##VIDEO ID:9vU2X6yBGx8## all right it's Wednesday August 28th 11 o'clock in the morning we will call to order the city of Brainard personnel and finance committee meeting and we'll start with introductions Kary W one alal large Kevin stunk Connie hman City Finance Director City min minator Nick BRS James kvi community development director Steve Wright airport director Chris Schubert HR director and Library reps too please so hey I'm Melissa Watley I'm the director for the kigami Regional Library and with me today Laurel Hall brainer Public Library branch manager thank you we have seven items on the agenda the first is to ratified the hiring of line workers we received 10 applications for our line worker position and interviewed four individuals we have offered the position to John Simmons and Travis Donnelly at this point both of them have accepted our conditional job offers um and what we're hoping is Mr Donnelly at this point still needs to complete I haven't received the final verification for his drug test but we've received all of his other information so at this point we're asking for um the uh Council or the committee to ratify the hire ing of Mr Simmons and Mr Donnelly for the line workers positions Mr Simmons would be placed on step two and Mr Donley would be placed on step four and then um as soon as we get this done we can ratify the effective date so we wanted it on today's agenda so that we could get it for Monday or Tuesday night U we'll have more information in the packet as we can I saw move with the conditions a second okay we have a motion in a second any discussion just really quick comments this is awesome we had 10 applicants for this position and four correct only four of them met our minimum qualifications as far as being a full journeyman line worker but we did have four applications we are advertising again um hoping to see if we can get a couple more we had four positions that we were actually trying to refill awesome and then the it says step two of the 2023 line worker and that's because we're in negotiations we don't have MH that's have okay well it's good to see that people are willing to work for the wages we're willing to offer so that's great we have a motion in a second all in favor say I I poos same sign that motion carries next up is to accept the resignation of community service officers anger and hinin Chris we received a resignation notice from John uner effect of September 4th and also for Tyler heinan effec of August 22nd staff recommends that the council accept their resignation ations and to authorize staff to begin the hiring process to backfill one of the positions ISO move and ISO second okay we have a motion in a second any questions any discussion all right all in favor say I I oppose same sign that motion carries item number three reconsider the Minnesota state delegation agreement James yes thank you Mr chair uh so staff presented information options at the July 10th PNF committee meeting and recommended that we terminate Scott s's contract with the city for inspection services for state buildings and have building official Desi apply for Reserve delegation status in order to expedite the process for reapplying for that status uh staff made this recommendation after discussions with the Department of Labor IND and Industry code Services Department uh that denied Darren's full delegation request uh staff later received contradicting information from the Department of Labor and Industry Inspection Department uh that it would not speed up uh Darren's requirement for inspecting buildings with at least five of the required component categories uh job shadowing a dolly employee has not been a pass practice according to the inspection department uh so with the potential Country Manor project starting next spring staff believes it would be in the best interest for the city to continue Contracting with Mr s sadusky uh we have not turned any any of the official paperwork to the state of Minnesota um we did send a letter as directed by city council to to Mr sadki um but uh with discussions with Scott uh he has agreed um to continue with this contract uh so with this staff uh will continue to look into ways to expedite Darren's training U we'll certainly speak with uh speak to see if there's other options uh it did take Scott stusy 11 years to complete this Darren's so far been in the the industry for 5 years for inspection services so it does take some time um with that the motion is to reinstate Scott s's building inspection delegation contract and allow Mr Desi to participate in relevant inspections with Scott sadusky within 30 Mi of Brainard and uh staff would also ask if uh this is the motion um should the budget be for inspection services uh be amended within our budget uh based on the potential Country Manor project and with that I can answer any questions I so move to make the motion second any discussion what are we anticipating the financial impact Country Manor um you know this year I think the city probably would have came out ahead um there was a reserve delegation project with the state of Minnesota um is a substantial amount next year Country Manor we're looking probably 20 maybe a $20,000 building permit fee that the city would receive so I think you know with the contradicting information that's where