City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, it's 5.30. I call this meeting to order. For those that would like to participate, rise for the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Heavenly Father, we thank you for this city that you've given us. God, we thank you for the leaders. We thank you that there's all these people that have given their lives to help our city get better. I pray that you would guide this time, guide thoughts and words to, again, just to better our city. God, that we would be a prosperous city, a blessed city from you. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen.

You may be seated. Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Cavanaugh.

Here.

Council Member Reed. Here. Council Member Galloway. Here. Council Member Hoffman.

Here.

Council Member Duprey. Here. Mayor Foote.

Here. First item is consent agenda part one. Do I have a motion to approve consent agenda part one? Motion to approve.

Second. Your Honor, I would like to withdraw number four for questions that I might have. before we vote on it?

Mayor, I wanted to talk about three too.

Okay, so are these Do we just want to have discussion on them or are you wanting to make a motion to remove them and look at them separately?

I don't really care.

Remove them separately?

Yeah, a consent agenda would just be a pretty straightforward vote. But if you want to discuss and you'd remove those items that you want to talk about separately, divide the question, so to speak.

Okay, so we're going to start with the first motion. So we have a motion to remove item number four from the consent agenda. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Chris, take the roll.

Did you want to just put those two together to remove to discuss them?

Can we do that? I thought he said one at a time. No, that doesn't have to be one at a time.

Can we do that? Just remove both of them.

Consent agenda.

Okay. And then vote on the consent agenda.

So then I would ask if you'd like to amend, Mr. Kavanagh, if you'd like to amend your motion. to remove item number three and four from the consent agenda.

I would be happy to amend my request for four and three together.

Okay. So that's the motion. Do I have a second? Second. And Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Kavanagh? Yes. Council Member Reed?

Yes.

Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman?

Yes.

Council Member Dupre? Yes.

So with that, those two items are removed. We're going to look at the rest of the consent agenda without three and four. So do I have a motion for the rest of that? One through nine minus three. Second. Good. Before I call for a roll, I did want to kind of highlight, I think it's item number eight. I wanted to make sure that there wasn't anybody from the public that wanted to talk about that right now. it's number five or number five yep number five so number five would be um just setting the the public hearing um for the subdivision of the at the corner of 65th fifth and south miller um again tonight we are just setting the public hearing we're not actually set to hear but i also wanted to give an opportunity if someone was here and wanted to speak on that that they could do that and seeing none, okay. So now we're voting on the consent agenda, minus three and four. Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Kavanagh? Yes. Council Member Reid? Yes. Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman? Yes. Council Member Dupre? Yes. So then you want me to go ahead and do item number three?

And we're doing, yeah.

So I'm going to approve the purchase of a new dump box with frame from truck equipment for vehicle number 53 and the amount of $18,801 for the sewer department.

So with this, do I have a motion to approve?

Second.

I need a first.

I'll move. Okay.

Thanks, Kara. Sorry. So Mr. Bergmeier.

Yeah, so this is a new dump box and frame for number 53. It's a holdover truck for the sewer department. Just the bed's rusted. It spills material out of it. They use it to haul gravel if they're repairing stuff. They use it to haul material back and forth. And it's not a fleet vehicle. It's a holdover. So the budget comes, the money comes directly from sewer department, not from any sort of vehicle replacement fund. It's all paid for directly at the sewer department.

That was actually my question. And I know it's a dumb question if it needed to go through the fleet committee or needed to go through. Well, go through the fleet committee for approval because even though it's not a whole vehicle, it would be a change to a vehicle. That was my question. Sure.

Yeah, so how it works is holdover vehicles, if you replace a vehicle in the fleet, a lot of the departments choose to keep some of those older vehicles as backups or anything like that. And so if you pay for it out of like most repairs for fleet vehicles go into a big pool and they're paid for by everybody. if you have a holdover vehicle you have to pay for that repair out of your own budget it doesn't come from the fleet fund so this fund this money is coming directly out of the sewer fund and it's not sewer budget right it's directly out of the sewer budget from the sewer fund so it doesn't go through fleet committee because it's not from the fleet repair fund so all right thank you that's the question i had thank you and it's a budgeted item correct yeah we budget for it yeah directly from there so any other questions

So Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Kavanagh?

Yes.

Council Member Reid?

Yes.

Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman?

Yes.

Council Member Dupre? Yes. Resolution number 188-2026, authorizing the purchase of a 2027 Chevrolet Equinox from McGrath Fleet and Commercial for $29,415 for the Building and Code Enforcement Department, authorized for replacement through Fleet Committee with specifications approved on May 20th, 2026. I need a first and a second. Sorry.

I move the resolution. I'll second.

Okay.

Sorry, that was my fault.

My question, Jake, is how many vehicles do we have in that department?

So currently we have two dependable new vehicles and we have a total of five vehicles. Three of those are holdovers. This situation was when I talked to the fleet committee, pretty much what's happening is holdovers are being held longer. So the vehicles that we're getting are not fit for us to use. And that's why we're adding this new one instead of a holdover. And so that's the situation here with this one.

And it was a good one. No real debate about whether this needs to be replaced because another council member told me that she took a ride in it with you and thought it was going to fall apart.

It was actually with, it wasn't with you. It was with Kurt.

That one is 20, 22 years old and still today out of commission for two weeks right now, or we've been sharing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I really would have rather taken my own car.

Yeah, they can be a little embarrassing, but we use them until they can't be used.

Yeah, I was impressed it held together.

I appreciate that you put in here about the recommendation from the fleet committee and the specifications approved and so on. So that was written right in.

I don't have any further comments, questions.

Okay. If no other questions, Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Kavanagh? Yes. Council Member Reid?

Yes.

Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman?

Yes.

Council Member Dupre? Yes.

With that, we'll move to consent agenda part two. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve.

Second.

Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Kavanagh?

Yes.

Council Member Reid?

No.

Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman?

Yes.

Council Member Dupre? Yes.

And then with that, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Kavanagh. Yes. Council Member Reed.

Yes.

Council Member Galloway. Yes. Council Member Hoffman.

Yes.

Council Member Dupre. Yes.

That I'll turn it over to Administrator Rath.

Thank you. I just had a brief report and mostly just help clarify one of the items that was on the agenda last time. And that was the approving and authorizing the conveyance of real property to JGC rentals, approving and authorizing execution of related purchase sale and development agreement within the Westgate Economic Development Urban Renewal Area. That is the property, the old bank building that was turned over to JGC Rentals LLC for the dollar. And it seems to be a big question mark as to if the city had acted properly by doing so. And I just wanted to state that we did follow everything. The attorneys were involved with this. We had a public hearing. It's tied to a purchase and development agreement with deliverables that the individual has to follow. And so all of the things were followed. In fact, this is a property we've been talking about, council's been talking about, I think going back to January, and it's taking months to get to this process because we were following all the legal framework that needed to be done. And that was one of the questions is that we were acting or the council was acting improperly or the city was doing something wrong. We were not. We did not. We followed every guideline that we needed to, and so I just wanted to make sure that that was stated for anyone that's listening and having questions about that.

