City Council - Regular Meeting

ENGINEERS FOR THE 28th STREET CLOSED LANDFILL GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT.

I'M GOING TO ADD, NICOLE, ON 10D, DID YOU LOOK AT THE CONTRACT, THE SIGNATURE WAS BEING SIGNED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, IS THAT AN AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE?

YES, NORMALLY FOR THIS COMPANY.

OKAY, THANKS. E is a resolution awarding and approving a contract to Mark Galvaniches for the 13th Street storm sewer improvement project. F is a resolution approving a service provider agreement to electric pump for the pump removal, repair, and installation project.

So we have two pump projects, 10B and 10F. Could those not have been bid together so that we maybe eliminated some of the mobilization costs?

Tom Pingel, Public Works Director. Good question. We wish we could have planned for this. These pumps failed. There's only five pumps down there. Four of them are down. And this is our largest lift station. So we acted quickly. We did not want to go to an emergency situation and possibly pay higher than we had to. We do rely on our equipment, and we think that the current equipment down there is capable of handling this for two to three weeks until this gets repaired.

Next time. B is a resolution approving amendment number one to the renewal option number two of the service provider agreement with boiler room services for routine boiler room service maintenance at the wastewater treatment plant and lift stations. 11 are actions relating to property. A is a resolution inviting proposals for the sale of the vacated east-west alley adjacent to 1213 Grandview Boulevard for the Combined Central Sioux City CBD Urban Renewal Area, announcing the intent to accept the proposal of Bishop Helan Catholic Schools in scheduling a hearing. B is a resolution authorizing and approving an assignment and an assumption of the mutual easement agreement with Pierce Street Partners and Steel Martin Tower property at 4th Street and Pierce Street. It would... I'M SURE WE PROBABLY ARE OBLIGATED TO DO THIS, BUT ARE WE? BECAUSE NOW IS THE TIME TO NEGOTIATE GETTING RID OF OUR PART OF THAT BUILDING. IF WE EVER ARE GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE, NOW IS THE TIME.

Marty Doherty, Economic and Community Development. I agree with you, Mayor, and we have talked to them about this. They didn't show a lot of interest in the past, but we said we would revisit it with the buyers.

Once they get this assignment, they have no reason to negotiate. They have a reason to negotiate now.

Yeah, the assignment, and Nicole and I worked on this, the assignment of the easement is exactly the same easement that has existed in the past.

What if there is no easement?

The time to get out of this piece of property that we should have never gotten into is today. And if you give them this assignment, they will never negotiate in good faith.

I will say that they have indicated that they believe this isn't necessary for the council to approve an assignment that one of their finance partners has requested. So that is the reason that it's on the council agenda today.

Bob, what do you suggest? What? What do you suggest?

I'm suggesting that we withhold this until we negotiate. We don't need, it's a long story, but back in the day, I won't even name his name. The finance director thought, I'm going to make all this money on these tax certificates. So we bought them. That's how we got stuck with this thing. And it's never been defined who's responsible when it comes, we always get stuck with half the bill and we only own the basement. And most of the water damage came from up above. Tell me when I'm wrong. Why would I want to be?

It goes back a long ways, Mayor. You're right. The city owns the first floor in the basement. For years, Thorpes was in there, and we kind of broke even on it, paid the bill, the rent, paid for the bills, and so on. But after they closed years ago, there's really nothing in there, and we would like to sell it. We knew that it was being purchased. Lou Weinberg was selling it, and we've talked to the new owners. And as you know, Mayor, there was a lot of issues with work that had to be done inside the building, and that's all been completed. And they indicated they would talk to us again about that, or we could try to sell it to someone else, of course. But the easiest path would be to sell it to them. I agree with that.

Yeah, I'd like to pull it and try to get something done. Listen, I'm not naive. It's not my first rodeo. We're going to have to pay him a little bit to take the thing. That's reality. But your first loss is normally your best loss. And we're never going to get a chance at getting rid of this again. Never. They don't have any reason to. Do you need a motion?

I'm going to move to defer.

Second.

Just for the council's benefit, I believe they do have a closing date of Wednesday of this week. It doesn't impact what you have to do today.

And the lender may waive the requirement is what you're also saying?

Correct. The attorney that asked us to do this had indicated they believed it was self-affecting related to the underlying agreement and they didn't need the council's permission. That's what was represented to me. But that's a discussion that we can also have.

On the two-week deferral, Bertrand?

What am I voting on?

The deferral to August 3rd. Rayford?

Wait a minute. Roger, do you want to speak on that?

I'm so sorry. I shall wait.

Yeah, come on up, Roger.

Roger Codron, 4921 Singing Hills Blvd, speaking on behalf of both the seller and the buyer, Steele Martin Tower LLC. Closing for this property is scheduled for Wednesday the 29th. Closing moving the City Council action to another week would mean that the closing would have to get pushed into the middle of August at the earliest. which will cause some problems for both the buyer and the seller. This is a situation similar to the city owning a property next door the only difference is this is vertically this is a separate property and uh... the uh... close roger you can't so i don't want that storm on response but when they're tied together yes you know and the buyer is unable to uh... by yet uh... as a part of this package because of the financing that's good that is going into the property So I think the answer is going to be the same thing in a week from the buyer. They are unable to purchase. Financing is all set for the project. It's ready to go.

We're not asking for any money, Roger. We're not asking for any money.

But the... I think I can answer that by the fact that the applications for financing with Freddie Mac, with the bank, and with the tax credit financing are set based on the purchase of the property from Pierce Street Partners. In all likelihood, knowing those programs as well as I do, we start over.

Everything starts over the guy that just said it's a separate piece of property So it should not if they can still go and buy that separate piece of property We're just asking them on the side to accept this as part of the project We're not asking for money. We're just asking to get out of this.

And I'm going to pass along what I've got Justin Unger with the buyer on text here. And he said they cannot buy it now, this is a quote, but could buy it down the line. can happen as a part of this package because the financing that goes into the financing packages but put together but we're not selling it we're selling it for a dollar so it shouldn't affect it and i wish we would have we're still selling it and if you're making one contingent upon the other then you're in an urban renewal district that process for a dollar is 60 to 90 days down the path.

No. Roger, they can come this week and say, we'll take it. We just can't take it as part of this deal. We'll sign an LOU, and we know we won't get it for 60 or 90 days because it's a separate title, separate deed, separate everything. Now, they can do that, and you know they can.

Well, I don't believe they can if it's going to hold up, if it's going to be a contingency.

I don't think it's going to necessarily hold up that trend. We'll bring it back next Monday. We can bring it back next week and change the deal, but now is the time to discuss this. Listen, we've had a lot of promises, and you know that. And every promise we ever got cost us more than it should have. Thank you. You'll disagree, but I have my opinion. You're entitled to yours.

Hold on a second here. They cannot include it as a condo because of their impact on the tax credit deal number one number two because it does not is not residential space. They would have to conduit out so it would change by creating a condo that would change the legal description of the package having to carve it out. You bet. Okay, now all of the financing is based on the existing legal description that is in place for all of the financing. We start the financing over.

And we're not saying that they should do that. We're saying they should continue with their deal that they have on floor two and up.

Yeah.

Make the deal. But in the interim, come to the city and sign that they're going to take the bottom two floors and a separate deal with us. That's what we're asking. We're not asking them to start over. We're not asking them to marry the deals. We're asking them to take that property as well.

I would say we've been working on this for well over a year. That should have been worked out ahead of time.

It's not as though that...

This is kind of blackmailing them into a position that you would have to purchase it.

It's not blackmailing. You've known that we have wanted to get this property sold together for more than a year. When we're fixing and spending hundreds and hundreds and thousands of dollars doing water repair damage from floors up above, we don't have any reason to own two floors of a building.

But we have all also known that this was moving forward on this contingent on this path. And now to stop that.

Can they move their closing to a week from Wednesday rather than this Wednesday? I think it's independent. I think it matters.

Well, that that will change. You can't do a week from Wednesday because of the mortgage that's in place. That the payoff for the mortgage that is in place gets pushed to, let's see, the mortgage payment comes out on the 6th. So the quickest that a, they have to determine what the mortgage balance is based on the payment being made for the current owner.

They can do that on a daily basis.

They won't. The best we could do is as August 11th would be the quickest if we push it past August, past the end of August or the end of July. There has to be a new payoff determined. For the month of August. And so then we get a period from basically August 11th, the mortgage company is telling us, until the end of August as a window to do the closing. So that basically pushes us to the middle of August.

But you did say they could move it to the 29th and it would keep it in July.

It is. 29th is the scheduled closing.

So we can move this to the 27th. We bring it back in a week rather than two weeks. So I'm going to move to change that date height to the 27th, please.

One of the other things from Justin is that Freddie Mac does not, the Freddie Mac financing does not permit condo arrangements within the ownership of the building.

Now, Roger, you've got 42 different properties and they were all in different ownership. I think A guy like him that bought a bunch of them should know how to do different ownership.

Not with the same legal description. Block 15, Sioux City, Iowa.

So... It's already condoed. What are you talking about? We have our own title for that.

So... We would ask if you're going to push it off, push it off no later than next Monday, the 27th. And I'm getting a text from Justin on that issue today issue now.

We've done all the other ones for these guys, so it's not like we're.

These guys. These folks haven't purchased anything else from us. No, this is a single. All of the other properties are other properties. They're all, in fact, in separate locations, separate legal descriptions, separate names, separate LLCs. They are independent, even if they were purchased by the same buyer.

I'm on Westport that we did some things like this for them.

Yeah, but that's not these folks. Okay. That's a different Denver company altogether.

Okay.

So just a second.

Yeah, because I changed the date.

Second.

Okay. On the deferral to July 27th, so one week, Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein?

Aye. Okay, 12 are applications for cigarette, tobacco, nicotine, vapor product permit. 13 are applications for alcohol licenses. 14 are board commission and committee minutes. At the end of the consent agenda, anyone want to be heard on any of those items? If not, call the roll.

Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye. Gott?

Aye.

Berenstein? Aye. Bertrand?

Aye. 15 is a hearing and resolution approving plans and specs for the Pearl Street and Railroad Surface Improvement Project. I'll move that. Second. Public hearing is now open. My fault for not asking this, but I remember we had to do a bunch of stuff like put bull yards or whatever you call them up. What are they doing now? Because they said they already did this, so it's a quiet zone. So what are we doing now that they have to do more stuff down there?

Is this being required? Yeah, why is it being required?

We spent all that money doing that before.

Gordon Ferris, city engineer. This is just for some added improvements there at Pearl Street. It's got nothing to do with the other improvements down the street.

No, no, we did Pearl Street. You divided Pearl Street. You put gates on Pearl Street. You made us not be able to drive behind the Tyson because somebody was coming out the other way, and a railroader got injured. It was a work comp thing, and they did all that. So what are they doing now?

And that's actually there behind the Tyson. It's additional improvements there behind Tyson. What? Sidewalks and medians. What? Are you going to be upgraded?

Who's doing the work, us? Well, we get to pay for it. We're getting something we already paid for. We're getting minor contribution from the railroad.

Yeah, that's all we get.

It's on us. That's why I agree with the mayor. I don't understand why we're doing the project.

When we did this, this was supposed to solve the problem so Pearl Street would be a quiet zone. We spent 300 and some thousand dollars, I can remember. It was because somebody went the wrong way out of the back of the Tyson and some railroad guy panicked and got injured. So when did they... I should have called you earlier, but this is another joke. They pay nothing for it, but yet we have to do it.

Are they requiring this, Gordon?

Yes.

Well, they ought to mow their damn weeds in town then. That's what they ought to do. I'm voting no, so it doesn't matter.

What's the latitude they have, Gordon, to require that we do?

They won't give you the quiet zone. They'll blow the whistle.

But it's already a quiet zone.

If they'll take it away from you, they have that right. Correct.

What it is.

Hearing's closed.

Shaner.

Aye.

Gott.

No.

Berenstein.

No.

Bertrand.

No.

Rayford.

No. They've got to come with a better reason, Gordon. It's ridiculous. 16 is an ordinance amending Title 10 of the Municipal Code and Title Traffic to increase the rate of charges for hourly, daily, monthly, bulk parking in the municipal parking ramps and parking meters to increase the parking fines.

Can I ask that this item be deferred for at least one, if not two weeks, or whenever the Parking and Skywalk Board gets back together? I've had a couple calls. I know that this was shared with them, but I don't know if they had an opportunity to fully review the scope of the requests on the increased fees as well as the penalties. So is it a problem if I ask for whatever time period you need to get this back to the board?

Absolutely. Tiffany Claiborne, Parking and Skywalk Division Manager. Yeah, we can absolutely do that. We meet again the third Wednesday of the month, but I could check to see if we could do a special meeting sooner than that.

I don't want to push you, unless there's urgency on your part to get this reviewed, if we can do this. Was there a meeting this week?

We just met last Wednesday. They just met last week. We could certainly delete, and then we can just bring it back.

Okay, I'll move to delete this with the idea.

Before you move it, though, can we have dialogue a little bit on it while it's fresh in mind? So is it Teresa or somebody walk us through the plan that at the end we're still at 2.83%? Are we supposed to be at 15 or something like that? Well, I didn't understand.

Do we have a motion and a second for discussion?

Oh, sorry.

We're moved.

And a second, Rick? Oh, yeah.

Oh, I thought he moved. Sorry about that. I was moving to defer this item. What you're telling me is you don't want us to defer it, you want us to delete it. If we move and delete it, then we can have discussion?

I would move the item to have discussion and then if there's a motion to delete, we would do that second.

It's because it's fresh in mind. Move to have discussion. Oh, second.

Thank you. Sarah Swearengin, Budget Manager. When we were analyzing the fund, we were kind of trying to look at comparables of other parking spaces as well as last time when we did the rate increase of $10 in 2022. We had an 18% decrease in parkers. We were trying to find the balance of getting the fund positive without trying to push out too many parkers, which would actually end up determining the fund more than the increase.

So what's the 20% that we're supposed to be at in five years? Is that binding or is that?

No, that's just an internal policy. That's our goal.

For revenues for the city.

Yes. But we have not been at that policy goal for quite some time.

Then why do we have it?

I apologize. It was $5.

I'm sorry.

It was a $5 increase in 2022, not a 10.

And so if we had that much attrition, then do we think that raising it this high would cause even more?

Well, I think that's why we were trying to find that balance of where the sweet spot is to try to keep people, but realizing that, yeah.

Yeah. I think part of the dialogue needs to be whether we ladder an increase of fees over a period of time, what that does to the fund, and how you get to the point where you need to be in, say, four to five years. And that's what I'd like the parking board to do.

Okay. Just come back with a recommendation from you guys. Please.

Maybe have smaller increases each year instead of one larger one like we do the trash.

Provide the data. What increase gets us to your 15%, 20%? I'd like to see that. Just give us that hard number. You know, you're at $10 or $12 or whatever. Just say this is the number we optimally would like.

Okay.

I didn't understand what I meant.

$15. Can I ask that when you bring this back, can you separate the request for the fee increase and the fine increases as separate items, just in case there's a discrepancy between the two? Sure. In terms of support? Thanks.

Thank you.

Calculate that by chance?

Yeah, it's a $15 increase would put us at 17.82%. $15 versus what? The $10. So another $5 gets you to where you need to be? Correct.

That's that question.

Providing that we don't lose Parker.

So that you don't have any interest.

I think if we do it incrementally, this much this year, this much next year, so people can expect it, It helps you budget for it. My two cents.

Thank you. Thank you.

I've got a motion from Councilman Berenstein to delete the item. Do I have a second?

Second. Scott? Aye.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand? Aye. Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye.

17 is an ordinance amending title 10 of the municipal code and title traffic regulating the operation of off-road utility vehicles on city streets. The first consideration was approved July 6, 2022. Move second reading. Second. Anyone want to be heard?

And for the council's benefits, the original that came forward on first reading has been presented, and then there's also an alternate ordinance for the council's consideration. We cleaned up a few housekeeping items as well.

I'm going to throw another wrench out there.

So do we need to move?

Move for discussion?

Well, we're already in discussion. Do we need to move your amendments? Yes.

Well, just for the council's consideration, I think we don't have an opinion one way or the other as to what's accepted or not.

What you did was you had the original ordinance and then as modified based upon the input that you were getting, correct?

Well, some of it. There was some cleanup that we needed to do related to city employees being able to operate. So that is part of what was cleaned up. There has been, I guess, some input received, and Caleb can comment on this too, regarding the downtown protection area. We have left it in. So if there's interest of the council to remove that, that would have to be something that's moved today. Additionally, we did do some checking with other municipalities. Caleb spoke with the city of Council Bluffs regarding the DOT tires. That's a provision in their ordinance that they do enforce. And I know that there was requested feedback required from the council. And so there is at least one municipality that is currently doing that.

Well, what I wanted to talk about was including the downtown area to allow it. I think that we could be creating an ordinance that we can't police if we have the city chopped up too much. I spoke with Reagan today about it from Downtown Partners and she ACTUALLY FEELS LIKE IT WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO DOWNTOWN NOT TO ALLOW IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO CUT OFF TRAFFIC, IT'S GOING TO SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO STOP AND HAVE A BITE TO EAT OR HOPING THE THEATER GETS BACK OPEN. IT COULD BE ANYTHING DOWNTOWN. WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT DOWNTOWN IS 56 SQUARE BLOCKS and most of those streets are a thoroughfare from one side of the city from lewis boulevard to hamilton so i just don't feel like we're going to have this big high traffic people racing through i think they don't want to lose their privilege i think they're going to maintain a 35 mile an hour i think they'll have the tires that they're required to have because they want to have the privilege but i just feel like cutting downtown out of the footprint is too much and i think it's kind of at the risk of our downtown businesses as well.

Julie, I kind of back you on that just for, because a lot of those guys that are driving those vehicles, it is recreational. it's in downtown it's kind of the recreational zone um also i i got on the horn and talked to the dnr um because there was some confusion i think with the local dnr guys and then as you moved up the chain because i would have liked to have seen floyd boulevard included just because it's a thorough that leads area and stuff because now you're going to have people kind of weaving in and out of that north side i also think that it would have been nice to see um Hamilton up to the place where it becomes a highway. But I did talk to the DNR guys, and one guy was like, oh, absolutely, you can, it's just a city decision they can make. Four lane only means highway and all this stuff. As I made my way up the ladder, that quickly evaporated that support, and then the local guys actually circled back around and said, no, what I said earlier was wrong. So as much as I would support and did the homework on it, did the work on can you go down Floyd Boulevard, can you go down, because they're technically not a highway, because the other piece of their literature says in the code says roads, but roads and highway, We are interchangeable on that part of it. So just just so the public knows that we did did the work on that, trying to get that there. But and I did do the work to go up the ladder and all the way to the DOT or the DNR. And I just don't see a way we can squeeze those throws in. But I'm with you, Julie, on the downtown part of it. I would support that. We don't want to create an ordinance you can't use.

Right. And we We're going to create an ordinance that we can't police.

I think what I got from the DNR guy was that with Council Bluffs and our size municipalities being involved, is he thinks the legislature is going to have to jump back in, and we might be one of the reasons why they jump back and, number one, put a license plate on these things, number two, allow for more defined floor lanes within a municipality. So I think it's going to head back to Des Moines either way, but we're pushing here locally. We are.

I think the idea, you know, as we endeavor to try this, you know, I do like carving out some of those areas just to see where we are and where we go. And we've talked about, you know, a year from now, you know, if it looks to be working and things work, we can always, you know, increase those areas or take a look at those things. You know, I don't know, Caleb, what your thoughts are as it relates to— Caleb, can I have Reagan come up first?

