Director of Aviation - Regular Meeting

And we will, yes, we will now call the Transportation Infrastructure and Operations Committee to order. Will my colleagues to my left introduce themselves?

Eric Bunch, 4th District. Jonathan Duncan, 6th District.

My colleague to my right. Lindsay French, 2nd District at Large. And online.

Kevin O'Neill, 1st District at Large.

And staff. Bertha Ross, City Clerk's Office. Melissa Cooper, Aviation.

Ken Morgan, Water Services Department.

Jaime Guillen, Creo Department. Jeff Martin, City Manager's Office. John Gronkowski, Law Department.

All right. Well, good morning, everyone. Melissa Robinson, 3rd District and Vice Chair of the Committee. We'll start with the first item.

Ordinance 260523, authorizing the Director of Aviation Department to enter into a $2 million First Amendment to Professional Services Act contract with Vasquez Commercial Contracting for the on-call tenant modification services for a total contract amount of $3,500,000.

Good morning. Vice Chair Woon-Robinson, members of the committee, Jay Liskow with Aviation. To my right is our airport engineer, Dylan James, and to his right is Katrina Bruce, airport architect. Before you today, we have ordinance for Vasquez, our on-call contractor. This is for the downtown airport. This is demolishing an old hangar of ours for some new hangars that are being proposed. Again, this is on the west side of the airport along New Holland Drive. The area is removing an old hangar, as I mentioned, that is not being fully used. but it will allow access to our airport new development hangar. As I mentioned, Vasquez is our on-call contractor. We went through a procurement process, a selection process just about a year ago with them. Had Councilman Curls on the selection as well as not then City Manager Mario Vasquez as well with us with our selection committee. So this contractor has been vetted, has been used with our airport projects, and want to continue to use them for this on-call just to expedite the process for us to keep this development for the new hangars on track. Dylan and James will go into a little more details about the project itself.

All right, so if you don't mind switching to the next slide there. So this gives you a little bit, a better idea of what's going on. So the red X you see on the screen, that is the portion of the hangar that is currently within the new lease line for the new hangar development. So in order for us to make an access path for both construction vehicles and then it'll also be the roadway to the new site. We'll have to remove that portion and Process we will build it back and make sure it's waterproof and all that and still able to use for the You're dancing questions you may have asked for advance and do pass are there any questions Is Vasquez commercial contracting here Thank you for being here today.

I um is there any public testimony oh i'm sorry yes that's okay i just i just want to on the record note that this is not a company affiliated with our city manager yes thank you thank you so he's a very very popular name so hopefully we all assume okay um wonderful thank you all right there's no public testimony is there a motion

Yes, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. I'm used to saying Madam Mayor Pro Tem in my other committee. Right, well, that's not really a raise. I just gave you a promotion. That's not a raise, but okay. Councilman Robinson, Madam Vice Chair, I move that Ordinance Number 260523 be reported out of Committee of the Recommendation of Advance and Depass. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? The motion carries, and we will hear this on Thursday. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right. Next. Oh, just real quick. We have one hold, and that is Director General Services 260602. And there was a request for another hold, but I'm pretty sure we'll have some conversations about that one. It's been held in Committee 260573, so when we get there, we'll probably have some questions about that. But we'll hold 260602 at the chair's ability to hold for one week.

All right.

So next item.

Ordinance 260583, authorizing the manager of procurement services to exceed the $400,000 contract threshold and execute a three-year term in supply contracts for refuse, recycle, and collection services for city facilities with GFLDBA WCA Waste Corp. of Missouri and authorizing the Manager of Procurement Services to amend and extend the contract.

Good morning. Keely Golden, Assistant Chief Procurement Officer. I also have with me the Assistant Solid Waste Manager, Jimmy Lawson. Contract 4435 will provide refuse recycling and collection service for various city departments for city buildings and such other stations and will Include all labor equipment tools materials and transportation the city issued an RFP on January in January 2026 and it closed in February 2026 two suppliers responded we have GFL DBA WCA waste corporation of Missouri and waste management of Kansas incorporated The final award was made to GFL for a three-year contract with three one-year renewal options. We're requesting to exceed $400,000 annual per city code. The anticipated annual spend is $800,000. With a previous five-year contract, it had an annual average of $1 million annual spend. Now I'll hand it over to Jimmy for additional information.

Okay, sorry.

This is a contract for GFL to collect at each of our city facilities, fire stations, parks, etc. We have both trash and recycling at some of these locations. Also, this is for any kind of compactors or roll-offs, like here at City Hall and at conventions.

All right. Are there any questions? Is there any public testimony?

No public testimony.

All right. We'll entertain a motion.

Vice Chair, I move that Ordinance Number 260583 be reported out of committee. The recommendation advanced to pass. Second.

Second. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. We'll hear this on Thursday. Next item.

260591, authorizing the manager of procurement services to exceed the $1 million contract threshold for EVP 2997 with Tyler Technologies for enterprise permitting system from previously appropriated funds and authorizing the manager of procurement services to amend and renew the contract for an additional three years. Three one-year terms.

Good morning. Keely Golden, assistant chief procurement officer. I also have Chief Technology Officer Michael Newhouse with me. Tyler Technologies provides the city's enterprise permitting system that many city departments utilize for processing city permits. This ordinance requests approval for EBP 2997 that exceeds the $1 million contract threshold per city code. We're in year two of this contract and have three additional optional renewal years left. The average annual spend has been $1,686,610. Now I will hand it over to Mike for details on the program.

Good morning, Council. So the Enterprise Permitting System, or EPL as we call it, uh refer to it and its corresponding solutions integration and dependencies are highly used by multiple city departments and the public to automate and centralize land management permitting inspections and code enforcement this includes city planning and development public works neighborhood services and fire department neighborhood services 311 and fire department is mobilized often you might have heard those terms And we are looking to add the health department, a module called Enterprise Health Suite, and it will eliminate three currently unsupported old modules that they are using now and integrate them into our single system.

Questions? Yes, Councilman Duncan.

