -V al ue

Graphics Legend

CL-CH

Asphalt

Soil Boring: B-7

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.155952, -84.516894

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 1.8'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25

Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger

Surface Elevation 892'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3

1.8

(ASPHALT)

Silty Gravel, dry, light gray (GM)

Auger refusal at 1.8'

Samples

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

1.60

Graphics Legend

GM

Soil Boring: B-8

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.156134, -84.516800

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 0.8'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25 Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger Surface Elevation 891.9'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3

0.8

(ASPHALT)

Gravelly Silt, dry, light gray (ML) Auger refusal at 0.8'

Samples

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Graphics Legend

ML

Soil Boring: B-9

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.155654, -84.517270

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 4'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25 Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger Surface Elevation 891.2'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3

4.0

(ASPHALT)

Lean Clay, very stiff, moist, orangish brown, little limestone fragments (CL)

Auger refusal at 4'

Samples

D ep th o f S am pl e

(f t)

2.5 ft

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Bl ow

C ou nt s

5-8-9

U nc or re ct ed

N -V al ue

Graphics Legend

CL

Soil Boring: B-10

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.155842, -84.517179

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 3.8'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25 Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger Surface Elevation 891'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3

3.8

(ASPHALT)

Lean to Fat Clay, hard, moist, orangish brown, little sand, little gravel, dark brown mottling (CL-CH)

Auger refusal at 3.8'

Samples

D ep th o f S am pl e

(f t)

2.5 ft

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Bl ow

C ou nt s

4-5-50/0.3'

U nc or re ct ed

N -V al ue

Graphics Legend

Asphalt

Soil Boring: B-11

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.156016, -84.517089

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 4.7'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n (f t)

G ra ph ic

L og

Rig Type Mobile B-25 Tooling 3-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger Surface Elevation 891'

Visual Classification and Remarks

0.3

4.7

(ASPHALT)

Well-graded Gravel, firm, wet, gray (GW)

Auger refusal at 4.7'

Samples

D ep th o f S am pl e

(f t)

2.5 ft

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

Bl ow

C ou nt s

6-5-7

U nc or re ct ed

N -V al ue

Graphics Legend

At Time of Drilling (ATD)

Asphalt

GW

SS - Small Split Spoon

Water Levels

Water encountered @ 2.5'

Soil Boring: B-12

Location: Lexington, KY Project Number: 25-252

Date Started: 06/23/2025 Date Completed: 06/23/2025 Coordinates: 38.156195, -84.516993

Location Accuracy: Estimated from Google Maps Client Name: Division of Engineering &

Contract Administration Hammer Type: Auto

Method: Auger Depth: 2'

D ep th (f t)

El ev at io n…