you know and and the probability that that country maners well it's not 100% probable very probable it's going to happen um staff's recommending that that we continue with this this uh inspection service contract I just have a clarification question or uh yeah clarification question asked so if country man were to go we're expecting it to be about $100,000 permit Revenue which 75 of it would go to Mr Mr sadki and the city would retain 25% of it so just kind of like how we would go right now we don't have any of that Revenue because we thought that was going directly to the state so we could increase our so we could add 25 so the March 6% is well on its way up to you guys yes okay any other discussion all in favor say I I oppose same sign that motion carries item number five discussion of the library 2025 Levy request um number four oh number four that one was too long to read adopt a resolution setting the July 2024 wages for City administrator department heads and applicable Municipal utility division managers and non-supervisory positions Chris so on February 5th the council adopted a resolution setting the January 1 24 wages for our administrative department heads Municipal utility Division division managers and our non-union supervisory positions after that date the council also agreed to July 1 2024 wage adjustments for our recently settled Union contracts for our iuoe street IE Park and our ibw administrative support Union employee groups now that we have the um public utilities department managers and supervisors Union certified by BMS and that the threat of the strike by the ibw public utility Union has been alleviated it is recommended that the council adopt the attached wage resolution setting the July 1 2024 wages for our non-union staff um this action is consistent with those 24 wage adjustments for the other Union contract settlements and just to note that wages for future years will be presented when additional 2025 Union contracts have been ratified so again the motion recommended motion is to adopt the attached resolution setting the July 1 2024 wages for this group don't move second okay any discussion so this is as I understand it increasing wages by two and a qu% as of July 1st just as we had agreed with all of our unions and follow 225% 2.25 yeah that's same as two and a quarter MH we're just trying to be consistent with all our employes across the board and pay everybody fairly and the same so I think this is consistent with that that's what we've been saying we wanted to do all along so I think this is an easy yes any other discussion all in favor say I I oppose same sign that motion carries now on to five discussion of the library 2025 Levy request gani yes so the library board the Brandon Library board has requested a 2% increase for the library Levy for 2025 there was a letter included from the library board president um both at the workshop meeting as well as this agenda um also attached was the ly history for the airport over the last several years um the the library uh the 2% increase equates to about $3,000 and would be a 0.4% impact to our current Levy that was discussed on Monday night we do have people from the library here if there's any questions so the recommended motion would be to set the pl AR 2025 Library lby I so move second setting it at 149 or 152 152 Chief 152 yeah you're honoring the 2% requested increase sorry about that I'll amend it if I have to no I understand I just wanted to understand the motion any discussion um this is a minimal increase um I do have a question I could ask it tonight too but as long as you're here um will that uh 2,000 some dollar increase Laurel impact at all the library hours to be open um so I have may I approach with some handouts that would give some context to this yeah you can hand stuff I okay thank you thank you this just helps give some context to where our funding comes from since it's very complicated um in short about half of our funds go towards supporting the building which is a city building and about half goes towards our operating funds which go to kigami that because kigami is the one that operates the building um and so that 2% is to be frank not going to cover everything that needs to be covered and but it's going to help us with being able to continue to pay the bills that we need to pay for the building thank you yes thank you well okay yeah in the preliminary budget that was presented on Monday I I supported just holding it flat we pay the library I I support the library and we pay him substantially more than the statutory minimum we also have in the budget $400,000 for the library in the in the capital in the building fund so I I just I I think we should hold the flat I'll be a no vote on this but all in favor say I I oppose I that motion carries thank you for coming thank you number six discussion of the Eda commission 2025 Levy request Connie James yep thank you Mr chair so the maximum amount that can be levied annually for an Eda is 018 13% of the previous year's estimated market value for 2025 the maximum amount is $214,600 one vote for 2024 the Eda adopted budget has revenues exceeding in expenditures by $ 43,800 the Ed Eda has authorized $20,000 of those funds for the facade grants in 2024 um just wanted to note a few things the Eda will be working on uh Eda