Norm I'm Caleb Khrushchev arsonist assistant city attorney So I'm sorry when you wanted right she just said she'd like Reagan to come up first.

I don't know if you can stay I just want to circle back to you about the downtown area because again We have to stop thinking of downtown as historic 4th Street West and East it's 56 square blocks so when we eliminate that we are eliminating a Hundreds of businesses.

Reagan Cody, Downtown Partners. I did send a message to city staff. Basically, the conversations that I had, we've had these for years about scooters, electric bikes, tons of things on wheels basically in downtown. With the OTVs, it was always lent towards the, once they're considered a city vehicle, they are now being enforced at the time we were having those conversations though that wasn't the case so basically had to let city staff know that talking with those that were all in those discussions previous years basically if it's city enforced there's really no reason to leave out downtown because it's going to be enforced citywide so by creating that barrier it really wasn't an issue it was kind of a moot point and you in the position of downtown partners director how do you feel about you know affecting their business that that could be opportunity you know where people come in from the edge of town or whatever yeah sure any way that people can get to downtown is is great it's fantastic until you have issues or if you have any problems but with something like this when it's a city-wide ordinance you're really specifying that you think there's going to be issues in downtown and i don't think that's necessarily the case I think a city street is going to be served as a city street. They're going to be asked to act as they would anywhere else in town. So really by saying you can't come here makes someone believe that why, what am I going to do here that I would not normally do somewhere else, really shouldn't be an issue.

So are there, trying to think through the downtown sector and the roads that lead into downtown, are there any... Gordon and Hamilton and Floyd. So you won't be able to take Gordon or Floyd or Hamilton to get to downtown. What about Lakeport?

Right. And you already have the parks identified, which I believe would cover Chris Larson Park. So we talked about that as well. Okay. I believe the only thing that wasn't in there was a parks and rec moment. I know we have our maintenance guy downtown right now who would probably love to travel in something like that for clean programs and things like that. So that also thinking forward in the future, if you are going to use those types of vehicles to clean in downtown, that would also be an item to think about.

I know you get out there in the county and those Lawton and Anthon and Mobile guys, they're pretty excited the idea of coming in.

So it's kind of fun. Something different.

Think about it as a new form of transportation. There's going to be some resistance, but like anything else, it's.

Sorry, Caleb.

What? As a reminder, the zone was put in here at Council Member Rayford's direction to see how it goes. Our office is ambivalent of whether it's there or not. The downtown zone, you mean? Right. We were asked to put it there, and so it's there. If we're asked to take it out, then it's out. So, and as a reminder, the way it was put toward our office was that it was a matter of traffic congestion, vehicular congestion, and pedestrian safety. So that, you know, business considerations weren't really discussed too much at the outset there.

Were there any other? None of the enforcements were changed. I didn't see any of the enforcements were changed. No. Still sticking with strict enforcements. We can still confiscate the buggy if we need to.

In certain circumstances.

That's a rare circumstance, but yes.

So the only thing, I guess we would ask you to look at the alternate that was proposed just for the housekeeping items that I had mentioned. And then if there is an interest in deleting the downtown area, that would be a deletion of 10.55.030 sub 2 sub G. That's the specific boundary for the downtown.

So we can make a motion on that?

Yes, we would ask that you accept the alternate and move it.

Before we get to moving other, Caleb, I want to make sure that we're clear in addressing all of the items. I think the number one issue has got to be, overriding issue has got to be safety. You're comfortable with the ordinance you've drafted, safeguards the user of the UTV, pedestrians, and other vehicle traffic.

Say that one more time. Am I comfortable?

You're comfortable with the ordinance that you've drafted provides safety for the UTV operator, pedestrians, and other vehicular traffic. Assuming everybody follows the rules, right?

That's my point.

Are you comfortable that the rules can be enforced? Yes.

Oh, I think I am. If you're asking my professional opinion, I would say yes.

And if I could just say, within the confines of the law, we've done what we can as far as putting the items out that we can control safely. I forgot to mention this, but in the alternate version, we did also include a slow-moving vehicle triangle, which is included in the other.

Required on the UTV. Yes.

So that has now been added on the back of the vehicles as a requirement. Also, I think that's in the state literature as well.

It is. Okay.

GOOD. YOU'RE COMFORTABLE THAT YOU'VE ADDRESSED THE NOISE ISSUE? YES. COMFORTABLE THAT YOU'VE ADDRESSED REQUIRED SAFETY EQUIPMENT ON THE UNITS? THEY MOSTLY PERIT THE STATE REQUIREMENTS. ARE THERE MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED WHEN SOMEBODY GOES IN TO PURCHASE A UTV THAT WOULD BE FOR OFF-ROAD USE AND WHEN THEY ADVISE THE SELLER THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE OPERATING AT Road are there required modifications to the unit I?

Don't think I can really get I mean possibly likely depending on the what they're going to be perceived out requirements the windshield requirements all of those are What the state code is requiring and asking so all of that has been included? And I couldn't tell you how bearable with that and some don't purchase. I don't know the answer to

My name's Penny Tobin. I can address that. Like she said, some units come with turn signals, some don't. 99% come with headlights, brake lights, and then turn signals as an add-on to that. You come with seatbelts, too, don't they? Oh, yeah, seatbelts. You can put a four-point harness in there, all kinds of safety stuff. My question is about the tires. Why are we requiring, like, a motor vehicle, a car type?

So, Penny, let me ask you, because the DNR guy said that most, and maybe he doesn't know, he told me that most of those tires that are coming out now have that stamp on it, or don't they? They're already meeting the requirement? It's kind of a moot point? Or is it? Or do you, as the...

I have not seen one.

So you have to change out any of these tires that you're doing right now?

I know that the tires that come on most units are soft, so they're doing less damage to the roads. And if we're going with a DOT tire, that's going to be more like a car tire, an SUV tire, which is going to put us in... I drive a Jeep, and it's got big, beefy knobs. It's...

What's the code say? Because he acted like it was a moot point.

There is no state code. The state does not require any kind of tire change whatsoever.

Because I just asked him, are the stuff that's coming on the manufacturers or putting out, is that legal on the roads? He said, yeah. So that maybe we're thinking too much on this one a little bit. I don't know.

Oh, I'm sorry. I mean, not to be too contradictory or, you know, not throwing spears or anything, but a lot of the apparatuses that come with tires that are stamped NHS, which means non-highway service. They are softer tires, but there's also a lot less... you know, per square inch compared to the weight of the vehicle, a lot less rubber hitting the road. And so when you're getting up at the higher speeds, 30, 35, if you need to slam on the brakes, you're not going to be stopping as quickly as you would with road tires. Just on a, you know, per square inch basis. You don't have as much rubber meat in the road, so you can have less controllability.

So that section, just for the reference, was 10.550257. That reference was the DOT marking.

What's it say? What's it say, Nicole?

DOT requires those tires.

Is there a stamp or something like that?

No, this was just in our draft if you wanted to see where that followed. It says tires approved for highway use which comply with sections. There's a lot of sections here. 10.321.440, 10.321.441, so 432 as amended, which bear a manufacturer's DOT marking.

In some, like, one of those sections prohibits studded tires. Another section prohibits metal tires. Those are the references given in there, but essentially, you know, if the tire is marked with the stamp DOT from the manufacturer, that's what... You sell those, Penny?

You sell those tires?

I guess I've never really looked. I've already bought a new set of tires for mine because those rubber tires that come on them, our biggest complaint is six months, the people driving on the roads, on the streets and the roads, every six months they're buying a new set of tires because they wear out that fast. I've got a bald one sitting in the shop right now.

I should just get a new set stamped right away.

He don't even want to replace him. He's from South Dakota, so I don't care what he does. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

What do we have on the floor here? So can I ask just a couple of follow-up questions still? You're comfortable that the insurance coverage is in place. I know that the title documents stamp on the certificate that it is not recommended for off-road use. Does that affect your analysis under the state code?

That does not affect my legal analysis, no, because the insurance is still going to be required for operating on streets and highways.

Everybody else is doing it.

Everybody else is doing it.

That's insurance. Well, that's the point. That's accurate. Then the last question I've got, or the last point I want to make is that virtually everybody I visit with, especially those that are in the business of selling these units, they're a bit ambivalent. I mean, they're comfortable with passing, comfortable if it's not, right? But what they tell me is that this is all based upon the operator and the skills and capabilities of the operator. The question that I've got is, would you recommend increasing the minimum age from 18 to 21?

And we haven't seen any other ordinances that have done that, that we've, I guess that I've reviewed or looked at.

I think that state code is 18, I think. And I haven't seen, in the sampling of cities that I had presented in my email of July 9th, in that sampling I didn't find any that had a requirement any different from state code in terms of minimum age. So I can't really give a practical answer to your question.

I wanted to add just one thing about the tires. I got a text message from someone who owns that, that he's actually one of our local firefighters that lives just outside of the town. He thinks that the ordinance looks great, and he loves that the highway-rated tires ordinance is going to be in effect. It'll keep the noise of knobby tires down, and the sidewalls flex less going around corners, so it would lessen any risk for rollover issues.

Controllability, as I was moving to before.

And I just don't really like the restriction that you can't go downtown. But he's not the only one that thinks that.

Okay, so where are we at right now?

Okay, so as presented, because it's coming back for second reading, it's as it was presented last week. So we would ask at a minimum that the council move to amend to the alternate that's been presented. If you wish to take out the downtown exclusion, please state that.

It'll be different motions, so go ahead.

Okay.

I'll move the alternate.

Second. Berenstein?

Are we voting it with the modification? No, we can amend it. We're just voting on approving the modification? Then we can amend it.

To consider the alternate, yes. Thank you. Bertrand?

Aye. Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye.

Scott? Aye. I motion to amend it on that, too.

Remove the downtown footprint.

