##VIDEO ID:C5FjPoefdUI## I'm ready you look ready okay it's uh 11:00 at 9911 we'll call to order the uh personnel and finance committee meeting we'll start with introductions car Terry W one Kevin stoni Al large John Davis police chief Connie Hilman City Finance director Mike Duval chair of the h James kvic community development director Eric sharpener executive director of the H Chris Schubert HR Director Jesse Dean city engineer and Gabe Johnson chair of the committee we have six items today the first of which is authorized sale of a retired Community Service Officer vehicle thank you Mr chair yes just looking for authorization to sell an F-150 pickup truck that was used for our community service officer program we have replaced this vehicle with a lease vehicle through Enterprise Fleet Management and recommended motion is to authorize the sale of retired Community Service Officer vehicle number 443 utilizing Enterprise Fleet Management for the sale show move second we have a motion in a second any discussion roughly do you know what the mileage is on that 2019 the mileage on this is we're right around 40,000 there um I Kelly Blue booked it this morning we're 17 to 19,000 range okay thank you all in favor say I I oppose same sign that motion carries next up is to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of a traffic safety enforcement Grant Chief the 2425 fiscal year for the Department of Public Safety Office of traffic safety Traffic Safety enforcement Grant begins this October 1st brard Police Department is the fiscal host for this grant funding and the department of public safety requires a resolution authorizing the Brer Police Department the authority to enter into the agreement and execute the grant this is the same traffic enforcement grant that we submit and receive every year and currently this year um the grant amount is for $57,600 of that amount $2,200 can be used for administrative costs associated with administering that Grant we have Ed those funds before and intend to continue using that and in addition $5,800 are allotted to us for preliminary breath test matching equipment purchase and full tuition reimbursement towards our Department's breath test operators certifications and research uh recommended motion before you is to adopt a resolution authorizing police chief John Davis the authority to execute the 20242 Traffic Safety enforcement Grant I so move second any discussion all in favor say I I that motion carries item number three review proposed fee schedule James yes thank you Mr chair uh so staff has included the most updated version um in front of you the original one that was sent out last night did not include the engineering fees uh so I'll just kind of highlight uh some of the areas within here uh with in the building permit fees staff's recommending uh raising some of the set fees for residential to essentially a $50 per inspection um so that's where you'll see um for like a furnace change out uh we're looking actually $49 to the city then there's a $1 State search charge so it just going be an even amount for the contractor um a rof you'd have two inspections so that's where we're recommending the $100 and then for like a new Plumbing you're typically doing three inspections with that uh within the planning zoning department staff is recommending we had a a couple companies reach out to us over the winter time about food truck pricing um you know compared to what other municipalities May charge uh ours was a bit higher um so we are recommending um going from $300 to $50 there still be the $50 Parks charge as well and then the fire department did request a $75 annual inspection um of the the food trucks in there this is kind of a result of some of the inspections that they performed out at Crowing County Fairground and some of the issues that that they saw uh saw out there so um they are asking for that as well um staff's recommending increasing the uh PUD fee and this is kind of the result of of going through one U with the country Manner and realizing how timec consuming they are and and how much staff work goes into it and then um and then not all puds may may have the uh $10,000 down payment the Country Manor head uh because they had asked for the tax tax abatement so staff's recommending a higher escrow to pay for um the Pud uh purchase and development agreement um for for a planned unit development because there's significant work that goes in with the attorney's office for that part of it um and then staff is also looking for consideration um about a potential fee uh we had a couple inquiries in the last uh couple months here about city property appraisal fees were around $1,000 so staff's uh looking at uh potential recommendation to require a $11,000 escrow that would be um applied to uh um appraisal fees if somebody's interested in city property where we don't have a cost uh within the fire department uh this is one where we added quite a bit to the fee schedule uh was not in city code I believe it was maybe passed through res prior resolution in the past um so the fire department's been working off of a fee set but it's never been codified so all of those are included um they are recommending essentially a $25 increase to most most of their set fees and then the biggest one um kind of after some of these school projects and we do have Country Manor coming up as well U they realized the set fees for um the fire suppression testing was not uh nearly enough for the amount of times they had to go out there so looking at turning that into a valuation um so with that I Jesse if you want to maybe expand on some of the engineering stuff that you're recommending so just a couple updates uh raising the excavation uh fee to about $50 it's a little bit more in line with our current uh wage rates on reviewing