Thank you for the presentation. When I was reading the docket, I was looking at this, and I was like, this company sounds familiar, and it's because of the same company that Jackson County used to do some of the digital permitting that came under great controversy. And I think what I heard from when I went back and looked at some of the news articles that I read about it was that the way that they were doing it was kind of doing some guesstimation using Google Maps and not doing actual, like, hands-on, like looking at property lines and whatnot. And so I kind of have a question about, you know, given that history, what was the vetting process for this? And, you know, I assumed it went through a usual RFP process. How did we choose this company over the other ones?

This is an EVP, so this is a national cooperative contract. However, the original contract, I would have to go back and verify, but we've had a previous contract with Tyler Technologies that I believe was let through an RFP process. So this is a secondary contract to that, and this is through a national cooperative contract.

You haven't had any of the issues with this company in the past?

Not to those, not to speaking directly to what you are, right? I can't speak to how the exact, how the system is used in each department, right? I can only speak to the overarching architecture, and I'm not aware of those issues currently.

Any other questions? Is there any public testimony for 260591?

There's no public testimony. Is there a motion?

Madam Mayor, I almost did it again. I'm just so in the script from NPD. Madam Vice Chair, I move that Ordinance No. 260591 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance to be passed. Second.

Is it moved and second? All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

All right. The motion carries. Aye. Thank you, sir. And we'll hear this on Thursday. Thank you very much. Okay, so we are holding 260602, and then we do want to go out of order for just a bit and go to 260585, Madam Clerk.

260585, accepting a $528,796 grant award from the Environmental Protection Agency for a construction project that manages and treats stormwater, estimating appropriating $528,796 in the Overflow Control Program, authorizing the Director of Water Services to execute a $1,081,000 construction contract with CM Concrete for the sewer improvements, 20th Street Grand to McGee Project, authorizing a maximum expenditure of $1,300,000 and recognizing this ordinance has had an accelerated effective date.

Good morning, Madam Vice Chair, Andy Shively with Water Services. And joining me at the table to my right is Mr. Noah Pfeffer, project manager for Ordinance 585. I would just like to highlight that half the cost of this project is being funded with the federal, state, and tribal assistance grant. which is great news. And then the owner of CM Concrete is out in the field with Sir Cruz this morning and was not able to attend Madam Vice Chair. And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Noah Pfeffer.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Noah Pfeffer, Water Services. As Andy Shively said, this is a project. It is a sewer improvement project, specifically a stormwater management by a localized sewer separation at 20th Street and McGee. And so what we would be doing is having underground stormwater storage basins and bioretention planting beds with those storage basins below the planting beds. Community outreach. June 15th, we had a meeting with the Crossroads Community Association to discuss the ongoing project. and let them know what we will be doing. And from there, they will be letting their community know at large. And as the project goes under construction, we will be updating the community association of what's going on when we plan to finish. And as of right now, we have got some feedback from them, specifically on the plants for that area. So already getting some good feedback on them. And goals were submitted and approved at 11 and 12. We'll have any questions

I just want to say I know City Manager Vasquez is probably excited to see this project move forward because he's tried to encourage us to use PIAC 4th District for a long time, and we just didn't quite have it. It would be great to see the 20th Street streetscape extend to the east there. So thanks for bringing this to us, and glad we're finally able to spend that EPA grant. It's just been sitting there for a long, long time. So thank you for bringing it to us.

Is there any public testimony? There's no public testimony. Is there a motion?

Madam Vice Chair, I move that Ordinance Number 260585 be reported out of committee with the recommendation in advance that you pass. Second.

All right, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Is there any opposed? All right, the motion carries. We'll hear it on Thursday. And Madam Clerk, if you could go back to 260584 and we'll be back on track.

260584, authorizing the Director of Water Services to execute a $2,079,984 professional specialized or technical services contract amendment number two to contract number 9741 with AECOM Technical Services for the Drinking Water Service Lines Inventory Project for a total contract amount of $5,922,278.

Good morning, Madam Vice Chair and Council Members. My name is David Poyer. I'm Deputy Director of Engineering at Water Services. I have to my right here Kevin White. He's the Interim Division Manager of Facilities, and we'll be working intimately on this project. Ordinance number 260584 is amendment number two. for our drinking water service line materials inventory project. This project is in response to EPA mandates that require us to identify and quantify the number of lead service lines we have in our system. It's a multi-year project. We need to get the inventory completed by November of 27, so this is just really the beginning parts of that project, and Kevin will who's much more knowledgeable about it than I am, will provide additional information.

Go ahead and go to the next slide, please. All right, so like David said, this is a second amendment to a contract for our drinking water service lines project with AECOM, who is our program manager for this effort. So this is a long-term project with AECOM partnered with the city to complete an inventory of unknown service water lines throughout the city as a result of EPA mandates. So what we have here on the screen there is just a very typical illustration of what our service lines look like. in and out our system. We have our water mains that run down city streets, and then from the water main over to the curb stop is a city-owned service line, and then from the curb stop into the house is the customer-owned side of that. So this program is looking at and identifying unknown service lines on both sides of the curb stop, so city-owned and customer-owned. There are four types of lines that we're looking for, lead, galvanized required replacement, also known as GRR, lead status unknown, and then non-lead lines. So that's what this inventory is determining. So we have kind of a timeline here of the project. Like I said, it's a long-term program with AECOM. Right now we're completing pilot studies in two neighborhoods, both Likens and Columbus Park. piloting out what's the best way to notify residents, how to do the work, permitting on the city side for potholing. And with that pilot study, after November of 2027, we'll go into the rest of the city where we have unknowns. We have a large number of unknowns that we're trying to reduce because that lowers impact to residents and also costs. Up on the slide now is just kind of an overview of what the pilot study is aiming to do. Like I said, we're trying to identify unknown lines, trial the notification system for customers. We've also created several tools out of this that I have individual slides on that we can go through if you guys have questions about those, and then also confirming the accuracy of our historical records. So this is just an overview of the four different types of lines, like I said, that are required to be inventoried in result of the EPA mandate. Like David said, we're just in the very beginnings of actually getting out into the field and verifying our records. So we're in the process of trying to reduce these numbers as much as possible before November of 2027, because once that compliance date hits, we are required to Verify and replace 10% per year for the next 10 years so out through 2037 so the lower this number we can get the better off that we are Like I said, we've been trialing a couple of tools to help with customer engagement. We do have a website where we've got program information. We've got a self-reporting tool. If individual customers would prefer to self-report rather than have city crews show up and pothole to verify, there is that option as well. And we also have some educational materials there on what the program is. And then last, we are working on populating an online map for service lines that we've verified so that customers can see in and around their neighborhoods what's been verified, what materials have been noted in the service lines that we have been able to verify. And that's what's up on the screen now. And then lastly, another requirement of this program is we do have to notify everyone on the inventory, unknown and galvanized lines, in November of every year. So we send this letter out to them. And then it's got all the website information, phone lines. We do have a dedicated phone line for this program that we command in Parsons, who is our communications specialist on this program. So what we're trying to show here is we have several different ways for customers to engage with the program other than us just showing up and potholing in their streets and in their yards. Next steps with this program, like I said, the compliance dates November 2027. And at that time, we have to submit a baseline inventory. That inventory includes anything that we have not verified as part of our pilot study, records review, self-reporting, et cetera. And then, like I said, we are required to replace 10% of those over the next 10 years of the compliance through 2037. Then again, this is just another illustration of how we're trying to engage with the city constituents. We have a webpage, we have an email, we have a hotline, and all of that's, the reporting tool and all of that is on our webpage. Last slide for this. We do have minority and women-owned business goals of 10%, minority and 10% women-owned business that we are meeting with this amendment. With that, I welcome any questions.