Okay, so I want to make sure that I'm stating the correct section, and Caleb can verify this, but I believe it is 10.55030 sub 2 sub G, and that would be removed, which would take out the downtown prohibition area. Second.

Bertrand? Aye. Rayford?

No.

Shaner? Aye. Scott? Aye.

I don't have a huge problem with it, but I think we're jumping into this and jumping in. I'm a guy that when it comes to something this dramatic, I think you should wait and see how it goes for a few months, so I'm voting no right now.

And Berenstein.

Aye.

So then the second consideration would be the alternate as presented with the removal of the downtown For second reading and I'm assuming that we're not going to move third No, so if we what I'd like the council to consider is The third reading increasing the age from 18 to 21. I don't I'm assuming that there are no I don't think you cannot do that. We could do it. You just you're not seeing it in the state code our ORDINANCE CAN BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE CODE, AND IT CAN BE INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES. SO WE CAN DO IT IF WE WANT TO. I'M NOT... LET'S JUST MAKE THAT MOTION NOW. LET'S JUST VOTE.

THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT IT OFF. THAT WAY WE'VE GOT TO CLEAN FOR THIRD. LET'S PUSH IT. LET'S THROW A VOTE ON IT, WHICH IS TOTALLY COOL.

OKAY. WELL, I'LL MOVE TO INCREASE THE RESTRICTED AGE FROM 18 TO 21 YEARS OLD.

IS THERE A SECOND?

I'LL SECOND.

Rayford.

I'd like to hear what your thoughts are, Penny.

Penny Tobin again. It's nothing to do with you guys. It has to do with the news channels. And I don't know if what you guys put out there, if somebody could explain it a little better, because the first words is Sioux City Council passed. And people were taking these on the streets. They didn't go past the first reading or anything else. And I was getting hit up like, oh, these are legal now. And I've turned away probably 20 people in two weeks because it's not legal yet.

Same thing with fireworks. When they pass it the first year, it just takes time.

It just, like, people want to go out on the streets.

We're not going to do third reading, I can tell you that.

That's not passing today.

And you just want to make sure that we make it very clear that until we approve third reading, it is not law.

Yes, please.

It is not law until we approve third reading.

Yeah, because people are going crazy. We have ETVs going out there, and it's out of control.

And for clarification for the public and for the news as well, if the council passes third reading next Monday, it is not effective until publication, which will be the Saturday following at the council meeting, so it doesn't go into effect until it's published to the public.

And I can have that information on to the other dealerships too.

Okay, thank you.

Penny, what are your thoughts on the 18-1?

There's not much maturity between 18 and 21. If they're going to be bad, they're going to be bad until they get in their 30s, so.

So you want us to make it 31? So they can go to war.

I'm over 60, so I don't care. Yeah, it's, I don't see a big difference. 18 to 21, at 21 you're legal to drink, so I think.

And they can't drink at 18, so they're safer at 18 than they are at 21. Exactly.

I don't think they're not supposed to. Apart from the consumption of alcohol, I think there, with all due respect, I think there's a big difference between an 18-year-old and a 21-year-old. I really do. I think there's a significant difference in those three years.

I don't know. I'm speaking from experience, and I've raised three boys, so 18 to 21 wasn't much difference. They were still doing stupid at 21, so. Call the vote.

Call the vote.

No. Shainer? No. Scott? No. Berenstein? Aye. Bertrand?

Okay.

Anything else you want to... We'll vote on the second reading as all the amendments. Yes, thank you.

Second.

It's already been brought up.

Oh, okay. Sorry. Shainer? Aye. Scott? Aye. Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand? Aye. Rayford?

Aye. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Thanks, Kayla.

The copy that will be attached to the agenda for third reading will incorporate all of the amendments from today as a clean version.

18 is a resolution approving a project concept plan for the Big Sioux River Levee Extension Project for July 13, 2026. I'll move that. Second.

Can I use

Scott Berenstein Bertrand Rayford Shainer 19th resolution approving amendment number one to the Consoling Services Agreement with JEO Consulting for the Big Sioux River Levee Extension Project deferred from July 13th, 2026. I'll move that. Second.

Berenstein Bertrand Rayford Shainer Scott

20 is a motion authorizing negotiations with AmeriFlex to serve as our flexible spending account administrator, deferred from July 13, 2026.

Can I ask that items 20, 21, and 22 be discussed at the same time, Mayor? Yep.

Do we have a motion? Yep.

Yeah. In motion, just discuss them all at once, or do you want to move all three of them at once?

I guess we're merely taking that one at a time, so I would just say have a general discussion and then you'll have to move each one if you want to make a different action.

Okay, go ahead. Is this Janet or Janelle? Either one? So in looking at these, were these items bid as a package? Were they bid together? Were they bid separately between the flex? Hang on one second. Do you guys...

Want to speak on it?

Um, this is a gentleman that owns the property on the big school. He thought he was going to get called up. Oh, do you want to hold off?

Sure, come on. OK, sir.

I just I'm Todd Eggman. 1615 River Drive. This is my wife Jody. We own 1601 River Drive. I just wanted to say I was just very disappointed way this transpired We would like to have had some consideration some foresight that we were still an issue We did not realize we were still you were still pursuing the property in the flood levy You purchased three homes west of us we were never notified or informed that we were ever considered our property We were told it wasn't necessary I We received a call from City Engineer Gordon on 2-15 last Monday that we needed to be at the council meeting at 4 for a vote for the property being needed purchased for the flood levy. This was the first notification we had received when we found out we were being discussed for this for a while. We have no desire to sell. Lived here for 32 years. Fixed up. Ready for retirement is paid for. Had to put in a trust. Our daughters live in Riverside. Your son is moving there 5 blocks away with grandkids. We thought we were going to be there for awhile. You know it's a in town acreage, five lots on pavement. All my equipment's off the streets. Everything's in garages.

What did you say was off the streets? Equipment? Trailers.

I have three trailers. I'm a contractor, remodeler, also radon mitigator. So I have a couple different trailers. So... We're just looking for options. Do you really need the whole property? Can we just sell what's in the floodplain, which is just a corner of our lot where my other garage is? That's all.

So, Gordon, can you speak to that? Because I appreciate and respect what you're saying in terms of the sudden. We've had a lot of dialogue, and I know there's been some dialogue about sort of the urgency of going forward, especially with regard to acquiring some of the properties. So I would like to see, Gordon, can you at least share with Todd and his wife some of the updated dialogue, the plans, or do we need to reconsider this?

You want me to hear or privately?

I think Todd's comfortable with you discussing at least a little bit now and setting a plan.

A little bit, but I would assume privately, too. I mean, this is a little... Why don't we have a... We're up.

Rick and I are public work teams leaders, which discusses these kind of things. So we're having a meeting on the 27th. Do you have any availability?

We're actually planning on going on vacation.

Oh, okay, that's fine. We can meet with you another time before that. You tell us what works, and we'll sit down with you.

Any time after that.

Any time after the 27th? We leave on the 24th. You leave on the 24th, and you'll be back August 2nd?

So, like, when we talked on the phone, I thought you were extremely reasonable. I really did. I thought we had a great discussion, and I feel where you're at. The crazy part about it is you actually understand that, and I appreciate Mayor Scott on this one, that he agrees that this should have been done, like, was it in 11? Is that when you were standing on the dike back in 11? Yeah, there's no doubt.

I mean, this started in 2000.

Yeah, I mean, it should have been captured. And the hard part is that what we talked about, and the public may not understand, is that not if, but when the next flood comes, what's put in place right now is you're going to get wet either way. Because the solution that the brilliance of the city came up with before we got here, which was they're going to construct a temporary dam behind your property to stop the water to save the 224 downstream. And after they shoot all the engineering and find out where the heights are, the reality of it is that your house should have got took when it was wet. That's the reality. I mean, they took the three, they should have took the four. That council didn't do that. So, you know, like we talked about it, it really, it stinks. But to actually, for the city to do the right thing and not do a temporary fix. And so that area, those 224 downstream don't get flooded again. The height's the height. Now it's just a matter of getting you guys the right amount of money and options and everything else. That's what sucks.

But it does. Because our house never flooded. Just corner part of our property. Yeah, it did. I was there.

Our house didn't flood. No, our house didn't.

No, that's what I know. That's what I said. Yeah, you were standing in our backyard. You didn't get wet. Well, let's do this because the city attorney needs to remind us where we're at in the process. Okay.

It would have just been nice to be a partner. Yeah, as opposed to waiting until we're all fixed and all of our projects are complete and we're like very close to retirement. And so we are moving our kids next month five blocks down the road in his dad's house that he built, thinking my daughter would eventually take our house.

Well, that really was never our plan. The engineering that was presented to us was that from where we're at now down, where the three houses are gone, that would be enough. But then second glance at it said, well, wait a minute, we need to go up more. So that was never council's plan to ignore or anything intentional. That's how it worked out, and that's how we proceeded.

We were in a situation, not trying to be evasive to you today, but because of where we're at in the legal process, I would suggest that you and Rick, you guys meet first, and then you might have a way to handle what you want to accomplish when you get back from vacation, is what I would suggest.

Yes, I like it.

Okay. Go on vacation. We'll try to work a plan that allows you to stay where you are.

I'll set up a special meeting with the three of us and them. Well, not with them.

You talk to your city attorney before you do that. Okay. We'll meet with them after that meeting.

All right. So we're going to delete this?

What? No, I think we're still moving forward, because this is to move forward with the conceptual plan, hire a consultant. This gives us the flexibility to now start working through some of the details, what Gordon can do in visiting with Julie and Rick as part of the public works team, start visiting a little bit, better understand your issues, because we've shared the same concern about the acquisition of properties in your neighborhood, and we're trying to manage it the best way we can as well for your benefit as well as the community benefit. SO WE'LL DO THE BEST WE CAN, SET UP SOME MEETINGS, AND THEN WE'LL FILL OUT WITH DIALOGUE IN THE NEXT TWO, THREE WEEKS. CORRECT, GORDON? CORRECT. THAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

YES. I'LL SET UP A TIME WITH THEM. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY, NOW WE WILL GO TO 20.