these permits and uh going out and doing the field inspections uh a couple of the new uh fees that we're proposing here is something that the city code does call out is a RightWay obstruction permit uh we haven't had a RightWay obstruction permit in the past or at least offered one online um but this has come up uh a few different times within the last couple years um for folks that want to place a dumpster for cleanup out in the out in the street for instance uh so this would be something that we would like to make sure we have available uh since we are covering it with our city code so having a a rightaway obstruction permit and by code it is the same fee uh amount as the excavation permit um and then also as part of the code uh we are allowed to have a delay fee uh or delay uh penalty uh for the uh excavation and obstruction permit um this is something that's come up a couple different times this last year is uh some of those excavation um and um sewer and uh water line uh repairs uh it's it was several months before those ended up getting restored uh we'd like to be able to address those a little bit sooner at least put some teeth into making sure that those folks get those streets restored in a timely manner after the work has been completed uh we do have some options within there um obviously the city can always in dictate that we uh restore those it does cost us a little bit more than a private party to do those patchings uh we can require a bond um for us to go after a Bonding Company it's a bit of more process and it can uh really hurt a contractors's uh long-term rates uh if we go after their bonding company to do a a small few hundred patch so I'd prefer to go uh the route of like a delay penalty if we're talking about a pretty small amount um but that that would be something that I would recommend is having a delay penalty in in that in that realm so uh those are the couple recommendations that Steph has for the engineering side yes so I'll just note that so this is a chance for uh PNF committee to provide any recommendations uh recommend any changes to what staff's proposing here and then staff's looking for direction to bring it back as an ordinance um at the next meeting so isn't our current ordinance just state that the fees will be set by resolution it does not say that we looked at doing it by resolution um last year so we just went kind of through this whole process um when Consulting with some literature that we had from the league of Minnesota cities Consulting with our City attorney it was recommended to have it in ordinance form um just because resolution if somebody you were to challenge it when you have it codified in your code it's in your code it's essentially your city's laws so we were originally going to do by resolution and then we changed course and put in our ordinance but in the past we've done it by resolution that's correct okay so a question on the fire department do we do like the fire sprinkler inspections in Baxter and oklan Township and all of our fire service District I do believe so yes do we collect these fees in those communities I believe so as well because I remember years ago when we first implemented some of these fees we could only collect in brainer not elsewhere like we would need other cities to implement this fee schedule I do believe that has been done and so we do collect it and then it goes part of the overall calculation of the cost that gets allocated out right it goes back into the fire department yes okay so if we're updating do we need to like alert our neighboring townships and cities and let ask them to update so we're charging the same fees to businesses in Brainard as we are elsewhere I will double check with the fire chief but I think it was just uh we'll do what brainer charges kind of thing like wasn't wasn't listed out like what they would the fee rates it would just be whatever brainer likes okay but I will double check that with the fire chief please do any other discussion no okay do we I would make a motion to direct staff to come back with an ordinance when available second all in favor I I that motion carries next up is the 2025 health insurance renewal Chris good morning we received our 2025 health insurance renewal package from The Better Health Collective forly known as sourcewell the renewal shows an average 8% increase increase for our four health plans with a 15% rate cap for our 2026 renewal during our renewal discussion it was learned that for a second year in a row brainard's claims versus premiums paid was not favorable as claims averaged $866 per member per month versus premium paid at $691 per member per month for the past 12 month look back period according to our health insurance broker without the stability provided by being a member of The Better Health Collective pool we should have received closer to a 20% increase based on our utilization if we rated on our own also currently medical trend is is about 8 to 10% um The Better Health Collective will be transitioning from Health Partners to Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2025 therefore our open enrollment time frame for 2025 benefits will need to be adjusted for that transition and um our Wellness committee met on September uh 3rd and the committee does recommend that the council accept the better health collectives 2025 health insurance renewal as presented last but not least because Health Partners is our current flexible spending account administrator um we will be looking for that service um someone else to help us with that and there will be a recommendation in the future for that service recommended action is a motion to approve the 2025 health insurance renewal as receiv received from The Better Health Collective with an average 8% annual increase across all four of our health