The Committee of the Whole examined a proposed award to Bush Construction Company for $738,680 to build an occupational health and wellness clinic intended primarily for city employees. City attorney Sam Huff reviewed Iowa conflict‑of‑interest law and advised that, because the clinic’s benefits would be offered uniformly to employees and dependents rather than creating a unique financial benefit to a council member, a disqualifying conflict did not, on its face, require mandatory recusal — though he said council members uncomfortable with the arrangement may voluntarily abstain.

Public commenters were divided. A longtime public‑works commenter and an alderman‑elect who had experience with union clinics praised the preventive‑care case and projected long‑term savings from avoided catastrophic claims. Other residents questioned the capital cost (three‑quarters of a million dollars to fit out rooms) and asked whether building out the space obligates the city to later sign an expensive operations contract; one commenter suggested using existing urgent‑care providers instead of an on‑site clinic. Alderwoman Munoz stated she would not vote on one sidewalk contract earlier due to a conflict; on the clinic item counsel explained recusal is a personal choice where no disqualifying conflict exists under state law.

Council requested additional briefings and financial detail; Alderman McGinnis asked staff to present the previously delivered PowerPoint projections at an upcoming meeting to clarify staffing and expected operational savings.

Why it matters: employee‑directed health clinics can reduce employer health‑care costs and improve retention but require clear projections of operating expenses, staffing and how on‑site services integrate with existing insurance and referral patterns.

What’s next: staff to provide a concise briefing on projected operational costs, referral protocols and return‑on‑investment assumptions at a future management update or council meeting.