Administrator Rath, can I also comment on that for a second?

Yes.

So also there were some comments and I had some people reach out to me saying, well, why weren't there open bids? That kind of thing, too. How long has this building been owned by the city and how many times have we tried to sell this building? Do you know off the top of your head? Because I just want everyone to know, like. The opportunity has been there.

The city owned it for six years, and what was put together, the city did not receive any proposal to do anything with the building, so this is the second round for us to put something together, and then when we got the interest, we worked with them on, this used to be a nuisance, it needs to be maintained right now, and The basement had water need attention and they were willing to do all of that and stabilizing the building and completing the improvements. All required improvements will be completed within the timeframe. Otherwise they'll be in default. And there are plenty of remedies listed in the development agreement. So this is not just a bidding and sale. This is actually a development agreement because it's not about the city getting money for the building. Rather, the city is seeing something done with the building.

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that that was clarified because, again, there were some misconceptions about that, too. Thank you.

Yeah, wait, wait, before we go further, can we just wait two seconds while all the people on Facebook write that down so they can remember? I had a boring day. Now I'm going to be attacked, I know, but I'm glad that was brought up and brought to light.

yeah and it is a property that like since we city owned it we had to maintain it and that's been you know negative dollars for us every year um so even selling it for a dollar which is a director altair said we're not gaining money that's that wasn't the reason for the sale um and and thank you to chris patrick with the main street to work with getting the Catalyst grant that helped with this. Thank you to Jeremiah Grooms with JGC Rentals LLC for deciding to take the leap and put money into the building and make it usable again and get value back. No, no, no. I mean, it's I think the staff summary said it was nine hundred something thousand dollars of investment. And that it probably will be short of what it actually will cost in the end.

Yeah.

But I just wanted to clear that up because, you know, it's I think it's it's a good thing. It will be a good thing for the city. And it's unfortunate to see the negative spin. I don't think it was intentional from the media. But you pick up that one thing. Well, we don't sell it for a dollar. And people run with that. And all of a sudden it's something was done improper and it's furthest from the truth. So.

I'd like to add one more thing. Actually, we budgeted money to do something with the building. We believe that was about $200,000 to fix up those downtown buildings. And now that we have a proposal, we didn't have to do that. So we ended up saving.

How much did we? So again, we're watching. I just got the camera. We ended up saving.

Saving. And that's all I needed. I just want to clear that up for tonight. So thank you. Okay. Thank you, administrator.

Could I ask a question additionally on that? Someplace in my mind, it ran that they were making a request for the city to give them additional funds to help resurrect that building. Am I wrong?

My understanding is they applied for grant money, and they're working towards historic tax credits. Trying to stack dollars towards the project.

That wasn't a request from the city. That was my question.

Along with the state investment in the project, which is $100,000, so local share is going to be through tax rebates, which is... they're going to be entitled to it anyway through either tax abatement or TIF. That's considered the local share.

Okay, thank you.

So now I just, if you're here and you'd like to speak on any of the agenda items, I would encourage you to write out a slip of paper. It's in the basket on that front banister. That way we can get you plugged in on the right agenda item. And with that, we'll move into the ordinances.

Ordinance number 3259-2026, an ordinance vacating part of the right-of-way of Iowa Avenue in the city of Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa. Recommendation pass the third consideration and adopt ordinance number 3259-2026.

I have a motion to approve. Move the recommendation.

Second.

Any questions or comments? I know I visited this a couple times. If no other questions, Chris, would you take the roll, please?

Council Member Cavanaugh? Yes. Council Member Reid? Yes. Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman? Yes. Council Member Dupre? Yes. Ordinance number 3260-2026, an ordinance amending the Municipal Code of the City of Ottumwa, Iowa by amending various sections of Chapter 23, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, for the purpose of adding stop signs on Ferry Street at Finley Avenue. Recommendation passed to third consideration and adopt ordinance number 3260-2026.

I have a motion to approve. Move the recommendation.

Second.

Okay, Mr. Burgmeier, do you have anything to add? Or I guess is there any questions? Yeah, is there any questions from council?

Have you ordered the circle lights for those signs?

uh we put the stop ahead signs out there and i think those have worked and i think really probably plan on taking those out um in the next week or so people have it didn't take long for people to realize the stop sign was there i think so good i don't think so to answer my question i have not ordered any circle lights stop signs no we haven't ordered it for that i don't think it's uh Unless we see an accident history there, I don't think it's worth the money to put a light there. It's not particularly accident prone.

And this is the second year there's been stop signs there.

The one month there's been stop signs there.

Well, we had the four-way during the school year last year. Yeah, yeah.

Well, my comment is in the future, if there's a need for them, we will readdress the light for those stop signs if there's a need.

Yeah, so, like, when we look at those extra, like... added features for a stop sign it should be for like we don't want to do it just because we might need it we want to do it for specific reasons we're not wasting a bunch of money on lights that aren't needed so like when we put that grant together for the stop signs along vine and finley that was because we saw an accident history there there was a problem to solve and just to i guess not spend money we don't need to spend i'd like to wait and see if there's a need for the lights there before we put money into it

Someone made that decision on the one down with that bank on 2nd Street.

Yeah, I'm not sure. I know there's one at Marion. Marion and 2nd, are we talking about?

I can't remember if it's Marion or the plane.

I believe that was for a specific reason because I think for some reason that stop sign kept getting ran. I wasn't around and it was put in, but that's just what I heard.

Okay, thank you. How much is it for those lights for the stop sign?

I don't recall. A couple grand, I think, two or three.

I will identify, so I'm glad we don't, the roundabout discussion. So I saw probably an eight-year-old trying to cross the roundabout at Albia, and that kid looked terrified trying to cross it. So I stopped, and then I honked a horn to get the other car coming to stop, but that poor little kid was terrified. So I'm glad that that conversation has paused for now.

That's because he saw you coming. Probably. One intersection, was that again, please?

The Albia roundabout.

Albia Road roundabout.

Yes.

Richmond and Quincy. Okay.

Mayor, I'd just like to say one more thing, and then is Councilman Kavanagh, the idea of the stop sign lights, if we get further grants or whatever, I support him on that. I like, I, we have more, I work and I, I think they're great. I think they draw attention. They're great. I understand the budgetary needs and to save money, but in the future, if we get grants or we get a way to do that, I think it's a good idea too.

We have literally thousands of stop signs and other signs throughout town. So if we start spending, you know, a hundred bucks a sign, there's, that's a lot of money when you start talking about every single sign we have in town. Sure.

Well, we're not asking for every sign in town.

Even every stop sign. We got probably a thousand stop signs at least stopping the old signs of different ways.

It'd be good sometime if you could actually get a quote for what those costs instead of just guessing it.

Yeah, maybe just the school zones even.

Okay, no other questions. Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Kavanagh? Yes. Council Member Reid? Yes. Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman?

Yes.

Council Member Dupre? Yes. Resolution number 182-2026, approving changes to the disciplinary practices and procedures policy. Recommendation passed and adopt resolution number 182-2026. Is there a motion to approve?

Move the recommendation. So our human resource director, Ms. Kojo.