Yes, Councilman Duncan.

Madam Vice Chair. So back on slide six. To get this straight, In 2024, you had about 28,000. You were able to reduce that by about 3,000 to about 25,000 unknown. And by 2027, any that remain unknown, you have to replace? Is that right?

Yeah, so they would be in our baseline inventory report to the state, and then we'd have to have a plan for replacement of those over the next 10 years.

Not of unknowns? We replace the unknowns?

Yeah.

Way easier. All right. So you were able to knock out 3,000 in a year. It's 2026. You're going to have to... Multiply that by six in order to hit. How are you going to do that? Math's hard.

To get that number to zero?

Yeah, 24,000. Eight, excuse me.

So, you know, I don't think we're going to be able to achieve that by the compliance date of 2027 is the answer.

Just to that question, is there an opportunity for an extension?

I would comment that the regulations around this are evolving. So I think EPA understands the cost component associated to it and the burden on the rate payer if we indeed had to replace all unknowns when it's a matter of an effort of trying to identify what those unknowns are. So there's... Plenty of grant money out there for us to do this work, and that's why we've engaged AECOM, quite frankly, to accelerate and reduce the number of unknowns as soon as possible.

Yes.

Are we on track to?

So you mentioned the possibility of an extension, and there is a possibility of an extension. As Jeff mentioned, a lot of the regs around these programs are evolving. And so one of the major components is that we show progress in terms of our reporting ability, the program in terms of identification. And so that's going to be a critical piece. The other thing, additionally, is the regulator's understanding of what to do with the galvanized pipe. And that's going to impact the program as well. And so those pieces of the program are still being evaluated, and we are expecting additional information that will have a direct impact on the timelines as well as what we are essentially required to report. By that November 2027 date, essentially when we can show that we are in progress with our program, and that we are moving toward identification and we have a concerted effort to do that, then I think those things become a part of their acceptance in terms of the process that we're up on.

When do we submit that progress? How often do we submit that progress?

It could be an annual. What we do have to do is by that November 27th date is to give a status report. Additionally, in communication with the regulators during the process, it gives us the ability to keep them informed on where we are as well.

Okay, that was my question. Just how often do we update the progress that we know before that date of November 27th that we have to replace?

So as often as we desire. I think what our goal is is that we move toward when we begin to see some consistency in where we are in between now and then is just to have dialogue with them to show them where we are. And other agencies across the country are doing the same thing as well.

Gwen Bunche.

um so i just let's assume that we're not going to get a respite or uh from this and we what does this practically speaking mean for the homeowner for example so for example i I have my house. I've got a water line. If mine is unknown November 2027, then it has to be replaced. Does that come at my expense as a homeowner to replace that service line?

First, I'd say we're in a unique position here at KC Water because If you look at the slide here, you see zero leads. So a normal, typical municipality of our age would have a certain number of leads, you know, already identified by November of 2027. So the goal of the program is to replace 10% per year. So I don't think the regulation actually ever contemplated a situation where an infrastructure of our, you know, age of our infrastructure would have zero leads and all these unknowns, see? So I think, I believe if I'm a bed man that we wouldn't have to be obligated to replace those unknowns. That would be the first, that would be my first comment. Go ahead.

Well, just one thing specifically to your question, Councilman Duncan. The baseline inventory gets submitted in 2027. We then have seven years to validate that and continue to reduce our unknowns. So over the seven of the 10 compliance years, we'd be continuing this program, validating unknowns, determining what the materials are, There are opportunities for regulations to change on the galvanized side of things, but we do have an additional seven compliance years within the 10 to further validate unknowns. I would have led with that.

Additionally, what part of the

The regulation requires that a property owner, if you go to the slide that has our responsibility versus the homeowner, the homeowner has the option of signing a waiver, saying that they'll take responsibility of their portion of the system as well. And so that's one of the components of the program.

As far as cost to the ratepayer, Councilman, we've identified- grant money, state grant money to cover the planning portion of this. So as we work the seven years to verify our inventory is considered part of the planning part. So the good news is that we have identified currently in this fiscal year a funding stream in the form of grants to identify unknowns and so quite frankly when we get to the portion of replacement it could be a little more complicated at that point right now we don't have any lead lines now do I think we won't find any lead lines no but I'm hoping to keep that number quite small

Where it has these numbers on the table on page six, I assume non-lead is you've got pecs and all sorts of different types of material. Copper. Man, burying copper is pretty crazy, but I'm guessing some people do it. And then unknown could be any of those. It could be... bamboo for all we know um but it it's it's most likely it's a lot of probably galvanized i would assume as well but so there's no obligation for a property owner to replace galvanized if they find that they have galvanized at this point at this point um And then how do we, so we know that there is zero lead because that's what we've found so far. We've verified that all the ones that we've checked are not lead. And so, but some of the unknowns, what you're saying here is could be lead. Okay. Why don't, did we just like not buy into, just have a contractor back in the early 20th century just did galvanized and that was it? How do we avoid not having lead? Because it's pretty wild that there's like none so far.