will be setting new goals and strategies in October as many of the goals um such as the website have been completed uh the Eda will most likely be thinking about a more robust advertising campaign um now that the website's done we've started to um get some of our concept plans done for the properties uh also something that's been talked about from the Eda is uh continuing to save funds each year to eventually have enough money to set up a revolving Loan Fund um you know right now we don't have the funds from the Eda to do that um hasn't been finalized there's no um parameters for that but it has has been part of the discussions uh so with that I can certainly answer any questions any questions so I'll make a motion setting the preliminary 2025 Eda Levy at the remain the same at the 186 812 is that that's what it was yep to remain the same okay I'll Che it that okay we have a motion and second any discussion again it was my recommendation for the presentation Monday night to hold it flat we have this very costly compensation changes going on with the city we're looking at a second year in a row of an 8% plus Levy increase and that's withholding this flat I'm on the Eda we do good work I don't not support it but at this time we just don't have the finances to say yes to everything we just don't so any other discussion no all in favor say I I oppose same sign that MO carries and item seven discussion of the airport commission 2025 Levy request Stephen Mr chair and committee uh you do have my written report uh so yes we have requested more money uh as we've been speaking with the commission the commission unanimous unanimously approved this budget uh at its meeting in August um we've had many many discussions and so this is the number that that we've posted um you know as you can see and and maybe Connie I don't know if you've shared uh our financial report but we do have a reserve on hand right now and so we're just trying to establish budgets on how to you know prevent these these dips and valleys over time uh so that that's our only objective is to foresee the future a little bit um not necessarily to solve all of our problems today but uh this is where we're at we do have a reason Reserve so we can reuse that reserve and pull off of that Reserve this year uh but that's just pushing pushing some other issues down the road any questions any questions no I have a comment uh I'll make a motion but I'm on the airport commission as the city's lant and like Steve said we've had numerous numerous discussions about the levy and the budget and everything and with the reserve and stuff we have I would support setting the motion as presented at the 146 no 152 or what 146 is what it was last year no with an increase of 78920 that's what Steve's presenting correct to two to go up to 225 correct isn't that what you're presenting Steve that that was the commission recommendation correct yes and that's what I support okay make a second on that discussion okay so has the county agreed to 225 that's a yes or no question so yes have they agreed to it yet or not I I'm going to refer to the city administrator on this question so I don't believe that they have uh officially agreed to that um based on some conversation i' I've had with the county I have been told that they are they're going to hold the levy steady that they're not going to improve this increase so if they're going to hold that where they're at I see no reason for the city to be funding it substantially more than the county like we do the library I I just don't see why the city pays more than the county does you know per tax base so if they're going to hold at 150 we should probably be holding at 1502 and if they jump to 225 then maybe we should consider it at that time so I'm going to vote no on your motion Kevin and that's what I was thinking too may maybe we do the increase to the 150 to allow for a bit of an increase um but not the full 78 920 I just don't know how we make that happen in addition to all of the expenses that council member Johnson referred to earlier but it's something not much but it's something okay again I'm going to continue to support it I think if we take take an aggressive approach that might help the county make a decision in our favor as far as the airport if we don't then that gives the county the ability to say well the city's not we're not no sometimes you have to take the lead it's fair argument okay any other discussion hearing none will vote all in favor say I I oppose same sign I that motion fails can I make a new motion sure um I would like to make a motion for the 2024 appropriation for the airport to be at the $150,000 Mark I so move what was what were were asking 152 they're at one they were at 146 that's what was presented on Monday I'll support that that at least gives us a chance to go forward okay we have a motion and a second to set the airport Levy at $150,000 I'm going to vote no I think we hold flat but all in favor say I hi oppos same sign I that motion carries it set at 150 for 2025 anything else to come before us Nick do you want to give an update on your meeting with the airport thank you Mr chair and we did have a meeting this morning so it didn't make this agenda I apologize for that I did ask chairman Johnson if I could present this and he said that would be okay