Thank you, sir. So this full policy was brought to you in June and there were some questions that were asked regarding having a support person present. So this is, we've reviewed it, we've talked with legal about it and now bringing it back. I'm gonna read through the staff summary though, since this was in June for all of the changes that would be made to this policy. So this full policy is currently held within our personnel policies. What this does is this actually pulls it out and places it in its own policy with forms that we've been using. A few paragraphs are then maintained in the personnel policy, but essentially reference this policy in itself. The changes that are being proposed to be made is to add a table with definitions, added documentation in HR review, employee rights during investigations, supervisory responsibilities and appeal process, expanding upon the disciplinary steps to give definitions. And then number four is to add the wording from the ordinance that you all had previously passed of a department head removal shall be subject to the approval of the city council, except as provided by state law. So again, going back to the questions that were asked in June, council had asked if a non-union employee would have representation during discipline. Staff and legal counsel reviewed this and neither recommend providing a right to a support person being present for a non-union investigatory meeting. If council were to insist, we do have language that would be there to be added under this section. This policy with changes outlined was emailed to all council members on August 20th, inviting them to reach out with questions. As of the time of that staff summary being presented, I had not received any questions. I did receive questions yesterday afternoon that I want to make sure that everybody does have answers to the questions that were provided. So the changes presented in the draft policy reflect both HR best practices and specific recommendations from our labor attorney who reviewed the proposed language for legal consistency, risk mitigation, and alignment with common standards used by comparable employers. Regarding support for a support person for non-union employees, we understand the desire for consistency. However, our attorney advised that most employers do not provide this right for non-union investigatory meetings, and doing so introduces confidentiality, conflict of interest, and operational concerns. If Council does choose to move forward, we will implement the safeguards that it was recommended. There were then questions about... in the table of definitions. Under investigation, the question says, the question was asked, should this also include to show who is doing the investigation? The draft does not identify one fixed investigator because in accordance with HR best practices, investigations must remain flexible based on the nature and complexity of the issue. Investigations may be led by a supervisor, a department head, human resources, city administrator, legal counsel, or an outside investigator. The structure that's in there ensures the city can assign the most appropriate and least conflicted party. HR typically leads harassment, discrimination or policy related investigations. Department heads may lead operational or performance related inquiries. Legal counsel may be involved in more complex or sensitive matters. Limiting the definition to one role would reduce our flexibility, introduce credential conflicts and deviate from standard practice. Let's see, there was also a question regarding confidentiality and confidentiality of the investigation. We can add language regarding the confidentiality requirement under the internal investigations process section, rather than within this definition itself. Confidentiality is not just a descriptive element of an investigation. It's a procedural obligation that applies to everyone involved, including supervisors, HR witnesses, and any support persons, if council approves that addition. Because it governs how investigations must be conducted, it is most appropriate and effective when included within the investigation process section. This ensures the requirement is clearly tied to investigatory steps applied consistently and fully aligned with best practices. There was also a question regarding suspension in the table of definitions, adding performance deficiencies and other legitimate reasons, which would mirror what is in the termination definition, which would be appropriate and we could make that change. Let's see, there was also a question about the new sections and why we would be adding those. The sections documentation and HR review, employee rights during investigation and supervisor responsibilities were added to ensure consistent application of the policy, reduce liability and to clarify expectations for supervisors and employees. These sections help protect both the city and the employees by ensuring the investigations and discipline follow a fair documented and consistent process. Question under documentation and HR review bullet point two, it identified quote the city. And so the question is, who does that include? In this section, the city refers specifically to the authorized management representatives involved in reviewing and addressing employee conduct concerns. This includes HR, the appropriate supervisor or department head and the city administrator. These are individuals who may first become aware of an issue and are responsible for initiating a timely, fair and thorough review before any disciplinary action is taken. This would be another one that I could add clarifying language to ensure that it's defined properly. Question came up, said in the same section, and again, in supervisor responsibilities, there is the statement that supervisors need to consult with HR prior to issuing any formal disciplinary action. Why is that necessary and how does that help the disciplinary process? Consultation ensures disciplinary actions are legally sound, consistent across departments, properly documented and free from unintended risk or bias. This protects the city and ensures employees are treated equitably. Then the last question, I'm sorry, this is kind of a combination. Under the appeals process in the first paragraph, let's see, if I place myself into needing to appeal and reading the first paragraph, it seems difficult to be able to do that when all the employee is given during an investigation is the general nature of the concern or allegation, and even that may not be given. This is based on bullet point one in employee rights or an investigation. Or is there a process where details are given to the employee during the disciplinary process so that these details can be included with any appeal they may have? Or what is the responsibility of the city to fully inform the employee beyond a general nature? So the answer to that question, during an investigation, employees receive the general nature of the concern unless they are covered under Chapter 80F, which is our public safety employees. More detailed information becomes available to them once a disciplinary determination is made, which allows them to submit a meaningful appeal. The intent was not to eliminate or replace the grievance process. Sorry, that was the other part of that question was, does the appeal process replace the grievance process? That was not the intent. These two procedures serve different functions and keeping them separate aligns with HR best practices. The appeals process applies specifically to disciplinary decisions. Its purpose is to give employees a structured opportunity to request a review of disciplinary action once it's been finalized. The grievance procedure is broader. It addresses concerns an employee may have about workplace conditions, treatment, policy interpretation, or other matters not directly tied to discipline. Because the two processes serve different purposes, maintaining both provides clearer avenues for employees and reduces procedural confusion. Keeping them separate helps to avoid unintentional limitations on employee rights or unnecessary complications in future disputes. If council would prefer, I can add the clarifying language so it's explicit that the appeals process applies only to discipline and does not replace or eliminate the existing grievance procedure. Those are the questions that I received and those were the answers provided. And I apologize, I sent the response last night and I completely didn't even think about sending it to council until earlier today. So you received those responses earlier today as well.

Don't you think it's more logical to put all this information into the annual review of the handbook instead of making contributions through the year? It just seems like it's very confusing for the employees. to be able to know what is the real reason now. We have to go look for, see if there's a new book or a new input to the book. It just seems to me like logical to update it once a year.

So if we did that, we'd probably be here for two or three hours going through everything. So what we typically do, sir, is when we get one or two one-offs, we'll hold that until we get quite a few of them for that simple reason of that way not every month we're sending out an updated personnel policy or anything like that. This was originally brought in June with all of the other changes that we were making, and we spent about an hour going through all of those. So this is a continuance of that conversation. Anytime there are any changes that are made to the book, to the personnel policies or any other policy, it gets put into the EHR update that gets sent out every month to our employees so that they are aware of it. They also are notified immediately that any of those changes are out there. We update what is on the website with those changes. We also update it within UKG. And then at the end of every year, it's usually in December, what we do is we put together a packet for all of our employees to let them know of all of the changes that have been made to the personnel policy for that year and have our employees sign off annually that they have reviewed that and that if they have questions, they know the appropriate place to go.

Why do you think we have to have so many changes? I mean, I've worked all my life and it seems like you have an awful lot of changes on a regular basis. Why is that?