plans and with a 15% rate cap for our 2026 renewal second any discussion so Chris have we looked into um the cause of usage or I don't know what how to explain it but why so um folks are using right now uh prescriptions especially specialty drugs are very very expensive um a lot of people delayed some of their procedures and things like that during covid and some of those things weren't caught as soon as they should have been so we're just doing a little bit catchup our claims are actually down from the previous 12 months so that's a good good sign and our generic utilization is very high compared to average so um other than that I can't give you a lot more information but I get I get that and does the wellness committee look at maybe some of that information to develop the programs and and things that you offer to to maybe miate some of that right one of our highest claims are muscular skeletal is that how you say that so um a lot of hips knees issues and things like that so uh hopefully our Wellness Comm will focus on some of those education options in the future also the Better Health Collective is actually implementing a new program in 2025 so that you could have like a physical therapist to help you with some of those hopefully then you don't need the surgery and things like that so hoping to help with some of those costs thank you we have a motion yeah I Okay Kevin second any other discussion all in favor all that motion carries next up is discussion of a 2025 HRA preliminary Levy turn it over to Eric yes uh thank you uh committee and Mr chair in front of you is our 20125 preliminary Levy request that has been approved by our board like any like the city's Levy the H's preliminary Levy does need to be set by September 30th uh the H's Levy is separate from the city's Levy but is set by the city council uh H Levy is included in other levies listed on the property tax statement that our our constituents see final Levy is we all know can be lowered but can't be higher than the preliminary Levy so uh at today's meeting uh the H and on behalf of the H board we are requesting 100% of our Levy uh that maximum H Levy Allowed by State Statute is 85% of the previous year's EMV estimated market value and this is the request uh that we do have in front of you uh as noted in the budget memo that is in your packet that amount is about $28,995 um which is about 28366 more than the maximum allowed for 2024 uh city council did set the HR 2024 Levy at 173 960 which was approximately 91% of the max Levy allowed uh in 2025 the H board again has requested 100% of the allowable Levy uh which does represent a year-over-year increase of about 5,000 uh the letter that I sent to the mayor and to the city council members that is included in your packet does outline a lot of the projects that we continue to try to work on uh in Brainard uh to you know allow us the opportunity to administer kind of some of those programs uh that benefit the residents trying to increase that property value and keep our our housing stock in good order um I'd be happy to go through any of those at a more uh you know deep level what's in your packet or could certainly answer any questions on the budget side if you do have any questions or I can go line by line if you El would like me to so I I see you included rard Oaks Serene Pines and delar Estates again still you continue to put in a county H program into the things that you're doing with your brainer h Le is the Brainard H Levy funding your growing County op operations if you look into the second paragraph of that update this year we are planning on supporting 18 additional units in brainer Oak seren Pines downar States on an outlot that we own and that is why that has continued to stay in there I do like to bring attention to the council and to the County Board that uh the property values now are also estimated about 28.8 million in brainer Oak serine Pines and Delmar our States since those went tax forfeited when they were originally estimated value of about a million so this is helping you know even though it is a county H initiative this is helping city of Brainard residents um tax value is generated in those three developments of about 2 76,6 just in 2024 alone so I do like to bring that just to the attention not that it is a it's a great program but it's a Crowing County HRA program and again and we're talking the brainer tax levy for the brainer H programming yep and in 2025 we do plan on utilizing funds our board has authorized the use of up to 100,000 currently to help support that Outlaw F uh development that we are working on with the same developer that's building that out that is why we are trying to bring attention to that and of this $45,000 increase where where is it going or what yep so part of that would potentially go to support Outlaw F uh with that that Builder uh we are currently waiting to hear from Minnesota housing on if that Workforce Development program Grant is going to come through for that developer if it does not I don't know that the 100,000 that our board has already authorized for support will be enough to get that developer to go on board with that uh we' like to have some additional dollars for our board to review if that is the case and that's again why we're looking at this on the preliminary Levy uh Staffing we are certainly uh not immune to the wage pressures and staffing issues that I think not just the city but the county but all of our um entities within the city of brainered our our feeling and so we are currently looking at our um wage pressures and so built into to that increase there are certainly uh dollars there to hopefully uh address that with our staff uh and we are currently hiring uh for three open positions right now too uh and then tax forfeited properties that is something that's