I think over the years across the country, a lot of municipalities require when new houses were built, new developments were built to use the current service line material that was That was the current material at the time. And so that's how that evolved. Now, in some communities, why you still may see lead is say the home was built when there was the dominant service line material. and that home was transferred within the family as opposed to being sold. Because if that house had been sold, then the requirement would be for the new owner to replace the land. But let's say if your ancestor gave you a house and it was still land, those would be some of the reasons that same pipe material would be existing. Same way with the galvanized. If you buy a house, then the requirement would be to switch out the service line material, whereas if the house was transferred, then that existing or the primary material may still be the one in existence. And so that's how you get it to go down. And then, you know, doing a lot of that error, records were not accurately kept in terms of identifying what the service line material, you know, was. You know, even some of the mains and some of those developed areas to identify what those pipe materials were, the records were not as accurate. And so That's one of the reasons why we have a number of unknowns that we have to go through and evaluate what their material is.

I had several questions as well. You mentioned 2027. Does that represent the year in which we have to have the identification?

That's the baseline inventory date. That's the start of the compliance program.

So November of 2027 is when the rule takes effect?

Okay, and then you also mentioned seven years.

Yeah, so compliance start date is November of 2027. All the work we've been doing to date is to respond to that November 2027 date. On November of 2027, municipalities have 10 years to replace all of these lines that are lead lines, galvanized, requiring replacement. We have seven years within the ten years, so seven years from November of 2027 to further identify unknowns so that we can reduce the number of lines that need to be replaced.

Okay, so it's three years of planning and then the seven years. Okay, so on this... Oh, go ahead.

Not quite that. So it's the first seven years, and then from year 8, 9, and 10, we would just be doing the replacement activity.

Okay. And so if we replace 10% of the lines, how much would that cost the city?

Well, so 10% of what? See, that's the challenge. Oh, because you don't have the analysis. Right? Currently, we're only obligated to replace lead lines. And then there's this evolving issue with GRRs, which are galvanized lines that could potentially, we're not sure, potentially have lead in them because of the zinc inside of it.

And that was the other question of this. I mean, we know non-lead, that's not bad. But the galvanized...

It potentially could be. Again, we don't know. Quite frankly, regulation is evolving. So once the EPA clarifies the rule, then we'll be able to report back to the committee and tell you exactly what we're supposed to do.

Okay. And then my last question, just to build upon what Councilman Bunch talked about, If a homeowner has to or wants to have safe drinking water and to replace the line, what is the average cost of that?

Oh, geez. I'm hesitant to say what the cost is. It's site-specific, right? So depending upon how much pipe, how length of pipe, depth, all those factors vary into the cost for a water line replacement. But I will say we are sensitive to this situation and that if we do identify a lead line that We want to partner with the homeowner in a way to provide some level of financial assistance to get that accomplished.

Current dollars between $3,000 and about $10,000. Between $3,000 and $10,000.

Okay, and that's a very important conversation to start having now because people need to be able to prepare for that. As we're planning and we're finding state money to do our part of the planning, We have to ensure that folks are prepared for this type of expense in addition to the high cost of water. I know that this is something totally different, but our residents and citizens are feeling the weight of how costs are going up. So I'm curious about how are we preparing people How are we communicating what this means? How are we democratizing this information so people aren't shocked if we do find lead or some of these galvanized pipes? Because this unknown bucket is still very large. And so the 24,827 lines that this $2 million that we're spending today, what is that number going to be after this $2 million is spent?

That's a good question. So once again, it's going to be more dependent upon the rule change, the regulation changes, and that's going to be the key. What we've done when this program began, we communicated throughout to identify the customers, what the program was about, the program components. In one of the previous slides that identified the over approximately 70,000 letters that were sent out for selected areas that were impacted. so that we can inform them. Website access for customers to be able to go on the website and identify their location to know and understand the possibility of what their service lines are. Those are the things that we've done. As we get more information, the key for us is to communicate that to the rate payers. What we don't want to do is to communicate something and then it changes. And then what we told them is different than what we said. As the regs change, we are current in accurately communicating the information that we receive so that our customers will be informed.

Okay, so again, with the $2 million, sir, when you go back to the slide of the 24,827 unknowns and the 129,959 galvanized, what would the target be after we spend this $2 million? And is that something you maybe could email to us? Because I think we should be asking how far our money is going to take us as it relates to this project.

My response to that question would be the objective of the $2 million of design professional services from AECOM is targeted to provide regulatory compliance, all right? And then it's also RPR services, which is construction phase services. As we engage contractors to do the work to identify the unknowns, they're helping us manage that effort. So the number's going to be the number. You know, we're going to aggressively do the work to meet the November 2027 baseline deadline. We're all wanting to reduce rate payers. All of us want to reduce the unknowns. We want to identify what that pipe material is. So the $2 million is really targeted to reduce that number. The number is going to be the number, right?

It's going to tell us with the expense of this money and based upon how it's used and what it's used for, it's going to tell us to scale what we may need based upon what the regulations change may be. So in other words, between now and November 27, when we look at identifying and clarifying the unknowns, the amount of money spent for that, identifying in the field the clarification of that, how many of those services we get done, how many we get identified with the utilization of this money based upon what the regs modify to and what we've done, that's going to let us know what potentially could be additional expenses moving forward. And so that's what we'll be able to know. At this point in time, with the regs changing and with our process of identification being what it is, once we get into this, we'll be more accurately able to determine from what the additional amount expended would be based upon transferring that to what we need when those are identified and what we need to do to clarify, replace, or remove those ones that we've identified.

Okay. Um, I, you know, this brings me some level of consternation because what I hear we are saying is that, you know, the feds are making us do it. The feds are making us do it and the feds may change. And so maybe we shouldn't do it. But as someone who's concerned about, you know, all of us are concerned about the health and safety of our residents. We know that lead pipes are bad. We know that galvanized pipes could potentially be bad. And so we as a city have to ensure that we're not only addressing unfunded mandates, which we know are hard, but we're also looking out for the health and safety of our community and the fact that we're spending $2 million and we don't have a more targeted specific outcome is a little challenging. And so what I would just recommend is that we just do a do pass and perhaps We can have further conversation this week.

I'd like to do that because I think what we have is a process that clarifies where we're going.