SO I'D LIKE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND, JANET, HOW ALL THREE OF THESE CONTRACTS WERE BID EITHER AS A PACKAGE OR SEPARATELY. Understanding some of the nuances between the bids themselves and better understand the numbers.

Janet Fuller, HR Benefit Manager for the City of Sioux City. These three did go out on one. let, but they were all individually marketed. So there was an FSA, there was an HSA, and there was a COBRA. We did receive responses from all three who bid on this as independent bids. We went with the low bid on the FSA, we went with the low bid on the HSA, and we went with the low bid on COBRA. We did receive an email back from IBC, who was the low bid on COBRA, and they said that their pricing for COBRA was contingent upon them also receiving FLEX. But they were independent, so they're not... What I saw in the email was there was an $80 difference. There's actually, for the HSA... Let me just read this. It'll be better. Savings of $3,351.20 annually on our flex administration, $360 annually on the HSA, and then if we bring COBRA in-house, which is what we are prepared to do at this point, that's why we asked for number 20, or for number... 22 to be deleted is because we're going to bring Cobra in-house and Then we'll be saving the dollars on all of that administrative cost plus.

We'll also be retaining the 2% fee I Have a question that it doesn't pertain to that but who has an HSA that's news to me that we have an HSA in this city because I don't know that we ever took action on that and I do.

We have an HSA. It began in this past plan year. It was in all of the open enrollment packet.

Well, I certainly would have opted for an HSA before a cafeteria plan, I can tell you that, but okay. That's news to me.

Thank you. Stuart, before you introduce yourself and comment, Janet, very quickly, it seems to me that maybe in the process that the bidders didn't necessarily understand that each was going to be viewed separately because, for example, had IBC not understood it was all one package, if they're not going to administer the COBRA rights separately, was there an assumption by the other two or all three that they were going to be viewed as a package?

There was no indication on any bid that we received back that it would be a package deal, and when we announced the recipients of each product line, we did not get any pushback from the other two on not receiving the COBRA bid. And it is our plan at this time to take COBRA in-house.

Stuart Lee with IBC. uh... that is a little bit of a scary proposition to be honest we've worked with hundreds of employers and i don't have one that does cobra in-house because it's a federal law that is very scrutinized if it's not handled properly and it's pretty darn inexpensive overall for a group your size to have somebody on the outside doing it we take all the risk if something's handled improperly for the three or four thousand dollars i think our bid was eleven hundred dollars a year Janet how much is it saving us by not using a third party

The low bid was going to be 1111, so it's going to save us 3333. Oh, here it is. Yeah, 3333. But we have to pay someone in-house to do it. No, actually, it's going to fall to the HR department. And we administered COBRA when I first started here.

So no one has to spend any time or work hours or anything like that on it? There will be time spent on it.

And time, right?

Well, time is money, labor. Time is money. Right. But when I look at the costs overall, when you look at how to come up with the best value, it was to bring COBRA in-house and give Ameriflex the other two.

Go ahead, Stuart. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

No, that's okay. We've been doing your flex for 10 years, and I know when you go out to bid, your race is everything, but we're local. Last fall, if you remember, we were talking about this same issue, and I can tell you there were dozens of your employees that thanked us for keeping it. because they walk, as we talked about last year, they walk in our office. They don't understand Flex and HSA administration. They give us their receipt. We cut them a check while they're waiting in the lobby. So it's very easy for them. I think the bids are pretty darn close when it's $80 on a $12,000 bid overall.

As I understand it, the 2% rule does not apply, but if

That's it week we can correct correct the 2% rule is for purchasing not for services That's what finance informed me today accept this and we can choose to go local That's not under that rule What's that process?

You just move somebody else yeah, these are just motions to enter

That was responsive to the RFP you're already implementing it right now Yeah, we have to take over so this would be seamless for the employees. I love your cost-saving attitude by the way It's not that what I'm saying at all the I like the idea of saving money. I'm just kind of curious from a Customer standard.

Yes, our staff knows a lot of your employees by name when they come in Yeah, so you're doing it right now.

I'll even do it

Probably eight or nine years, maybe.

Probably four years. Would that have to be re-bid if we send that back? Would that have to be re-bid?

The intent right now is to just bring COBRA in-house. So they wouldn't have to re-bid it. They'd just negotiate.

Right, but they'll continue to do it for $80. Difference, right?

It's not $80.

The overall three combined, we were $80 higher on. It's about $12,231 was our bid. They were $12,150, I think.

And that's why I was asking the question about whether it was bid as a package, whether it was good to be bid as a package, or whether they were separate line items that would be reviewed and approved separately. Because I do think there's value in looking at them combined, and I think there's value in recognizing local vendors and supporters I think we need to have the discussion.

And for clarification, when it's authorizing negotiations, it isn't negotiating the price that was submitted, it's negotiating the contract terms, essentially. So what has been submitted as the bid is the bid. Yep, understood.

Well, I'd like to move that we enter negotiation with Stewart's company instead.

If we decide to go down that path, I would like to ask for a deferral so that AmeriFlex has the opportunity to also present their information.

I'll move we defer 2021 and 22 for two weeks. Second.

Bertrand? Aye. Rayford? Aye. Shaner? Aye. Scott? Aye.

23 is a motion approving the roundabout design or a traditional signalized intersection in connection with the Hamilton Boulevard-Triview Avenue intersection improvement project. Motion is requested to delete this item. I'll move that. Second.

Can I have one comment on that first? Because it's going to come back. So just to add to the conversation, somebody just talk about when they bring it back. What if we don't do anything? I'D LIKE TO INJECT THAT IN THE CONVERSATION.

WE'LL HAVE THAT IN OUR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC WORKS.

THE ONLY THING YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO DO IS YOU'VE GOT TO GET RID OF THAT SHORT TURNING LANE.

YOU'VE GOT TO BUILD THAT ONE STREET. YEAH. AND THAT'S RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE WEST SIDE, CORRECT? RIGHT.

So we'll bring that back to Public Works.

I've already added it to the 27th.

You keep me all jacked up for this, and then you take it off the agenda.

I already added it to the 27th agenda. Rayford? Aye. Shaner? Aye.

Scott? Aye. Berenstein? Aye. Bertrand?

Aye. 24 is a resolution approving the guaranteed maximum price submitted by Keywood Infrastructure for Phase 1 of the water treatment plant Facility Plan Improvement Project, I'll move it. Second. Well, why do we have this here? They're going to vote yes or no. I don't get it.

We're trying to follow the contract language as to what is required. There are two alternates for consideration.

Okay, so then we'd still vote no, and then we'd vote yes on the next one, not for it.

That's correct. Okay.

Tom, come on up and give us the great news.

TOM PINGLE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THE GMP CAME IN VERY HIGH, HIGHER THAN THE 60% COST ESTIMATE.

WHICH FOR THE PUBLIC IS GREATEST MAXIMUM PRICE.

YEP. THE GUARANTEED MAX PRICE IS WHAT GMP STANDS FOR. WE WENT INTO A PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH KUIT. THAT LASTED A LITTLE UNDER A YEAR FOR SERVICES FOR GETTING US TO THE POINT OF THROUGH DESIGN UP UNTIL THIS POINT AND AT THIS POINT THEY PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A GUARANTEED MAX PRICE. TODAY WE GOT THAT ON THE 11TH AND THAT PRICE WAS LAY OVER BUDGET. $467 MILLION AND THE BUDGET IS 285. Tom, I don't want to interrupt you.

No, no. Can you help us understand why the committee that's in place recommended the Kiewit contract?

Yes. So when we, early on, we interviewed five, PROPOSALS TO BCMR. SOME OF THOSE WERE TEAMED UP CONTRACTORS.

SCORED PROPOSALS.

YEP. YEP. AND SO ON OUR COMMITTEE, ON THE SCORING COMMITTEE TO SELECT... WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN OUR DESIGN COMMITTEE.

SO MAYBE... IN YOUR RCA, YOU SAID THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED You mean they recommended Kiewit initially, not now?

Yep. Thank you. Sorry, that's the clarification there.

And there was a committee member that sat on the scoring meeting. Okay. But the committee, as structured, is not necessarily recommending Kiewit for this contract.

So just for transparency for the community, because I think this got a lot of heat last fall. So the original plan that came in back in 2022 that was considered was from Hazen. That was the 270, right? They came back with the hard number. That's the 158, 158 million for the direct cost, 47 million for the contingency design, 63 million for basically inflation, and 30 million was kind of what they snuck in there for their fee. That's the 270. It really is $300 million. That was the number that Kiewit was tasked. We gave them 3.2 million to see if they could hit that number. That's correct. That part of it. And so what's interesting about it is And I want to compliment, Tom, you on this. They came in at 467, and the public needs to understand what this council is doing today, which is a win. I do want to applaud what you've done. They came in at 467. That's $193 million over budget. They missed this by 73%. And when I'm in construction and I give a bid, that misses it by $200 million, we call that an FU bid. It's kind of like when a guy wants me to build him a deck, and it's $10,000, and I really don't want to build the deck, I say, okay, I'll do it for $25,000. And that's kind of how I feel like when this bid came in. It was like, well, if they'll take $420,000, they'll probably take $460,000 type things. If we got them by the stones at $420,000, we're going to make them bite off $460,000.

Will you build my deck for $10,000?