uh we did have a meeting this morning between myself airport director Steve Wright and County Administrator Debbie Erikson and um just some background Council had asked staff some time ago to explore options to to uh transfer full ownership of the airport to the county and staff has gone down that path part of that was a meeting oh a month or so ago with the FAA we had several uh representatives from both city and county staffs we had elected officials from both city and county and we also had representation from the airport commission and we also had lots of representation from the FAA so we talked about the possibility of that option of the city divesting at itself from the airport and the and the county taking over full ownership and we also talked in addition to that that you know there's the there's the structural changes perhaps that we're discussing but we also recognize that there are some foundational structural issues that need to be addressed to with it come when fun when it comes to different functional areas it HR Finance facilities Etc the FAA the gist of that meeting was this process would take 12 to 12 to 18 months and there may be some initial upfront costs etc etc there's a lot of details that came out of that what I thought was a Germaine to this conversation today is based on our conversation with County Administrator Ericson this morning the county unequivocally does not have any interest in changing the current ownership um I also approached um Debbie Ericson I said if the city is willing to offset some of that upfront cost would that change things and she said no so the county unanimously according to County Administrator Ericson is not interested in changing the ownership of the airport but I thought that was relevant for this conversation thanks for that update and with that being the case I think it's time we as a city or staff Nick you and your team identifies the the problems that we have in it and HR and finance and how how over dependent the airport is on using our staff to handle their problems and how do we get away from that and be 5050 with the county Nick and I'll speak for City staff um Steve can certainly speak for his team and and I won't speak for Debbie but the three of us met this morning and we certainly I think are all in agreement that even if we do not make huge structural changes on ownership that there are some lwh hanging fruit that we can address to make us more efficient more responsive Etc so we will be uh exploring those options going forward excellent thank you any comments discussion Mr chair if I may um you know as we as we talk through the organization and structures of airports uh brainard's not the only city that's going through these types of of discussions um you know especially outstations in our rural areas Across the Nation uh we're dealing with these same issues of air you know airport rates and charges versus tax levy support our big cities uh I I've moved here from Mitchell Airport Milwaukee Wisconsin we were an Enterprise fund and we were making money you know we we were not pulling dollars off of the tax levy at our outstations even across Minnesota all of our all of our regional airport centers piji uh Hibbing International Falls uh we are all taking tax levy and actually your city has been one of the most lean and mean airports and we've been running it on a very shoestring budget uh all the way since the 1940s since this airport ordinance uh took in effect uh so where we've been operating roughly on the $300,000 tax levy between the city and the county combined uh other communities are taking $600,000 to a million dollar of tax levy from their Regional centers and so um you know to to say that the the brainer Airport has been over dependent uh actually brainer Airport's been running lean and mean for quite some time uh and so these are they issues on the table they are issues on the table uh we have air service down uh our implment are down so our our typical Revenue sources are not coming in right now uh due to our Airline Partners so we got National issues uh that are really starting to impact local economy and so those are issues that you know I appreciate so that's why the the discussion that we had with with uh the County Administrator and City administrator is uh let's put our heads together and uh and let's really talk through on a regional approach uh because this Regional Airport does have an economic impact significantly to our our economy here in brainer thanks for that and I want to clarify that I wasn't talking about the operation not not operating well or that you're doing anything wrong out at the airport I about the overdependence being that the ordinance says the city will handle the finances the county will handle the legal but the city is doing the finances the human resources the it you know departments that didn't exist when this ordinance was passed so it's not that you're doing anything wrong but it's just we're out of line in in how we're operating according to the ordinance and I think we need to get that right and Mr chair I appreciate that understanding yeah thank you anything else all right anything else to today Nick Connie our next meeting will be September 11th at 11:00 911 at 11 911 11:00 that's bad luck okay and with that we're adjourned we should do eight