So the process is good, but I want to say, I want to see or delve into, which we don't necessarily have all the time to do today, is, okay, we're spending $2 million. This is what we spent, $5.9 million. We'll potentially be spending more next year. This is where, where's that third... bucket of 2026 where does the where our targets for 2026 after we spend the dollars and so i understand that it's complicated but yeah so okay councilman brunch yeah um just i irrespective of of whether we do it right

Thursday or next Thursday. I just wanted to say that my understanding of even if there are lead pipes, I just don't want people to panic because I think even even though it's, what, 12 years ago or so, the Flint water crisis is still in people's minds. I do just want to say my understanding is that just because there is a lead line doesn't necessarily mean that lead is going to be in your water. And the Flint water crisis was caused primarily because they switched sources of water. It went from the river to the lake to the river, or vice versa. Is that accurate that it's that I just don't want people to panic because the second that I found out about this like a year ago, I was like, oh, no, people are going to see lead and panic and think that we're headed towards the Flint water crisis and we're not. But is it accurate to say that? that a lead pipe doesn't necessarily mean that there's lead in the water.

That's correct. Actually, the way you described the Flint, Michigan situation is a good representation of what occurred there. What we do here at KC Water, first of all, we haven't changed the source in over, what, almost 100 years? Well, we've got a river flowing there that we might as well use. And the second component is we do treat the water with orthophosphates, and that creates a lining with the inside diameter of the pipe, and that prevents water from dissolving lead and getting into the drinking water system. So we treat for that. We test constantly for that. We're actually regulatory mandated to test the water for lead levels, and we haven't had any hits, at least that I'm aware of.

Additionally, I'd be... more concerned than I am now if that number on that table under lead had some items there and currently they don't but at the same time with us understanding having to determine what the unknowns are And so we're at a point of uncertainty, and it's not that we don't have a plan. The plan is to identify these and to prepare to replacement. So that's the focus that we have, and it's a process that we have to go through so we can more accurately not only do the work, have the perform work with professionals that are assisting us, but to accurately report to this body what we've done. And so those things... in terms of what we're planning to do, how we're planning on doing it. Those things are accurately identified in this material. And so I look forward to any further discussion and answering any further questions that may result.

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair. From 2024 to 2025, we reduced the unknown by about 3,000. Can we assume that's a good target for this next iteration?

So how we reduce that number is a lot of historical records that we have paper files of. We're still completing that process. We're completing the pilot study. I think it's about 400 homes that we're going to be out actually verifying or determining what the service line materials are. So I don't think that's unreasonable, but I would like to consult with our professionals before we commit to something.

To Councilman Robinson's point, if we're looking to reduce, we've said that we want to get the unknowns to zero, and we have this year and then potentially seven more years for the compliance, then we have eight years to take 24,827 unknowns to zero. What I would like to see, and I think what Councilman Robinson would like to see, is what is our plan to get to zero within that eight years? The second question to Councilman Bunch is, I think a lot of homeowners have the service line water protection insurance for your service line. If my home is found to have a lead pipe that needs to be replaced, is that covered under that? Can we find out?

We'd have to provide information because the service providers, it's almost like an insurance policy. The service providers identify the provisions of their coverage. And so we can look at the ones that are currently available in the service area and then we can provide information to you regarding that. I want to look again at the November 2027 date. And as Kevin mentioned, going beyond that, because the, November 2027 date is a baseline date it's really just a date that we identify to this point what we have we have seven years additionally to clarify and then we have an additional three years or so to reduce totally so it's not like you know November 27 we need to say here it is and so it's really a status reporting it's what it is and so that's the focus and And I'm more than confident that what is before us, we will get accomplished in the time frame. And in a manner that you will feel more comfortable with what we're doing and what we're saying. I'm more than confident we will be able to accomplish that.

Yeah, and that is extremely helpful to understand the 2027 and the 10 years and the 7 years, you know, all of the things. But as we see that we're a little bit over 10% of the unknowns, that naturally causes some level of anxiety or like, are we going to be able to get this addressed? And then just finally, and I know we need to move on, but I hear what my colleague is saying about lead and the issues of lead. And I received a letter, so I know that the 70,000 letters have gone out. But even as someone who attends this committee every week, there still is a lot of questions, and we need to do a better job, and not saying that we're not trying, but we need to do a better job of connecting to people to help them understand what's going on so that the panic doesn't set in so that people are prepared, so that people know. But sending 70,000 letters out and directing people to a website unfortunately is not sufficient. So I would just look for us to be more creative in how we're going to reach people regarding this unfunded mandate and help to make sure that they're just as educated as we are so that they can make sure that their families are safe and they have that level of certainty. So, yeah.

And I want to just add to, um, I was concerned when we first found out about this, um, this unfunded mandate, um, that people were going to panic. They're going to get these letters in the mail. They're going to be like, Oh my goodness, I've got lead. This is, um, but I was, I'm sorry.

And it also says on the letter, if I'm not mistaken, like run your water for so many minutes. Um, did I, did, did I make that up?

It provided, uh, steps of process in terms of understanding the process. So what it does, when you look at the letter, it identifies and spells out the program, the intent of the program. It also identifies that for homeowners that are going to be evaluating their systems themselves, here are some of the steps that you do to evaluate.

Yeah, that's scary.

But I'm sorry to interrupt you. Yeah, no worries. I... I don't remember that, but I also fail to read often. But what I was surprised by when, you know, I talked to the consultant who's doing a lot of the community engagement on this and just the PR stuff, and I I was concerned about that, you know, that it was going to create some panic. And then I was surprised to see, like, when this got out on social media, there were very thoughtful responses from the general public saying, like, oh, no, this is what this means. Because someone did say. And I saw the same thing on the. on Reddit, on the St. Louis Reddit, and they had the same thing. And again, there were people just saying, no, pump the brakes. It's going to be fine. Just be patient. So I was, I was happy to see that the general, but yeah, But that's maybe one subset of the community who's highly engaged, especially on Reddit. That's not necessarily... But it was just good to see that the word was getting out to the point where people were using these talking points fairly accurately. So it seems like they're to kind of... Not debating, but I was impressed to see that... some subset of the public was fairly well educated on it. So there's some work being done that's been really good. So thanks.