So when you look at that straight through, so I want to go back to what this council did, Tom, and what you did to put us in this good position that we are in right now as a council. So when we first got on this, we insisted on oversight. And you and I kind of butted heads on this a little bit because it's rattling. It's a big project. And for the record, I'm not suicidal, and my tires on my truck are, and my brakes are fine. So, but the... I met with Tom, and the first thing we talked about is we wanted to make sure that we had off ramps in place through this. And how did we do that? First thing we did is we made key wit on the phases go apples to apples on their bids. So a lot of times in these big construction projects, they'll push the dollars off to phase two and phase three of this project, which then makes them hit their 270 or 300. We forced them to go apples to apples. So I applaud you for that. You forced them to stay apples to apples on the bid. So what we're seeing is a true apples to apples bid on this portion of it. We also then held Kiewit to the timeline, which I thought was great. All the way kept saying is we identified the off ramps. What's our timeline? We got to stay on it so that if we do get in this situation, we can bail. And to your credit, which I didn't think we would get them here before August, and there was a couple of my colleagues who didn't think we'd get there, you held their feet to the fire, and now you're in a position that we can offer. They got the GMP to us when you demanded it, and we now have those off-ramps. So again, good job there. You put us in a good position there. We also then, you and I, we sat down and we talked about calling out the bid packages. And see, these big companies like this, and that's not, that's just how they roll when you bring these big players in. They put bid packages together that were too big for anybody small. They were over bonded. And it really puts in a position where only they can get the work. And we called that out and was able to get some of our local guys some packages along the way. Now, there's a caveat there. They also talked about the qualifying bidders. We called out how they qualified the bidders, didn't we, all the way through. And they were disqualifying people that competed against them. That's inside baseball. That's classic CMAR construction. And it's the playbook all the way through that they're running through there. So we called that out. And what we really did... was at the end, which I thought was interesting, is a couple of our local guys, I don't want to call them out by name, did get some work in this monster of a project. But ironically, then what they turned around and did is they put contingencies in there, up to what, 10.8 and 4.8? They put extra contingency dollars on our local guys, saying that we don't trust they can do what they say they're going to do, which, oh, by the way, puts them in position A. Total scourge. I mean, it's a total rope-a-dope on this thing. So I don't want to look like we went into this that we didn't want to work with this player, that we did, but they're putting us in a situation that we can't identify. So to think that we're the only community... that has done this is not right. As you guys know, I shared the information with you that Corpus Christi, Texas did the same thing. They dumped Kiewit. They started off with the $750 million bid. They ended up at 1.3. Corpus Christi said on a wastewater plant, said, no, thank you. Then they turned around in Maryland, same thing, a $1.2 billion project. Bam, they went to 3.3. They disqualified. To Tom's credit, we talked about this, said, hey, why don't we call these guys and see what kind of an off-ramp it was to get away from Kiewit? And what was the response? No problem. Nobody got hurt. Nobody ended up dead. Everything kind of went their own ways, and it was a pretty smooth transition. So if we choose to disconnect ourselves at this point, we're okay. You've done the work. We've done the work to create the off-ramps. We're within contract. We don't see any issues. If we choose as a council to disconnect, we can disconnect ourselves on that end of it. And so my recommendation to the council would be is that we do reject this contract. We're going to use the off-ramps that we put in place. Let's go re-bid it. I think we can save $150 million minimally on this project, which is still a lot of money. And so I can already hear... You know, Bill Burroughs and those guys out here, I gave you your 15 minutes of fame, Bill, barking at me about how, you know, well, you know, it's really easy to be an armchair quarterback after, you know, the contract's already in place. And what I would say is that, you know, again, this would be the place that I would call out Alex Waters. I would call out, you know, Shane O'Kane. I would call it. And that's not what I'm going to do. I'm not going to call that out. We are where we are.

Well, you can't call it out because we had the off-ramp.

Like I said, we did. They were going to slow play this all the way through. I think we ought to just sit here and say we've got a good deal right now. If this new council would not have injected itself, we would have missed that. You know what? You can sell that to yourself all the way through. Right now, we would not have a GMP in place, and we would be stuck. Because their goal is to get communities like us a little bit pregnant. That's the goal. It is. So when you look at it.

We had an off-ramp all along. It was part of our route. All they were doing.

I'm going to tell you right now, it never would have happened. Never would have happened.

That's okay.

Never would have happened. Talk to the guys who are actually in the field. That's the problem that happened before December when this was rammed in. That they didn't have these conversations with the professionals in the business community around. That was the problem. So you said, what would this council have done different? They would have included the professionals in the business community around. They would have slowed the process down. But again, let's go back to we're in a positive place. We're in a positive place. We're in a positive place. So again, I think we should vote it down. We've got an opportunity. We've done the work to reset this thing. And, you know, it's too late. It's too late now on the design because what we should have done is we should have took a hasty DNR recommendation on the size of the plant. We should have actually took our time and said, you know what, what's the real size that we need? Because I know we're saying we're not overbuilt, but now we're stuck with the DNR on the size we've got to build. Okay.

It was a recommendation. It was an order.

Of course it was an order. They were cutting a deal. And the city wanted it off their books as quick as they could.

That is how it works.

It is how it works. So anyway.

We're under an order from the Iowa Attorney General.

We've done the oversight. We've put ourselves in a good position. Let's vote it down friendly. And let's move forward. And let's get some more people in here. And let's, for the taxpayer's purpose, this was a win for Sioux City, what you did. And congratulations.

Tom, a couple quick questions. Number one, We did get value from the work that Kiewit did to this point.

That's correct.

The design and the engagement as we work with Hazen. So it's not as if as we're getting to this point and have the off ramp that all of a sudden we're looking back. We got value. We got value. They just didn't give us the rights. And we've anticipated this. A year ago, right? Yeah, we anticipated that this could be a possibility. The question that I've got is to make sure that you are comfortable that if we take the off-ramp, that we're going to get good, competitive, qualified bids from good, qualified companies. And you're comfortable with that?

I am.

Okay. That's all I needed to know.

Well, Tom, you can share with them, too, that the players that were in the... Default that didn't get the bids are just thankful I mean they see the same number and they they can be competitive if they didn't think they're gonna be competitive They wouldn't be you know, that's correct. So we'll leave it at that.

So I have two questions for you Tom one obviously if we reject this GMP how much of a delay with that if you know what would occur and then if that are we under a timeline for We are under a timeline.

This project has to be done December 31st 2031

And we have notches along the way, dates of completion for parts of it, right?

Not for phase one. We have a timeline for phase two. We have a timeline for the big levy, not the levy, but the repairs to Floyd Channel.

So we have to follow those.

We have that audit that we're almost completed with that we need to have completed.

So with the rejection, then what kind of delay are we looking at?

So we're looking at a couple-month delay. We have to bring back the termination agreement because if you guys reject it today, I have to go try to negotiate with Kiewit to bring the price down. I don't think that negotiation... They can re-bid it. I doubt they'll bid.

They won't. So what, do they have 30 days to unilaterally re-bid it if that's not successful?

We have 30 days to negotiate and not pass that. So if it's five minutes, it's five minutes. I think the negotiation might not last long due to the difference of price. From there, I'll bring back next week a termination of their agreement. They're already paid out, but that'll end the contract there. Then hopefully a week or two after that, I'll bring back the plans and specs for you guys to approve.

Which we already own.

We already own. We already have the construction permit. We'll put that out on the street. For some six to eight weeks to bid, we're still talking to contractors what they feel comfortable with for their estimating team and what they have for resources out there to get a good number, a good satisfactory bid number they feel comfortable with. So I think that'll add another two months to this project.

But it should still be well within the consent order deadline, two years.

Yep. Yep, and I want to thank the council members that, you know, we had the forethought to go out there and start planning for this decision today, you know, in case we do reject the GMP. So we've been working on this for several months, and it's at the direction of the council.

Call the roll, please. Are we voting on approval or?

The first resolution is to approve. So if you do not want to approve, vote no. No. Scott?

No.

Berenstein?

No. Bertrand? No. Rayford? No. 25 is a resolution not accepting the guaranteed maximum price submitted by Keywood Infrastructure for Phase 1 of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan Improvement Project. Move it. Second.

Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein Bertrand Rayford.

26 are panhandling signs and bus ticket program.

Wait, some really good slides coming at you. Jill Wanderscheid, Neighborhood Services Manager. So just a quick overview, requested overview, on how things are going with our bus relocation program and our panhandling signs. So whenever I present, I always like to remind everyone kind of how Neighborhood Services fits into city organizations who are part of the Economic and Community Development Department. We have several other things that we work on out of our office. A lot of housing rehabilitation, public services, public improvements, and affordable housing creation in addition to what we do for folks experiencing homelessness in our community. So our bus relocation program, we've been doing this for a few years now. We have 32,000 programmed each year. So coming up in our current year already, time flies. So the rules we follow, they must be literally homeless. So that means staying in a shelter, car, vacant building, camping. They cannot just come in and say, oh, I'm staying with a friend. I want to relocate. We don't consider that experiencing homelessness. They have to have support where they're going, and that can be a variety of different things from friends and family that are willing to take them in. We occasionally have people that are referred to us by other service agencies that want to connect with maybe treatment in another community that they have a bed at. We also... Occasionally, they might have a relationship with another shelter and another community that they want to return to. That's a little bit more rare. Typically, we're reuniting people with friends and family that are saying that they can stay with them.

We also have... How do you follow up, Jill, to make sure that when you're relocating an individual that he or she is getting to where they're going and has been... taken in by a family member, another shelter, or otherwise?

Short answer is we do not. Nope. The only way we would know if they don't make it to their destination is they contact us. Occasionally they do. They'll contact us with bus issues or something like that. A lot of the people that we serve do not have cell phones. They're coming in literally off the street. So it would probably make it a little bit more difficult to determine that. And we're also taking... what they're saying at face value. If they're telling us that I... And we vet that out quite a bit. If we think something doesn't sound quite right, we'll ask a lot of questions. We'll have them sometimes call the person that said they'd take them in while we're standing there to make sure. So we do that for a variety of reasons. Number one, we want to make sure the person's safe and successful. But also, if the city is spending money on a bus ticket, we want to make sure that there's a viable place that they're going and they're not coming back in a couple days Not a vacation. Right. And we also have a requirement that the destination is at least three hours away. We did put that in place for the same reason. When we first started doing this, we kind of learned by trial and error there were people returning or they were going when we had a closer destination. So we just want to make sure that what they're telling us, we vet out as much as possible that they are actually going to a place where they have support.