Because our world changes all the time. And so as we get into different employment issues that come up, different laws that come up, different employment situations, it calls for changes to some of these policies. The other thing is, is a lot of these policies were not in existence or they are very old. You will see when we talk about our compensation handbook, the compensation handbook that was passed in 23 had not been updated since 1989.

How many changes have been done since 23 then?

To what?

To your handbook.

The compensation handbook?

All the handbook, the ones that would affect the employees.

There are numerous because there are numerous policies.

We have to remember that some of these policy changes are policies that we've enacted within the last year or two that they've had to update also. So it's not all just staff, it's policies that we have asked to be changed and added or updated. I also, as someone who writes and handles our policy book in my everyday life, I appreciate this too, because I'm currently updating a policy for the last year and it's a lot of work.

One of HR's best practices is that every couple of years you actually review all of your policies. And again, as employment laws change, as there's new case law because of lawsuits or arbitration hearings or things like that, it affects a lot of those things.

I just have to agree with Mr. Cavanaugh. I think once a year changing it across the board makes more sense for the employees because then they're aware of what the changes are rather than you change this this month and maybe change something else next month. And I would think it would be, as an employee, get rather confusing.

So if that's the wish of council, all of council, then what I would ask is that any changes that you all would like to make to policy too, we make those at one point in time. Because when there is one policy change, it's a ripple effect and it changes multiple other policies. The other thing is our compensation handbook is one that is based on our budget. So all of those are changed based on budgeting as well. And also contracts, employment contracts.

I think I have a different view of everybody. My former employer, I won't call him out. We had a program which I totally agree with. I wouldn't even have a printed handbook because things change so much that if you keep it online, Then you update it online and everybody has 24-hour access to the changes.

And ours is online. Yes, all of ours are.

Well, yeah, and that's what I mean. But that was the only way you could get it. There wasn't even a book because the fear was is something would happen and you would grab a policy that's a month old that changed two weeks ago.

Mm-hmm.

So, I mean, I see both ways. I get it. I mean, I get the confusion. I mean, I get what councilman Debray and cabinets are saying too, that it can get confusing for employees. I get it, but there is a lot of change though. There is quite a bit of change. And the unfortunate thing is, is a city four States away can screw up and ruin it for everybody. And then we all have to have a call. You know what I mean? Like,

And it's interesting just to add to that, our sister cities around the state constantly reach out for examples of policies. And that's one of the reasons that we have a lot of these on our website, easily accessible for others, because we bounce ideas off of other people all the time.

Well, I would like to mention one, thank you for answering all those questions that I sent you at such a late notice. There are a couple of answers that I think we probably need to talk about just because it's if council would like, or if council approves. So that might be something that we need to kind of focus our discussion on. One, you talked about, or I had asked about the confidentiality part of an investigation. And you said we can add language regarding the confidentiality requirement under the internal investigation. So I guess that'd be one thing. Is that something that council would like to add?

Can you read the language again?

I don't have the language prepared because essentially what we would do within our personnel policy, I think it's in like 5.2. There's a whole process for internal investigations. And so essentially what we would do, if that is something that council would wish, we will review that in policy in its entirety and be able to add that information in there.

Yeah, 5.2 in the personnel policy. There was also, of course, we had talked last time about non-union employees having someone, a support person, there during disciplinary hearings. And I know we kind of went back and forth on that. And I have that.

Disciplinary or investigation?

This is the disciplinary policy.

Oh, no. When you said a person there, was that a person in a disciplinary or investigation?

I don't think the investigation... I don't think anybody can be in there with an investigation, can they? Even union? The intent was try to make union, non-union the same.

By Weingarten rights, a union employee can have that. Okay.

So the intent, I believe, of the comment last time we discussed this, and this was back in June, was that non-union employees would have the same ability as a union employee to have someone there.

And so Chris is handing out, and I had put that in the staff summary, but then there's also an example. If you would like that in there, the wording that would be added to page four under employee rights during investigation. At the city's discretion, a non-union employee may be permitted to have a support person present during an investigatory meeting. This support person must be a non-union regular full-time employee who does not have employment decision-making authority over the employee. Individuals with the ability to hire, discipline, evaluate, or terminate the employee, including the mayor, city council members, city administrator, or department heads, are not eligible to serve as support persons. If allowed, the support person's role is limited to quietly observing. The support person may not speak, participate, act as a representative, or otherwise interfere with the meeting. Any support person shall maintain the confidentiality of the matter under investigation. the city may deny or discontinue the presence of a support person at any time. That's the highlighted passage that's there. And that is wording that came recommended from our legal counsel.

So that was another thing. I think counsel, we need to talk about whether that gets added in. And then there was another, go ahead.

Can we back up just one second? I mean, I get this, but if we update it once a year, let's just go right there. And this is just questions I have.

Sure.

and then something changes, then what do we do? I mean, then how, like say it's a,

Then you would issue a memo or something like that, which then again is a new, like, hey, this is a memo of a policy that will be updated in our handbook, but then again, we're getting back to the updates.

So what's more confusing then? I agree. Changing the policy or 25 memos that you gotta keep track of?

Well, I would also state if we're gonna do something like that, if we wanna limit, I mean, I think right now you're coming quarterly.

If that.

Yeah, so I don't think,

Just for reference, one of the things like take our union contracts, for example, we've had things that have come up that like in the middle of the union contract, we need to change it. Like there was something that was incorrect. And so what we do then is we have to do an MOU. We do a memorandum of understanding. And then we fix it during the next contract. But again, I mean, that could be just as confusing to our employees. Because I've got, I know on one of our contracts on our website, there was our contract and then there was like five MOUs underneath of it. So if you had to review that, you had to look at all five of those MOUs as well.

Seems to me like Councilman Hoffman's suggestion to put it online would be the simplest format of everything.

And it is. It's online. Yeah, it's online. It's on our website. It's also within UKG. So there's multiple avenues, even online, of how to get that information.

So what are we doing here tonight? What are you asking us to do?

I am asking you to approve this disciplinary practices and procedures policy. Pull it out of the personnel policy.

This is pulling it out of the personnel policy, right? And making it standalone.

Yes. And then I will add, I will put a couple of paragraphs in the personnel policy referring to this policy like we've done with all the others.

Mayor, can we go through your points that you wanted to talk to one by one so that we don't get confused with them?

Sure.

Okay.

Well, the one that was discussed back in June was the possibility of having a support person the same way a union employee would have available. And that's the language that Mrs. Kojo just read off to us. So that would, if we added that to the policy, then that would be available for non-union employees to have a support person there during investigation and any disciplinary action. So that's one item. Another item was just adding language regarding the confidentiality during an investigation. And I was looking at the definitions when I asked that question. I just wanted to make sure that it was very clear in the policy that that is confidential and having that confidential statement in the policy I think is very important. So that would be another one that could be added into what's being presented tonight. And then the other one was clarifying language. I don't know if you guys have the email that was sent out today, but it says if council prefers, I can add clarifying language so it is explicit that the appeals process applies only to discipline and does not replace or eliminate the existing grievance process. So I just wanted to make sure that the appeals process was not confused with the grievance process and that they are different. And really that came because I was looking at the current policy and there was no break. And I thought, okay, is the appeals getting put before grievance or is it replacing it? And so just something that would clarify that these two are two separate things.