I have to agree, because I've had several conversations with the consulting firm as well, making sure that it didn't cause widespread panic. And I think they've done a pretty good job so far. But to the Councilwoman's point, just Having those conversations, again, going to the people, going to the public, instead of just sending letters in the mail, just saying, directing them to a website, making them having to spend extra time to go do something or research for themselves. But making sure, especially in these pilot programs that we're doing, going to the neighbors, going to the neighborhood, talking to them, going if there's a library close or if there's a grocery store close or if there's something there that we have, something set up, a table, a booth or something that people can ask questions or have more engaging conversations.

Yeah, because there are individuals who, myself included, who went to Michigan to deliver water during the Flint crisis. And trusting the government is not something that a lot of people and not everyone in our community is going to be apt to do. And so... When we talk about these things, it brings up a level of anxiety. It brings up a level of trauma. Yes, it's not something that we ask for. This is something the EPA is doing in which At the time that this was instituted, there is, you know, stronger, there was stronger trust, you know, in the EPA of trying to make sure that we're keeping our community safe. They didn't just pull this out the air and say, just do this. Nobody's going to get sick because if they have a lead pipe, just do it. That's not the premise of this. And so let's not pretend that, you know, everything is peaches and cream. let's make sure people understand the risk and that we're helping to you know mitigate those but we have to do a better job of again democratizing this information so and I will promise to be quiet there I will not say another word okay all right is there a any public testimony Is there a motion? And if we could do do pass that'd be great.

Yes Madam Vice Chair, I move that order number 260584 be report out of committee with recommendation of do pass. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Is there any opposed? All right the motion carries. Thank you all so much for your hard work. We appreciate it. Thank you.

All right next item. Ordinance 260586 authorizing the Director of Water Services to execute a $1,000,000 $39,588 general service contract with Environmental Works for the water treatment plant basin cleaning. Renewal number four project authorizing a one successive one year renewal option with further city council approval and recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Council Members. David Poyer, Deputy Director of Engineering at KC Water. I have to do the right to me, Jarek Lucky, who is the plant operator and manager for our water treatment plant. Ordinance number 260586 is our renewal number four for the basin cleaning. Now, basin cleaning is a biannual annual cleaning process that allows Kansas City Water Supply Division to to maintain the system, remove lime and sediment that's built up over time, part of our lime softening process. And it's relatively complicated, and I have Jarek here to tell you more about it.

No problem. Good morning. Jarek Lucky, KC Water. Don't get an opportunity to come here, but good morning, TINO committee. Just so everybody knows, some of you probably might already know, but this plant is turning 100 years old. this year. So 1926. So as part of our proactive measures, and as was alluded to, we needed a three-month process in the fall and the spring to support operational efficiencies in our treatment process. And in particular, our treatment process is basically the deconstruction of the Missouri River water. And in doing so, obviously, we have a buildup of parts and materials. And of course, that calcification becomes a very serious problem in the efficiencies of our plant. And so we have to get in there, and for three months in the spring and the fall, we have to clean, scour, and chisel away at the plant to make sure it gets back into its optimal efficiency standpoint. So from a simplicity standpoint, we need this in place so we can keep providing safe drinking water for the city. And I believe we've met the goals required, so sorry.

Oh, yes, so the goals for this project, NBEWB, are 1111, and the awarded contractor will be meeting those goals with firms on the slide here. Any questions? Questions?

Are you with the contractor? No. Is the contractor here? Okay, all right. Okay, great.

I just want to make sure.

Environmental Works, thank you for being here. He's one of us. And then the other ordinance, AECOM, is anyone here from AECOM? They were here? Okay, great. You all take time out of your morning, so I just want to make sure I recognize you for being here. Thank you. So back to this. I did ask about insourcing, and the staff shared that this is specialized, and it also, the equipment that it takes, it's not fiscally prudent to have this as an insourcing. internal function of the water department. Is that correct? That is correct.

Considering it's a twice a year process, it would be costly to maintain that equipment.

Okay. My former colleague, Councilman Ellington, will be proud that I'm keeping up his, taking up his, yeah, that part. Okay, are there any other questions? All right. If there's none, is there any public testimony?

No public testimony.

Is there a motion?

Yes, Madam Vice Chair. I move that ordinance number 260587 be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance and due pass.

All in favor, please indicate. Second. Oh, second. Sorry. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion carries. All right. Thank you so very much. All right. Next item.

2-6-0-5-8-6.

I passed. I moved the wrong one.

Yeah. Oh, okay. 5-8-7. 5-8-6. It was 5-8-6. 5-8-6.

Okay.

Can we redo that?

Yep. Okay. Go ahead. Madam Vice Chair, I move that Ordis number 2-6-0-5-8-6 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance and do pass. Second.

All right. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. The motion carries. Thank you.

Water services there.

I know. It's the water show. We love it. It's the water show. I know.

Tell me how much water I've been drinking.

260587. Authorizing the Director of Water Services to execute a $7,953,132 construction contract with Leith & Sons for the water main replacement in the area of Smart Avenue to Van Brunt Boulevard, East... 14th Street to Jackson Avenue project, authorizing a maximum expenditure of $8,748,445, and recognizing this ordinance as having an accelerated effective date.

Good morning, Madam Vice Chair and Council Members. Again, my name is David Poyer. I'm Deputy Director with KC Water, and I have to the right of me Namisha Sananayake, who is the Division Manager of Water Distribution Engineering. Ordinance number 260587 is part of the annual water main replacement program that aims to replace approximately 1% of the system annually. This particular project is the second project we've brought before council and so far in the program we've, let me go to the next slide, sorry. Here's the table indicating that we've advertised three of the ten projects slated for this year, and we are currently on track to advertise all ten of those projects. So today we've advertised 5.67 miles, and like I said, we are on track to meet goals for this project. I'll have Namisha tell you a little bit more about this project.