You don't want to pay for a vacation.

And we send a little care kit with them to help them. Yes. Yep.

Real quick, you said that there was, what was that, 32,000? Is that money raised or is that money that comes, I mean, where does that come from?

Those are local funds. So when I talk about us being like 99.9% federal and state funded, that 0.1% is typically like programs like this. So these are local dollars. None of our grants will cover something like this. And so that's why the local source is utilized. It's not an eligible expense, I should say, for other grants. So 2026, that just ended. We ended up spending just over $36,000, but because of the way the credit cards are reconciled every year at the end of the fiscal year, almost $6,000 of that will actually post in this current fiscal year, and then when we end this fiscal year, it'll be the same thing. So we did actually end up on budget. It just looks a little odd because of those dates. So 206 people were relocated, so that gives us an average of about $177 per person.

He had 278 homeless people. He relocated 206, and we have 270 homeless people. I'd say that's not gaining on him. They keep replicating. Those numbers don't seem to...

The math doesn't math. There's so many other things that are happening. One of the things that we try, we try to figure out what's actually going on. We ask, of course, how did you find out about the program? But we also ask questions about why you're here. How long have you been in Sioux City? I thought about doing a slide on that, but the slide would have been like 100 slides. There's really no trends. We just had two people, for example, that were living up in Orange City for two years. They got evicted out of their apartment. People dropped them off at the warming shelter. Warming shelter worked with them to find another family member that would take them in. And so then they sent them down to our place. It's all over the place. People meet someone online. They come here for a relationship. There's just, every situation seems to be unique from what we hear. But in March, we did start tracking how they were finding out about the program. And since then, 88 people have been relocated. 21 saw one of the signs. So this is the large one that's in the bus terminal right now. We get a lot of referrals from service providers, a lot of referrals from warming shelter. And the rest were... that were a little bit more difficult to quantify. So we also did put these signs up in some areas around town as well, and we've also gotten some people coming into our office from seeing those. So feedback, if there are any thoughts about changing how we're doing it, how we're qualifying people, we're open to hear that too.

See it as a success.

I do. A lot of what we try to do is catch people before they get into our local system here. We do not have enough resources for the people that are experiencing homelessness here. We all know that. And so a lot of times, the people that the warming shelter sent down to us are people that are new to the community that haven't yet hit all of the systems we have in place. So why not? you know, reunite them in an area that they can actually get support other ways. Because they're probably not going to get supported here because of the lack of staff.

So the reality of it is, this is very compassionate, do you agree?

I think so, absolutely.

You're having a conversation with them, you're this and this, can we get you to support? Yes. This isn't just, you know, I don't want to portray the, because I'm getting some questions on this, the signs, and it's like, you know, that it's just you're ramming people on buses and shipping them out. That's not what this is at all. No, no. It's letting, moving people to where they can get more support.

And if you saw the destinations, I think that would also help too. I mean, I don't think people are choosing to go to Fargo, no offense to Fargo, but if I was experiencing homelessness, that probably wouldn't be a first destination for me unless I had someone there that was actually meeting me at my destination.

You're steering them towards A friend who made yes and then for shelter or relative or something like that because that truly is.

Yeah, it truly is the fastest way they're going to get help because they need support, yeah. And then the panhandling signs. These went up in 2024 and so that was in response to a lot of community concerns about panhandlers out on the corners and in the medians and so. The signs direct people to give or go to SiouxCityAssist.org. That is the home of the nonprofit that our office created during COVID. But there's also a list of all the other agencies that assist those who are experiencing homelessness that they can give to. One thing I always like to bring up, too, when we talk about panhandling is I don't have any stats to back this up, but the people that we typically see, we meaning our staff that are out and about panhandling, are not the same people that we know of to be experiencing homelessness, that are coming into our office, that are on our list once in a while, but the vast majority that we see are not recognized as people that we know are.

They may be professionals.

Yeah, a lot of times I just try to remind people there are two different populations. Not all the time, but we would say most of the time, anecdotally.

Well, and I think Mike and I was at a meeting, and we know of a family who has a home, and they're out panhandling.

Yes, yes. I met a lady that I stopped to help. She was loading up her car with her panhandling sign, et cetera, and her car was parked in a restaurant parking lot, so I... got up and went out and asked her what assistance she needed. And she just said, I needed money to help pay my rent this month. So I mean, everyone's not homeless.

You're right. So we can't really track if other nonprofits in town have seen an increase because of the signs. And so our nonprofit, we had a balance of about $540 when we started with the signs. And a total of $4,500 has been contributed, and we've expended $933. And so it's not a large amount of money. And we tend to use these funds for whatever reason, things that cannot be covered by specific grants. Someone's not eligible for a certain reason, or it's not something that's allowable per our grant rules. And so we end up doing a lot of one-offs with these funds. That person just needs... You know, they need their rental application fee covered to apply for housing. Well, we don't have a grant that covers that, for example. Or maybe they're not eligible for a birth certificate because they're literally homeless and they won't do our intake right away. We need to build that trust. And so we might get their birth certificate while we're trying to get them connected to services. Another thing that we've done at times, too, is gas cards. People that are living in their vehicles that want to relocate to where they have support, we don't have a funding source that allows that as an expenditure. So we've done a small amount of that, too, case by case, because obviously that's not what's typical using city dollars for gift certificates.

Bill, is it fair to say, I don't know if that words in your mouth, is it fair to say that funding was greater early on in the program, or is it the last? I kind of wanted to see some 90-day data. Oh. Any 90-day data or 100-day or six-month data? We have two donations that we approve today. Does it run its course?

No. I definitely think it's increased. Yep. We've had some larger donations. We had one from a church. We've had people that give monthly via PayPal. So we have that, too. So no, I would say it continues to increase each month by small amounts, not huge amounts.

Does your office help with the administration of a birth certificate or IDs or otherwise?

Absolutely. Is it a dual service, though? I mean, isn't that kind of what Hart's doing right now? We have plans in place. I mean, is it kind of double...

Same staff. So our intern typically does it, and so it just depends on how we're able to fund it. So HART typically uses all of our funding sources that are grant tied that have really strong rules, and sometimes there's people in there that we can't qualify, so then she uses this fund instead.

The reason I brought it up is because on the panhandling side, I completely agree it's two different clienteles. There's a clientele that's homeless, there's a clientele that's professional, there's a clientele that needs a $20 bill to head back into the rail. And so the number one sign across, I did some research on panhandling and from an effectiveness, if you're going to do signage, I guess the number one sign is that I would like to propose that we replace these with. It just says... Stop panhandling? Stop giving. That's it. That's the number one sign. And there's nothing cold about it because, again, this isn't about the homeless or anything else. But I think sometimes when you dance with a sign like this, you know, we're dancing in what we're doing. So sometimes the direct is the best. It's like, stop panhandling because it's a hot topic. Stop panhandling. Stop giving. And because this... It's Band-Aid money you're giving these people at this point. So I would like us to come up with a design with those four words, if we could.

We did have a more exactly what you're talking about, and we unveiled that back in 2023. We got a huge amount of public pushback. They were saying we don't want to be told what to do. We got a lot of calls, so that's why we backed off. But we can definitely...

I wish we had a QR code that you can just scan from your car to make the alternate donation right on there. You know, the realtors are starting to use those when there's big banners in the window. Then when you're at the stop sign, you just hit the QR code and it takes you where you need to go. rather than www.thewetter, right?

Jill, is there any opportunity maybe to partner with media or someone with PSAs or something to educate the community as to, you know, if, I mean, kind of to Rick's point, if If we stop giving and maybe give to, if they want to give, they can give to this. But if we stop giving, you know, it's the supply and demand, right?

Yeah, we did receive a MERD grant to do just that, a ton of commercials. And we also had some digital, that was, I'm trying to remember what year that was, 24? Around the same time that we put the signs up. So we can definitely push those out again, too.

And this sign, it does really address issues. sort of to Rick's point, because it says want to help those in need, give instead at SiouxCityAssist.org. So it really is recommending that people not do, you know, consistent with what Rick is saying and try to administer it a little bit differently.

Yeah, definitely. We'll follow up on that for sure. And then... One other thing I wanted to mention too, there's been a lot of discussion about how the Sealing Coalition to End Homelessness works. That's that large group that meets every other month of all the service providers. We've realized over the last year or so that there needs to be some more direction with that group because there's so much going on, so many great things too. And so that is a, we have a grant that we received from HUD we're going to use to do some strategic planning in August. And then one of the other things we want to focus on is reaching out more and conversing more with the faith-based community and seeing what opportunities there are for collaborating, because that's definitely a resource that we haven't tapped into yet, and we really need to be engaging with them more. So that meeting is on September 17th, so every faith-based organization in town will get Noticed on that and so we're hoping that there can be some more collaborative efforts and fill some of the other graphs that we have to so your department is conducting those meetings or Question, um, we're actually we have a third party. Okay. Yeah that will facilitate that for us. I

Thanks. Still, you've got a huge job. You know I check in often on different things.

You're doing great.

Yeah, it keeps life interesting, that's for sure. Thank you.

Brad, I'm going to set you up real quick. Last week, the reason we asked this a couple weeks ago is because we knew we were going to participate in the, what is it called? It was called the Isle Council Water Program. We sat in on that, and it really identified, again, those big fours. And with cancer being a huge topic, obviously, in the state of Iowa, and it's going to be a huge campaign issue, and there's going to be a lot of rhetoric around cancer issues. So no matter where you weigh in on this, I thought it would be a great opportunity for the public just to get the facts on where we are at with our water supply and the things that we have done even just in the last six months to really upgrade and to protect our waters. And I think the citizens of Sioux City are going to be extremely, happy on what our water quality is and the things where we have some opportunity that we have things in place. So Brad, I set you up to be a hero.