I think that's appropriate.

I think that was appropriate. Is that the three things we talked about?

Clarifying the city.

Yes.

I can add clarifying language to ensure that that's clearly defined as to what the city means.

And that would be like supervisory. I do have a question in regards to that. And that's really where does council fit into this whole process? Because as we define the city, council wasn't mentioned. So in an investigation disciplinary process, where does council fit in?

So in the process itself, I don't know that they would. Just simply because, I mean, that's not part of the.

Other than a department head removal.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. And we have that language in here already.

That's the, from that ordinance.

Yes. Okay.

Yeah. Well, on that point too, I'm just bringing it up. If,

council was included in an investigation that might make us legally yeah that gets that gets muddy really really fast yeah yeah but i wanted to make sure to ask the question um the only other question i had in addition to the questions um when we're looking at the supervisor consultation with hr totally understand should it be the administrator that is told instead of hr So that's a question I would have, and maybe for consideration by council as well. So this was, I was just asking, if I remember the question correctly, it says that the supervisor then, if there is disciplinary action needed, they would consult with HR. And then the answer was consultation ensures disciplinary actions are legally sound, consistent across departments, properly documented and free from unintended risk or bias. This protects the city and ensures employees are treated equitably. And my question is, is HR the right person for supervisors to go to when they have a disciplinary action that's necessary or is the administrator the right person to go to? That's all.

My thoughts on that would be that HR would be. Not every disciplinary action or investigation is going to get to my level. There may be a seasonal employee or entry-level employee that's not supervisory in nature, and it's handled at department head level, and then HR just can't maintaining that consistency across the investigative process and across the levels of discipline and helping to guide the individual. I know we've had instances in the past where supervisors have reached out to be able to get guidance on something that may be just a question. It's not necessarily even disciplined, but wanted to get that guidance and best practices and HR had the guidance for that. and the time, resources, and everything to be able to assist with that on a timely basis. Okay.

Well, and if they're going to HR, they probably already had the conversation with you, Administrator Rath, and you've probably directed them or their supervisor, correct? Because it might be a supervisor to a department head who's

And if there's things that would rise to needing my attention, those are brought forward as you're suggesting. So whether that's through the supervisor or HR or the combination, um, if there's something that's a little trickier, uh, that, um, you could put the city in a precarious position. Yeah. Those are brought to my attention. There could be very minor things, um, that, uh, you know, let's say a written warning versus a verbal warning, or maybe it's a suspension that, uh, there's different things that could come up that wouldn't necessarily have to cross my desk specifically.

Well, I see the mayor's point because we're having the conversation and there's a lot of good things said here. I agree with a lot of that, but that kind of shows we don't have a clear understanding of the scope of practice. You see what I'm saying? Like, I mean, we're discussing, you know, employee goes to HR sometimes and then city administrator sometimes. I think we need clear criteria. Yeah, I know that's hard. I know that clear criteria.

And to be clear, this is when a supervisor or department head needs to implement disciplinary action on an employee. So it's not the employee coming to HR, it's a supervisor or department head coming to HR or administrator. That's why I'm asking the question is if they're needing to take disciplinary action on an employee, who's the correct person to go to? Who does council want them to go to?

In the situation you just explained, I think it would be nothing to take away from HR, but that would be, I think city administrator and then he could direct from there.

And as from saying, I think HR has more experience and has the resources to ensure that the proper process is being followed, whether it's a 80 something you said for public safety. See, I mean, I'm just looking for a concrete, yeah and i think that's what the policy is trying to do is to establish that that is that resource for supervisors to turn to and then if it is something that rises to a higher level it provides that and correct me if i'm wrong but i think in some of these cases um if there's an appeal i may be called in to be part of that so if i'm part of that earlier process that negates some of that ability to be fair and impartial in an appeal

Is there a flowchart for the steps and for the people to follow so that they know who to go to?

That's what the policy is trying to create is stated.

But I meant like a visual flowchart.

I've answered. That's what's in the policy. Okay.

I'm wondering if just the verbiage of going to HR under the direction of administrator

right because i see what i see what bill saint or city minister is saying is we could close an open door right

I think we're making this more complicated than it is. I think that department heads and like, so supervisors know that they need to go to their department heads if there's some action that needs to be taken. And I think department heads have the ability to understand, hey, I have to ask HR a question or I need to do this. Or if they need like guidance on, hey, I don't really know which way to go, then they would go to HR. Administrator Rath, but I think in the end, if a decision has been made either way that they're going, HR is the appropriate person. But I think we're making this overly complicated.

And we may be, but the way I envision it is the department head would be the one who decides the disciplinary action and HR would just be the support role for that disciplinary action and not making HR discipline.

Correct.

They're not the disciplinary. We could be closing another open door. Right.

Correct. No, and just to give an example, I mean, we've had a couple in the last couple of weeks where supervisors have come and said just, hey, I don't know what to do here. What would you recommend? And so we can then review the file and maybe review previous conversations and say, okay, well, okay, this would warrant this. It could be a written documentation or it could be, no, we probably need to have another conversation. We had a termination that, I mean, again, it was in conjunction with, I didn't make that decision. I supported the supervisors making that decision. They're the ones who approached and said, this is what we would like to do. So That's my role as support to help them walk through that whole process and to let them know this is what it would potentially open the city up for for risks, you know, and if we're willing to accept those risks, then that's fine.

Yeah, and to the point I think that people are, Council is making, if a department has questions about a process or procedure or policy of a human resource nature, then the professional HR department would be the ones to go to. Somewhere if they had a question about a budget or financial thing, they would go to the finance director. Or a legal question, going to the police chief or the attorney. That's the appropriate resource, I think, for something that they would have at that level.

Right. And, you know, I'll say I'll stop with this because I know. But, you know, it works both ways, too. I wouldn't want to. If one of them had to hold somebody accountable, I wouldn't want to stop them either. You know what I mean? Like, I mean, if we're going to do something stupid and get sued for a million dollars. Yeah. But we don't want to take away their autonomy to hold people accountable. Sure.

So with that discussion, it sounds like probably the three things that we've talked about as far as adding or revising would be whether we wanna have non-union employees have a support person, if we wanna add language regarding the confidentiality requirement under the internal investigation, And if we want to have clarifying language of the appeals process being different than the grievance process.

And also clarifying the city. Thank you.

And adding reference to performance deficiencies and other legitimate reasons under suspension definition.

Suspension definition. Yeah. Yeah.

So, okay, so for the suspension definition, the adding reference to performance deficiencies and other legitimate reasons, I think that's appropriate. I would say that we do add that.

It essentially just matches the termination for the same reasons for that.

Consensus on all this, can I? We don't have to vote on them all, do we? You could do each one by consensus. By consensus? Okay.

As long as there's no objection, then it's by consensus. Right. If anybody objects, then you take a vote.