Good morning. So a little bit about the project. We are replacing approximately 15,000 linear feet of break-prone aging water mains with this project. And it includes water mains of various sizes, 6, 8, 12, 16-inch. And the contractor of this project would be Leith & Sons. The water service department is undertaking this project to improve distribution system reliability, increase hydraulic conveyance capacity, support fire protection. And also by this, we are replacing cast iron pipe with ductile iron pipe. Next slide. A little bit about the public engagement. Before we issue the notice to proceed, there will be a public meeting. So postcards will be mailed out ahead of time to affected customers and also there will be like a project layout sheet or project information sheet on our website. KC Water and city leaders will be invited internally and this is an opportunity for customers to ask any questions and meet the team and we'll share information about the project activity, how it's going to impact and a general timeline. Additionally, during the construction phase of the project, Customers already have the information of the project manager and the contractor so they can reach out to us anytime and also Contractors would notify the customers ahead of time before service disruption or traffic disruption So we already have the goals approved on July 1st with 11% MBE and 11% WBE, MBE firm Diggs Construction, WBE firm EJ and Sons Construction and Street Vice.

Will anyone take any questions you have on this ordinance?

Questions? Is Leith and Sons here today with us? All right. Thank you for coming, sir. Okay. Are there, is there a motion? Or is there a public testimony? I apologize. A public testimony. Okay. Is there a motion?

Yes. Madam Vice Chair, I move that ordinance number 260587 be reported out of committee with recommendation in advance. I do pass.

Second. Is the move and second all in favor? Please indicate by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Are there any opposed? All right, the motion carries, and we'll hear this on Thursday. Thank you. Next item.

260588, authorizing the manager of procurement services to execute a $1 million construction contract with She Digs It for renewal number one for the water main replacement subsidiary replacement two project and recognizing this ordinance as having an accelerated effective date.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Council Members. David Poyer, Deputy Director, Casey Water. I have to my right, Namisha Sananayake, who is the manager of water distribution engineering. Ordinance number 260588 is renewal number one of the subsidiary replacement contract. What this contract allows us to do is it supports the water main replacement program as it allows us to replace water mains that weren't initially selected for water main replacement within that given year. So basically gives us a $1 million buffer to identify, to replace those segments that for whatever reason missed the risk assessment and we've identified as being maintenance heavy and break prone. go out into the system. It allows us to then utilize. We've already identified the contractor. They're qualified to do the work, have a good working relationship with us, so they do the work to spec and accomplish in a timely manner. Goals for this project, I think originally we're 11-11, and since SDI is a women-owned business, they'll be self-performing the women-owned part and And they got the South 71 Trucking and Tynum Contractors as the MBE. Questions?

And is there any public testimony? No public testimony. Is there a motion?

Madam Vice Chair, I move that ordinance number 260588 be reported out of command with the recommendation of advance to be passed.

Second. So moved and seconded. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. All right, the motion carries. Is she Dixit in the audience? All right. Thank you, sir, for being here. All right, next item.

260590, authorizing the Director of Water Services to execute a $9,417,389 amendment number one for the phase two services to the progressive design-build contract with Burns & McDonald's Engineering for the Northland Transmission Pumping and Storage Project for the total contract of $10,517,000.

thousand three hundred eighty nine dollars and recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date morning madam vice chair Robinson and council members David Poyer deputy director of engineering at water services I have to the right of me Namesha Sananayake who is the manager of water distribution engineering ordinance number two six zero five nine zero is Amendment one to our Northland transmission pumping and storage project This project is was procured as a progressive design build project it aims to Provide system upgrades to serve the North service level This project will will replace aging infrastructure Increased system reliability and support increased development that we've observed in the Northland and Since it's a, let's see, I got some slides here to talk a little bit more about it. So here's the map of the Northland service level. What you can see there in the yellow, I believe those yellow lines are significant existing water infrastructure components. Number one there at the very bottom is at our plant. This pump station is known as the Northland Secondary Pump Station. takes treated water and pumps it and distributes it up north to the north service level. Then we have the booster region, which is immediately north of the north service level, where we have to pump it again to maintain pressures within the system and maintain an appropriate level of service. This project aims to upgrade two major components of that delivery system. We'll be looking at upgrades to the Northland secondary pump station that will provide the required flow of water. to the north service level, and then also at the Arrowhead Pump Station. That's where you see the water tower at the top there. That is our Arrowhead Pump Station off 169, and it will additionally pump water up to the north booster service level. So Burns and McDonald is the progressive design-build contractor for this project. So design-build means that they're both responsible for design and construction. In order to meet scheduled requirements, this amendment will provide about $1.5 million for the procurement of long lead time items such as pumps and specialized piping and electrical components. This is the infamous pump number six. This is an aging out pump that really needs to be replaced. So part of this project will replace pump number six and increase the capacity. What you see there in this picture is a natural gas driven pump that we only use in emergency peak times. And it's really a maintenance nightmare for us. So I know Jarek is very supportive of this project. The goals for this project are 1111 Burns McDonald be achieving meeting those goals through the duration of the project And they're 1111 and the firm's identified are shown there. So I'm people want to take any questions you might have about this project Being none is there any public testimony?

There's no public testimony their motion Yes, madam

Vice Chair, I move that Ordinance Number 260590 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance to be passed.

Second. Mr. Moved and seconded. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Is there any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you so much. And is this your last one, Mr. Poirier?

Great job. Amazing job today.

Thank you for all your hard work.

the work of your department all right next item 260607 authorizing the director of public works to execute a 1 million 497 thousand five hundred ninety six dollar construction contract with sarah construction for sidewalk repairs authorizing the director of public works to enter contract changes by up to 20% and recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date.

Morning, Chair and committee members. Mark Montgomery with Public Works was the Associate Director of Construction, and next to me is Sam Akula, Anything and everything right now. I'm here to talk to you about Ordinance 206-607. We presented last week on basically the south Goban sidewalk replacement. This is the north sidewalk Goban replacement sidewalks. This is the one with basically covering Districts 1, 2, and 3. It was a John's and Bobby Sarai construction and Sarai Construction Inc. is going to be doing the job for us for Districts 1, 2, and 3. John or Bobby would be here today, but they are at a pre-con that we're doing right now for the citywide ADA projects back at our office. which is very useful to have. Let me go to this slide. This is us doing basically sidewalk replacement where we're doing our spot repairs. That actually looks like a lot more than a spot repair. This is another shot of us doing our shaving where we can shave off an inch and a half of sidewalk to try to get it to last another 10 to 20 years at a lot less cost. We can go through each slide if you guys want to. This is a District 1. This is how we're doing our selections this year, is using the walkability that we came and talked to you guys, each council member, about. This is District 1, and then there's District 2, and then there's District 3 on the walkability. We'll be going into those districts and working on the primary walkability one that we agreed to with you guys. Questions?