Brad Pitts, Utilities Director. Thank you, Council, for giving us the opportunity. I think where a lot of the information stems from before we get started was the Department of Natural Resources annual compliance report. That really gives all the data on compliance for drinking water throughout the state. If you look at that report, what you're going to see is that Sioux City met all state and federal regulations. for 2025, and we continue to do so for 2026. So, you know, we can't do that without our staff at both water treatment facilities and especially the underground utilities guys, especially on days like today. It makes it a little bit difficult, and we commend them for that. So I got a little bit of fluff up front just to talk about raw water, kind of the treatment process. Sioux City is a groundwater under the direct influence of surface water system. We pull water out of wells, out of the Dakota sandstone and Missouri alluvium aquifers. And that classification of groundwater under the direction of surface water kind of derives from the water filtering through the sands and gravels on the riverbank. The Missouri River is what recharges our aquifers. Kind of a treatment overview, both the Southbridge plant and the Zenith plant are both iron and manganese removal plants. On average, we pump about 13.6 million gallons per day of safe, reliable drinking water to the customers of Sioux City. The following treatment processes, we use aeration, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation. We have dual media filters at the Zenith plant, and then we have microfiltration membranes at Southbridge. And then we also have UV disinfection at the zenith plant, and then obviously we're chlorinating at both plants. So quality control is kind of really where it starts. We have sampling frequencies that vary from, I put daily on here, but really it's every second. We're analyzing different constituents up to every nine years. All of these things depend on historical data. And that's how the DNR determines how often we have to test for certain analytes.

What do you only evaluate every nine years?

They're coming up here, so I'll show you. But the things that we test for over that nine-year span are inorganics, organics, microbial and biological, radiologicals, general water quality, and some nuisance substances. So when you hear about cancer and drinking water, these are the constituents that they're talking about. We talk about arsenic and radionuclides. We talk about nitrates, which you hear a lot about, disinfection byproducts, and then, of course, the latest and greatest, which is PFAS, which we're dealing with, and we'll dive into a little more detail as we get further into the presentation. So we'll start with arsenic and radionuclides. Arsenic is a sample that's taken every three years. Radionuclides, combined radium and gross alpha are between six and nine years, depending on the location. And then as I should just mention the Consumer Confidence Report, Sioux City is required to put that report out every single year. It comes out later in the year because we don't get the information from DNR until April, I believe it is, and then we've got to have it out by June 1st. So as you look at the data, the data has essentially already passed. As you get it as a customer, you're looking at old data. But that's what we're required to do. So as these results show up on the Consumer Confidence Report, alpha emitters, the result that we had was 5.5 picocuries per liter, where the MCL is 15. Combined radium was 1.5, where the MCL is 5. And then arsenic, our latest sample was one part per billion, where the MCL is 10. And we also collected a system sample in June for arsenic and it was a non-detect. So we did do, at the request of a customer, we did do an arsenic sample. All right, nitrates. One sample every year at each plant. The results as posted in the Consumer Confidence Report were 0.49 at the Zenith plant and less than 0.25 at the Southbridge plant where the MCL is 10 parts per million. So a lot of people ask the question, why is Sioux City any different than any other community? And that can be attributed to a few things. One, we're using wells. So the you know, the nitrates just aren't as high in the deeper aquifers. And then also we gain a benefit from some denitrification in the upper basins in the Missouri River. So as we look at that, you know, we're using that water to recharge our aquifers. Some people say, well, if you look at the Big Sioux River, it hugs that bank on the north side of the Missouri River. But even though you see that, it doesn't have the same impact as the Missouri River does. So those are kind of a few things. We can look at agricultural practices in this part of the state. The Missouri River in this area doesn't have as much agriculture right along of the water that we're using. And the soils composition plays a large part into that as well because we get more percolation into the soils than other areas of the state do.

Brad, why is there a difference with the Zenith versus the Southbridge?

Yeah, so the collector well at Southbridge sits further off the river where the collector wells at the Zenith plant sit right on the riverbank. So I think there's just that little bit of difference, a little more of an impact.

But to highlight you there, Brad, the key on this, and this was a big point the other day at that meeting, was nitrates. People need to understand, the public needs to understand, the scale is 1 to 10. That's the scale, 1 to 10. We are half of one point. So the scare of nitrates in our water in Sioux City, we're good with nitrates. Correct. So that's the message coming forth there. So that's a great job. Correct.

All right, disinfection byproducts. I suppose with the mayor being around, we've had a history with disinfection byproducts, but the more we learned about kind of dialing in disinfection levels and really trying to manage water age, we've gotten our disinfection byproducts to an excellent level. The first compound that we talk about is total trihalomethanes when we talk about disinfection byproducts. The MCL is 80, and if you look at that right side on that running annual average, you can see that we're well below the MCL for disinfection byproducts. We've done a lot of things to curb this. We're putting mixing systems in new reservoirs. And as long as we can keep that water in a first in, first out kind of mentality, we're going to do very well with total trihalomethanes.

So that it doesn't sit in the tank?

Yep. The second compound is haloacetic acids, where the MCL is 60, and you can see that we have absolutely no issues with these, and all of these results are less than half of what the MCL is. And like I didn't mention, these eight locations every quarter, and that's what compounds are running annual average.

Brad, can you go back to your prior slide? Some of those numbers So if it's 80 parts per billion and you've got, on Gordon Drive, 66.5. On Whispering Creek, 60.8. Indian Hills, 62%. Excuse me, 62 parts per billion. How are you addressing those higher numbers compared to on 260th Street, 29.5?

So you'll see that a lot of those are during the summer months. It's the hardest time of year for us to manage total trihalomethanes because while it has to do with water age, it also has a lot to do with temperature. So we're seeing these much warmer water temperatures, and that just compounds the existence of the total trihalomethanes. So these are areas where you see the higher numbers. Those are areas that we try to focus on the most. We have a pretty robust flushing program that we try to adhere to to keep fresh water in those areas at all times. So even though we do all that, some of those are still a little bit high, and we manage those as we can.

Because if you're evaluating it quarterly, I assume some of those numbers are higher and some of those numbers are lower.

Right.

They balance out to those numbers?

Yep. And then lastly PFAS, per and polyfluoroalkyl substances or forever chemicals as you probably hear about them on the news. In January of 2009, EPA issued health advisories for these constituents. If you remember, the Southbridge plant design was started in 2010. And at that time, the health advisory was set at 70 parts per trillion. I think if I remember correctly, when we sampled for PFAS at that time, they were similar to what the results are now, which is four and seven or wherever we're at. We'll look at those here in a minute. But in 2024, EPA finalized updated MCLs for PFAS and PFOA, and they set it at four. So essentially we went from 70 parts per trillion to four parts per trillion overnight.

And what was the rationale to reduce it so drastically?

Yeah, I think after all of the, all of the, research that they had done in its link to cancer, they decided to take a drastic step at that point. Our message at the time when we had to notify the customers of Sioux City was that PFAS isn't just here in drinking water now, it's in a lot of things that you do in your everyday life. Pots and pans, fast food wrappers, there was a list that went on and on. And we tried to pass that information on to the customers as best we could, not to undermine the fact that it's NC City's water and we're going to do everything that's required of us to get it below the MCL.

Is this the number, Brad, remember, from our public works? Did they have a number at one time that was so small that it couldn't even be measured?

Oh, so what you're referring to there was the sampling technique?

Uh-huh.

In the beginning, when we were sending these samples off to be analyzed, I think there was only one location that could test to that low amount. I think those processes have changed in some of the labs, and I think they're a little more comfortable with what that's...

I hope so, because this is a big deal to have writing on one lab that has the capability to measure that tiny... of a sample to get to that number.

And we're extremely close to the end. I just want to reiterate that the PFAS is only found in the Southbridge plant. The origin of the contamination was the AFFF. I call it firefighting foam, but the correct term is aqueous film forming foam. We know that that is present in that area. The sample results, the average for the past six months for PFOA has been 7.3, and the average in the last six months for PFOS has been 4.6. We have our staff sample for these, and if you look at every single thing that contains PFAS, it is a very, very testy test. There's a lot of things that can go wrong. And they have to be very diligent about what they do before they take that sample, what they wear when they take that sample. And I think some of these are a little bit elevated the last couple of months, and we're going to revisit our sampling techniques to see if, you know, that 7.3 to me seems a little high, and that was just the last couple months.

Right. Yeah.

So testing and public notification requirements, we've been testing since 2022, and we have met all of the requirements of the EPA. We have done all the notifications that we've been required to do. We post all of our results in the Consumer Confidence Report, and all of the results are on the website for anyone to view at any time if they want to. So from right now, nothing changes. The compliance deadline for PFAS is 2029, And here's the things that we're doing right now to prepare for that. There's another caveat in there that I'll get to. But currently, we're under contract with Black and Beach to do a water supply and treatment study. What we're going to do is we're going to perform a stage one and a stage two hydrogeological study for a new collector well site, first and foremost.

This is just for the one site?

One, yes.

Yeah, people need one.

Yep. And based on that, it will determine if we can construct a new collector well in a location that does not have PFAS or if we have to change gears and move forward with design of an activated carbon system to remove the PFAS. That's essentially a filter that removes the PFAS and then we have to ship the spent media off to be cleaned. So we're hoping that the collector well site pans out. If it does not, we're probably going to have to move to treatment.

And treatment is forever unless you get a new collector. Right. So you want to get above it and get away from the contamination.

Right. There's a lot of details that still need to come out. One of the most unknown things right now with treatment is an affordable way to get rid of the PFAS. And those are things that, that information just keeps coming in that we're learning from. But for the time being, this is the process that we're doing.

And the location of the new collector wells is, I assume, further north?