All right. So with that item that Congress member Galloway brought up the suspension definition, adding that term, the reference, is there anyone that disagrees with that? Okay. So by consensus, we'll add that. We'll move to the language about regarding confidentiality requirement under internal investigation is that language that we want to add. I'm fine with that. Okay. I guess what I would ask, is there anyone that disagrees with adding that?

Do you want me to read it again? Please. Okay. So there's not the language yet, but it says we can add language regarding the confidentiality requirement under the internal investigation process section, rather than within the definition itself. Confidentiality is not just a descriptive element of an investigation. It is a procedural obligation that applies to everyone involved, including supervisors, HR witnesses, and any support persons. If counsel approves the addition, because it governs how investigations must be conducted, it is most appropriate and effective when included within the investigation process section. This ensures the requirement is clearly tied to investigatory steps applied consistently and fully aligned with best practices. I just read that really slow and I'm really proud of myself.

So is there anyone that disagrees with adding that language to the policy? So with that, we'll add that per consensus. We're going to go to clarifying the city.

And that would be adding in essentially HR instead of the city, defining the city as HR, the appropriate supervisor or department head and the city administrator.

So is there anyone in disagreement as far as further defining what the city means with those terms? Okay, with no disagreement, we'll add that per consensus. I'm gonna move to the separation or clarification between the appeals process and the grievance process and that just states if council approves, I can add clarifying language so it is explicit that the appeals process applies only to discipline and does not replace or eliminate the existing grievance procedure. So is there anyone in disagreement with adding that clarifying language? Hearing none, then we'll add that. And then the final thing would be what we talked about back in June, and that would be the language. I would invite someone else to read that if they'd like. I can read it for you. Okay, thank you.

At the city's discretion, a non-union employee may be permitted to have a support person present during an investigatory meeting. This support person must be a non-union regular full-time employee who does not have employment decision-making authority over the employee. Individuals with the ability to hire, discipline, evaluate or terminate the employee, including the mayor, city council members, city administrator or department heads are not eligible to serve as support persons. If allowed, the support person's role is limited to quietly observing. The support person may not speak, participate, act as a representative or otherwise interfere with the meeting. Any support person shall maintain the confidentiality of the matter under investigation. The city may deny or discontinue the presence of a support person at any time.

I just have a question about this. So I know it says that the right to confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. So should a support person be in there? And, and I don't know how it works with the union too, but should a support person be in there and they run and tell someone, Hey, this is what just happened. Not that they would. I'm just, what if like that, the person that had the investigatory can't come back and say, Hey, like come back on the city or anything. Right. And

I'm assuming we would have something for them to sign.

Not necessarily.

I mean... And even if they do, there's... How do you prove who leaked? Whatever. I mean, if it's that person, if it's the individual that is subject of the investigation... So it could be either one. Yeah, I mean, it adds another potential leak into that, so to speak.

And it could be the union representative as well on the other side of things.

It could. And that one, I mean, there's case law that the Weingarten writes that... That's what allows that in there, and it's something that's been through the system. And I think that's why other communities don't necessarily or other employers don't necessarily have that when it's not a union position. It just adds a potential complication into things unnecessarily and without the merit of the law backing it.

So best practices and our legal counsel recommend that we not have that. Correct. So to me, that seems like that's the best way to go, is to not have that.

I don't want to commit to the way I'm voting right now, but I've literally done hundreds of investigations. And everybody you put in the room is a potential liability. And it could be. I mean, but I want to do what's right. for the employees an employee may say i want somebody in the room you know for my safety or to be there but i've been on investigations or that person that they requested was a detriment to him and it actually harmed their case because they did say something now i'm not coming into the way i'm going to vote right here or the consensus i'm just saying um even for city liability reasons the the more people you put in a room but also for the What I'm more concerned with is the privacy of that staff member that goes in and has to be talked to. Because it doesn't even have to be a, did you hear what was going on? It could be somebody going home telling their wife, man, I'm just so mad. I sat in on that thing today and this is what happened. So, you know, I've learned if one knows, a hundred are going to know. That's the only, and I don't want to discount what you guys think, but that's just, in this case, I have to go by experience because I've been in that.

So I'm hearing one maybe, one that feels that this should not be added. Is that what I'm hearing? Is there anyone that feels that this should be added?

I think it's opening up potential for problems.

if we add it. Like I said, all it would take is one person, but you know, I don't want to discount.

We don't keep secrets really well. Let's be honest, you know, it's like, I'm just going to tell this one person.

Out of the hundreds of investigations I've done, most secrets or confidentiality that is broken is by accident and not maliciously, but that doesn't make it less broken. That's a good point. So I'm coming at it from a point of the staff member and the protection of their privacy.

I think the only way we could do that would be if they know, if they're bringing in the support person, that we're not going to assume the liability of confidentiality in that case. Maybe they're waiving it. if they insist on bringing someone in.

And even then, I think there's still a risk to us, to your point. Right.

But I just, I'm just saying, you know, if you want to do this, then you're taking, you know, I don't know if there's a form that they could sign for, you know, they're assuming that liability and they're not going to sue us for confidentiality problems. I mean, I can understand somebody wanting to bring somebody in because they're nervous and they want that support person, but it comes with risk.

When it comes to discipline, dumb question, do we record?

No.

Okay.

No.

I don't know, I believe.

We're a one-party state. I mean, we could, but I'm not getting, as far as my personal HR ethics, I'm not getting into that.

Yeah, I don't know. I stand on that opinion. I just think it would open up the city and the staff member up to.

And I've had it before where I've been in the middle of an investigation and you know the other person's recording, so I go into everything just assuming the other party's recording.

Actually, that's good advice now. Always speak to anybody like you're being recorded. That's the way it was. It's like my former employer won't call them out. I always walked in the door just assumed I was being recorded. That's the way I shop. That's the way I go in everywhere now. I just assume it.

So for this part, with the support person for non-union employees, I think I'm hearing a consensus not to add that. Is there anyone that would like to add that? So hearing none, the consensus is to not add that portion. So now with that, do we know what we're voting on? So we're voting on the disciplinary policy as written with the additions that we just went through per consensus. Is there any confusion, questions?

I would like to recommend that all the changes and suggestions that have been made, that maybe Barb should resubmit what she understands

Do you mean rewrite it and resubmit it to us?

That's what he's saying. Yes.

I'm okay with that. So it would have to happen anyway, right, with these changes, because we made changes?

Council could do that, yeah, three different ways. One, you could pass it with a consensus she brings, and then we'd have to review it and bring it back up for review. You could vote it down and then she'd rewrite it and represent it. Or you could table it and rewrite it and present it when it's brought back up.

Which way is the easiest?

Which way is the easiest?

No, it doesn't matter.

I mean, I don't want to slow things down because we've already discussed everything.

I mean, I was going to say, I mean, we've been pretty clear on the language that we're going to add.

I mean, is it, could we also do it to where you approve it? And then like, I will work with Chris tomorrow, I'll get it updated. And then it's passed with the very specific language that we've already talked about tonight. Um, then if there's any concerns, I could bring it back next meeting. I don't know. That's a procedure.