Any questions? All right. Is there any public testimony?

No public testimony. Is Sarai? Oh, you said they're at a pre-conference, so they're excused.

Okay. Is there a motion?

Madam Vice Chair, I move that Ordinance No.

Yes, sir.

I move that Ordinance No. 260607 be reported out of committee with a recommendation in advance that you pass. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Is there any opposed?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you. Madam Chair, can you read the last item? Ordinance 260573, reducing appropriations by $550,000 in the Capital Improvement Fund for the Street Resurfacing Project, appropriating $550,000 from the inappropriate funds. balance in the Capital Improvement Fund to the Northeast Vivian Road Streetscape Project, recognizing this ordinance as having an accelerated effective date.

Okay, and so our colleague, Councilman Member Rea, introduced this item, and he's here today. We have staff. There was also a request to hold, so we can talk about that after the presentation. So, Mr. Rea, Councilman Rea, did you?

Yeah, I'll let them go with their presentation. My commentary is mostly on the request for a hold. Yes, sir.

Okay, all right. Thank you.

Good morning, committee. My name is Nicholas Bossinetto, city engineer. I'm with me. I have Todd Latarella, assistant city engineer. This project here is Vivian Road. It goes from Highland all the way to Choteau. And basically, we are adding a 10-foot shared use path. Right now, there's no pedestrian connections. The trail ends at Highland, and then you have, of course, all the commercial area at Choteau and Vivian. So basically we're building a 10-foot wide concrete shared use path on the sort of north side and doing, you know, carbon gutter drainage, intersection improvements, all those things. This project's been in making for many, many years, and we've been accumulating funds for the last seven, eight years, different sources of funding. We have federal grants, MoDOT's giving us funding. We have some geobonds, some PIACs, some TIF money. And then this final $550,000 kind of helps us get us to where we need to be for construction, hopefully going out to bid later this year. Any questions?

You mentioned the different sources of capital. Can you go through the amounts?

Sure. So basically, we have TIF money. So TIF money in total, we have about $850,000 from various TIFs. MoDOT is giving us $2.7 million. Clay County money is almost $5 million. Geobond, we have $434,000. PIAC, we have $613,000 in total. And then who did I mention? The grant funding. in the grant money, it's about $1.1 million in grants. So there's sort of a breakdown.

Thank you. Councilman O'Neill?

Yeah, I just want to say I worked on this last term when this was in our district. And I know that we had come up with several different funding sources and over the period of years, and I think at one point we even took some money of that to purchase a store selling liquor and stuff by the apartments down on Antioch Road, Antioch and 210. So, I guess this has been a long time in the works and I really support this project because that area has been underserved for many years and the plan was good and I think it's just taken way too long to get it done. So that's all I'd say.

I too concur with my colleague. I totally support this ordinance and I'm glad we were able to diversify the funding mix and such, bringing Clay County along and all the different sources of funding. It just seems like a no-brainer to use this funding from street resurfacing to get the project over the finish line. Councilman Raya, you had a, oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Bunch.

Yeah, and I may be stealing what Councilman Raya is about to say, but part of the reason why we are doing it this way is because we had swept the TIF surpluses. to go into street resurfacing, even though we had already discussed this as a point. So I just want to clarify that this isn't dipping into street resurfacing outside of what we were already planning on the same funding source and using here. So this is just... Unfortunately, the way this body, I mean the full city council, decided to sweep the surplus TIFs to go to street resurfacing while this was sort of at the finish line. Not just a home stretch, but a few steps from the finish line. And so this was our solution to...

plugging that hole that was created from that that that tip sweep so anyway I just wanted to add that context so in case there are any questions anything else from the committee right to the sponsor yeah I would ask the committee to pass it out with an advance and do pass there was a recommendation to hold it so that folks can better understand the the funding structure. I, you know, talked to staff. There wasn't an issue with holding it one week. So I just always try to, you know, if folks want more information, there's no consequence to a hold. I try to support it. But certainly it's up to the body if there is a motion to hold it.

Can I If I could comment on that.

Okay, yes, sir.

I've spoken with the mayor's office, with members of the committee. I'm not clear on where the request for the hold is coming or who is making the request for the hold or what the basis for the request for the hold is. And so while I think, you know, a hold for one week usually isn't fatal, I still think holds should be based on something and a good reason. And we've got the funding capital stack right in front of us. And so I would ask that the committee not hold it absent some legitimate reason to do so. This project has been going on for years, and you might say, what is one week worth? Well, we've been saying that for a long time, and this thing needs to get moving.

And just to respond to the legitimate reason, the reason was to better understand the funding sources. And so I understand we have a presentation today, and I appreciate the presentation. but just wanted to convey what was shared with me. Okay, Councilman O'Neill.

Yeah, I was just going to suggest, and if the sponsor doesn't have a problem with this, if we passed it without advance and just put it in the first readings, would that be, that gives anybody a chance that needs to, check on the finances. I don't see an issue with the finances since the capital stack, as Councilman Ray has said. But to be fair to anybody that does have an issue and wants to find out more, they'd have a week to see that.

Councilman Dunn. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Councilman Dunn. I'm not on the committee.

This presentation is helpful, and I would recommend a due pass.

Okay. All right, great. Is there any public testimony

No public testimony.

All right. Do you want to make that motion or whoever wants to make the do pass motion? Okay.

Yeah. Um, and also could I be added as a sponsor to this?

Can I also be added as a sponsor?

Yeah, please add me too.

Um, yeah. Uh, and that advice chair moves that orders number two, six, zero five, seven, three be report out of committee of the recommendation of do pass.

Second. It's been moved in second. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Is there any opposed? All right, the motion carries. We'll hear this, not this Thursday, but the following meeting. Thank you so much for your hard work on this. The meeting is, any additional business to come before the? Okay, all right, any?

There's no additional business other than the semi-annual docket items.

Okay, do we have them? We're not taking action on those today.

We just reviewed.

Okay, all right, so we'll take action on that at the next meeting. All right. Thank you all so much for your patience today. The meeting is adjourned.