So could you just send it out if we did it that way? Just send everything out when you're done.

I could just email it tomorrow. And then it'll go to council and, you know, if there's any concerns with the language or you see something different.

Yeah.

you know because yeah we've done a lot of work i mean we had a lot of discussion on it and i was actually right my comment was going to be is i know to the people watching we've spent some time on this but i was actually glad we did spend time on it instead of just rushing through it like sure i will include all of the changes in the minutes so it is well defined and then barb could just provide the new document tomorrow and then that's what we would actually sign and put into the packet

i'll collaborate with chris tomorrow and we'll make sure that from what's in the minutes is in the policy we'll make sure i'll get with her tomorrow on that that would be the easiest since you've discussed it in so much thoughts so if council passes it tonight then by the end of the week you would have the new policy in hand all the council members to review And then if there's any questions or concerns, then we can bring it up on the next meeting, have that part of the agenda for revision.

And that was my point. We've already had lengthy conversation. I'm not sure there would be any different conversation if we tabled it or talked about it.

You're still talking. I know. Can I call the question?

I'm not in favor of tabling. I think we need to vote it down and have her bring it back and we can approve it.

So can I call the question so we vote? Yes.

Yes. Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Kavanagh?

No.

Council Member Reid?

Yes.

Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman?

Yes.

Council Member Dupre? Yes. Motion passes 4-1.

Thank you.

Resolution number 186, 2026, awarding the contract for asbestos abatement and demolition of the portion of the building located at 14478 Terminal Avenue at the airport to Torres Construction of Ottumwa, Iowa in the amount of $37,000, which is abatement cost of $10,000 plus demolition cost of $27,000. Recommendation pass and adopt resolution number 186, 2026.

Do I have a motion to approve? Move the recommendation. Second. Turn it over to our Airport Operations Director, Mr. Wheaton.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Bids for this project for the asbestos removal, demolition, and the cleanup of this portion of the building was accepted until 2 p.m. on August 6th. We had four bids for the demolition and the asbestos removal, with Torres Construction of a tumble with the cheapest bid of $37,000. I included a picture with this in color, in red and green instead of black and white. It very distinctly tells what we're taking out, what's in the red. That was not printed on ink from City Hall. I did that at the airport out of my budget also. So, thank you. The source of funds in the bottom of that staff summary are incorrect. It will be an airport project and we didn't get that changed. That's my fault. 131, 280, 67, 99 will be the fund for this project. There was 35,000 budgeted for that. This is 37,000. But when you see the other bids, I believe it's crazy not to accept this and move on.

J.D., is there an intended purpose for this building once we get all this done?

So if you look at that picture, you'll see the red, what we're tearing down. That was originally the locker room off of the swimming pool building. That very large building that used to be the swimming pool building is still used for a revenue source as storage for RVs and boats through the wintertime.

So that's what it would be intended?

Yeah, it would continue to do what it's doing, but just clean up the outside of it to clean up the mess we have there. And Jake and his crew, Keely, without their help on this, this would have never been possible because I learned a whole lot about asbestos removal and demolition through this. So they're an expert in the field on what they do. Yeah. He didn't want mentioned, but we did it anyways. Does anybody else have any other questions?

What was the highest bid? Do you remember?

Yes, it was 152,800. There you go.

Any other questions from council? Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Kavanagh? Yes. Council Member Reed? Yes. Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman? Yes. Council Member Dupre? Yes. Resolution number 187-2026, authorizing the removal of certain special assessments applied to 419 South Foster that were on resolution number 22-2026, totaling $800. Recommendation pass and adopt resolution number 187-2026. Motion to approve. So moved.

second turned over to planning and zoning coordinator mr rush thank you mayor so in november of 2024 council agreed to remove all the assessments on the property at 419 south foster except the 2023 mowing assessments of 250 for mowing 74 for interest and nine dollars for administration fee totaling $433. Eddie Paxton would pay this and then he would have the lots free and clear. Ed paid that and did substantial work to the lots just to discover that 2020, resolution 2020-2026 assessed mowing fees for the 2024 mowing season. They didn't get removed before they were sent to the treasurer's office. This resolution removes the special assessments assessed to the property under previous ownership for the mowing fees of 2024.

And do you have a successful bidder for that property?

So this is already owned by Ed Paxton. He bought it in 2025. He's maintained it a lot. We're not motored anymore. He's taking good care of it.

So this is just correcting a clerical mistake. Yeah, that's what it's doing.

Any other questions from council? Chris, take the roll.

Council Member Kavanagh? Yes. Council Member Reid? Yes. Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman?

Yes.

Council Member Dupre? Yes.

Thank you.

Resolution number 193-2026, approving a professional services agreement between the City of Ottumwa and WHKS for professional services for the water pollution control facility Elm Street lift station repairs and authorizing the mayor to sign the agreement. Recommendation passed and adopted. Resolution number 193-2026. Is there a motion to approve?

Move the recommendation. Second. City Engineer Burgmeier.

Thank you, Mayor. So this agreement is for professional service, professional engineering services related to the design, build and construction of improvements to the Elm Street Pump Station. The project will include replacement of three pump isolation valves, two slide gates, a force main isolation valve and 20 feet of pipe between the force main valve and the pump station drywall. Also one new pump will be installed in slot number one. There have been no comprehensive refurbishments of the Elm Street Pump Station since 1998. This project combines several small tasks into one large project. The valve gates above are used to isolate different parts of the pump station to allow maintenance on one piece of equipment without shutting down the entire pump station. These valves either currently leak or don't close at all. The department now uses inflatable plugs or secondary check valves to isolate or redirect flow. Because the Elm Street Pump Station handles 90% of the city's sewage, it's important to keep everything fully functional with new, reliable equipment. The compensation from WHKS will be based on the following fees. There'll be a lump sum for a design of $33,750 and then hourly fees with an estimated cost of 19,600 for construction services for a total of $53,350. So WHKS, the plant engineer, what would council meeting be with at least one slideshow? So they're based out of Mason City, Iowa. They're our plant engineer. The services they're gonna provide under this contract are a research of existing conditions, providing plans, specifications, and estimated costs, and submitting construction permit application to DNR. They'll be their lump sum design services. And for their construction services, they'll do a pre-con meeting with the contractor. They'll clarify any design details we ask about through the contract and review pay requests. And they'll also provide part-time construction observation as needed. We think about once a week they can come down and look at it, but we'll be doing the day-to-day of that uh so this is elm street pump station it's down off of iowa avenue the levee is in the bottom left right there the star is the actual pump station itself these uh buildings down down here are the grit chamber and the and the bar screen This is a little closer, like schematic type view of the pump station. This background was built in 1957. There was improvement projects done in 1970, then again in 1994, 1998, 2001. The 2001 was for the forest main. It wasn't anything in the pump station itself. So this handles 90% of all the plant influence. So everything from the south side and almost everything from the north side flows through this pump station to get to the treatment plant. Sewage enters here via some flow control structures. It goes down into this grit chamber where most of the sand settles out. Then from there it comes into the bar screen, comes back up here to the wet well, and then inside this building here is where the pumps are that pump it to the plant through about a 4,000 foot force main. A little closer view of the pump station. The gates we're planning on replacing are in here. So this is the new Blake's Branch sewer, part of phase eight division, or just phase eight. This is a 36 inch line that comes from the north side box. And this 30 inch line goes from under the river and is all the south side sewage flow. And it comes here into this box here, then flows over to this junction box. This gate down here is normally open, and this one's normally closed. And it flows down here to the grit chamber bar screen, then back up here to the wet well. Right now, these gates don't work. So if we ever have to shut flow off, you have to wait till the level's low and put an inflatable plug in there. If the flow's high, there's no way we can redirect flow away from the bar screen if we had to. And then this up here is, it shuts off the force mains. This is the force main going to the plant. So that gate doesn't work either. So if we ever have to pull anything out, we'd have to shut the pumps off and let all that 4,000 feet of sewage flow back into the dry well and pump it out if we ever had to do any work for those things. This is inside. So right now, these are the three valves we're going to replace inside. Right now, we rely on these check valves to stop it because none of these close tightly enough to allow work. But the check valves do work. But if anything ever happened to the check valves, again, we'd have no way of replacing any pumps. Right now, pump two is in that state right now. The check valve leaks. So if anything happened to it, we can't replace it. Flow comes, this is the wet well down here. Flow comes up from the bottom through these check valves into the main force main that goes out. So just trying to get it so that we can, get flow shut off how we need to get it shut off and be able to work on the plant if or when anything eventually happens to it.

So Mr. Bergmeier, I know that you work with this all the time. You see it and you give us some good pictures here, which are great. But the average person, including myself, we just don't understand the hugeness and the size of some of this that you're dealing with. And it is, it's very, you know, so to have somebody to come in and consult, give some direction, some design as to how to do things, I think is very important. Somebody might say, well, that's how you just pump. I've got pump in my basement. I'll bring to you, put it in. You know, it's nothing like that. It's huge. And it's very complicated to have seen some of it. And I can't even imagine replacing some of that stuff.

And we do replace some of the, like we've replaced each of those pumps, you know, several times over the years. It's not the same pumps from 1998, of course, but it's just when other parts get worn out, it's nice to have a plant engineer who knows the whole system that can help you with making sure the project goes smoothly.

So you're saying all of those that are circled in blue are leaking?

Yeah, either that or they just don't close all the way. So... Yeah, these, so these Xs are gate valves that like, like a knife valve or different names for them. They slide down and shut the flow off. But over the time, you know, as they don't get open all the way or as just corrosion on them, they don't sell anymore. So when you shut them off, if it wasn't for the check valve, it would, it would leak. But some of the check valves are starting to leak now too. So when we go to pull a pump, we can't stop the flow coming back into it.

So just to clarify, when he says leaking, it's not going outside the pipe.

No, it's just seeping under.

There might be others that hear that and say, we're dumping sewage and that isn't what's happening.

It's like a leaky heart valve. Yeah. It's not leaving the pipe.

It's leaking back through the pump. Yeah, you're not able to stop flow in order to repair. Right.

Yeah. So I think it's very wise, obviously, to have somebody help with the design and the plan for how you're going to go about all that. It's a big project.

And it's a time factor too. We only have so many people in the office and we're, we got more expertise on streets and, you know, gravity sewers, stuff like that than pumping and pressure pipes. So we spend our time designing, you know, streets and intakes and gravity sewers and try to get this stuff sent out to people who deal with it more often. since it's you know almost 30 years since anything's been done to it it's just there's no in-house expertise and stuff like this sometimes so this repair was budgeted is it budgeted for the full amount or was it budgeted this budget is for the engineering services so we budgeted a certain amount in the wastewater plant budget for the engineering services so this is out of the engineering services budget we did budget for the repairs and the capital budget as well, so that'll come out of the capital budget.

So everything's covered?

Yeah. Thank you. There's 150,000 in that line item, and this is 53,350 from it. Okay.

Any other questions from council? Chris, take the roll, please.

Council Member Kavanagh? Yes. Council Member Reed? Yes. Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman?

Yes.

Council Member Dupre? Yes.

Right, with this we are at the public forum, so I'd invite if there is anyone from the audience that would like to come forward to speak, this is your opportunity. Okay, not seeing any, I'd turn it over to council for any reports or things that you would like to communicate to the public. Nothing? Okay, well I have something. I'm gonna start one. I know you've probably heard that there's gonna be a new jail put on the ballot by the county. I wanted to just briefly talk about they are going to have public forums throughout Wapello County. So I'm gonna say these quick and you'll have to review it, go back and rewind. But October 6th, 6.30, Agency Community Center. October 8th at 6.30, Blakesburg Elementary School. October 13th at 6.30, Eddyville High School. October 15th at 6.30, the Eldon KD Center. And then in Ottumwa, they have October 24th at 10.30 a.m., third floor of the Wapello County Courthouse. And then also October 27th at 6.30 p.m., Wapello County Courthouse, also on third floor. If you're interested in learning more, asking questions, speaking how you feel about the new jail that's going to be on the ballot, those are places that you can go and do so. They're also going to have a website up, so keep checking the Wapello County website. That'll have information there as well. They're still working on getting that up and live. Um, the other thing I have, well, several thank yous. I wanted to one, thank Mr. Hoffman for filling in for me in the last council meeting. Great job. Um, I heard lots of comments on how good you did. In fact, there were some that said you should probably do it all the time, but I like the seat. So I'm not going to allow that to happen. So, um, But thank you. I know that if I need to take a Tuesday afternoon to play some golf, I can hand it off to you. So that's good. I do want to also thank Mike. And I know this isn't Mike that's our new finance officer, although I do want to thank you for what you're doing. But Mike calls me every week. And he leaves a message a lot of times because it's at times I'm not in my office, but it's a call that is of encouragement. He has suggestions for the city to make the city better. He observes the things that we're doing, and it's just one of those every week I get a call from him. So I wanted to just give him a shout out. Thank you for your calls. Yeah, it's great to hear. I wanted to thank Chief Canto and the 9-11 memorial service that we had on Friday. Another beautiful service put on by the chief and all the firefighters that were involved in that. So necessary for us to continue to do that. So I thank you for that. I wanted to thank the people who are on boards and commissions. You guys are doing good work and oftentimes you don't hear a thank you. You don't necessarily maybe know what you're doing, but you're doing great work. You're moving the city forward and. just be ready to do more because we got a lot of stuff coming. Then I also wanted to publicly thank the Iowa Secretary of State, Paul Pate. He was here on Friday and gave a presentation, actually had more of a roundtable discussion with people about the Iowa businesses against trafficking. We were talking about awareness of human trafficking and points of action that we can take here in our city to just eliminate that completely. I wanted to thank him for being here and putting that on. And other than that, that's all I had. So with that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. Chris, take the roll.

Council Member Kavanagh? Yes. Council Member Reid? Yes. Council Member Galloway? Yes. Council Member Hoffman? Yes. Council Member Dupre? Yes.