also in that letter uh you may have noticed that the state of Minnesota in a Supreme Court case recently uh came down that their tax forfeited property um that has been selling is not uh I guess legal in the terms that the state of Minnesota has been doing that so we are looking at major changes to that uh whereas we are not going to likely going to be able to uh convey Lots from the county to the city of Brainard uh in the city or the HRA for a dollar that's been kind of the the status quo for the last four years uh we are currently looking at having to pay estimated market value for those so a case and example of that is uh a current lot that is available or will be available on auction coming up in October is estimated market value at 14,500 for an infill lot we've tried really hard as you may recall to to try to get some of these infill builds with Habitat for Humanity if we are going to be purchasing those lots going forward at estimated market value we will need these funds to help offset that and $330,000 to fund balance fund balance correct that will go build our minimum 26% Levy increase to put almost all of it to your fund balance uh 30,000 of the the I think about 70,000 that that could have been out there would to well I have I have trouble supporting that even where we are a quick question Eric I know this is a a county question but the county was allocated some additional housing funds and I believe they put that into the Housing Trust Fund is that correct that's that's accurate and how much was that state affordable housing aid for 2023 and 2024 was about 157,000 for the county um we did receed 2023 it is my understanding that 2024 funds will also go into the Housing Trust Fund to support uh you know housing in the county okay thank you okay I'll give it a try I'll make a motion to approve the levy for 2025 for HRA huh what's the dollar amount for the 218 991 I don't know what percentage that would be okay that dies for lack of a second okay so I will make a motion to maintain the H's Levy at the I believe 173 960 freezing that in place from last year I'm not going to Second all right I'll second it we'll go without we can go to the council without a recommendation you'll second it well second up I'm going to vote no okay all in favor say I I opposed I okay next up is discussion of the 2025 preliminary Park Board budget Connie Jesse I can take this Mr chair uh so at the second meeting in August Park Board chair Miller presented to the council the park board's operating and capital uh Parks budget request for 2025 um they are showing a roughly eight and change requ percent request over 2024 uh almost 9% requ uh increase request uh large chunk of that is in the Personnel uh services in the operating side um obviously a large chunk of that is going to be your full-timers uh through the uh negotiated unions increases uh as part of their contract uh another part of that is the addition of in essence to full-time or not full-time but uh two seasonal employees um that were discussed at uh one of the parkboard meetings half of which is intended to be assessed to the downtown district uh that was something that was discussed with the park board is uh Park uh Public Works did take over the Downtown special assessment district and doing kind of the maintenance of that uh we didn't really staff up for that uh responsibility uh so that was something that we wanted to address moving forward is uh we really didn't adjust our staffing to accommodate for that uh and another part of that was um having the new park with lman P white uh we were just getting stretched a little bit thin so that was something that we discussed with our Park Board uh another part was uh it has been a challenge last last couple years to attain our seasonal staff um one part of that is the the wage uh is becoming very very challenging for us to be competitive with the market uh so that it was something that uh we recommended in the park Port approved was to uh raise the seasonal wage to 18 to $20 an hour uh starting at 18 uh and then increasing it for returning workers um for year-over-year uh so that was something that we discussed with them so that was the other portion of the Personnel increase that you'll see uh as part of the recommendation uh another uh chunk of the increase recommendation is in supplies uh we did have a couple of the owned Vehicles the owned Parks Vehicles move off of the owned system into the Leasing system uh so we do have some new lease payments uh and I believe we have one more planned I think one more planned for 2025 as well so that's another one that's coming off of an owned uh an owned system onto the lease program so we do have some increases on that uh on that side of it as well I believe if I remember correctly the overall Capital uh request is going down uh over 2024 if I remember correctly um yeah about 25,000 um there was only one project identified in 2024 and that was the uh gravel parking lot over in Buffalo Hills to accommodate for the uh playground replacement that was actually budgeted in 2024 this year uh we kind of delayed that project to accommodate for the reconfiguration of that playground or the parking lot uh so we have that project that's the only one that's identified for 2025 and the rest of it was uh our typical annual programs Weed and Feed and things of that nature uh and then the rest of it was for long-term capital planning um and just kind of saving up for some of those larger uh Capital items in the future uh with that uh looking for uh discussion for the council okay so you're adding two temps 1.5 two seasonal 1.5 seasonal because half of it will be funded by the assessments I'm aware of that so but it will be two FTE 1.5 is out of the park budget 0.5 out of thes we identified the 0.5 that'll be maintaining the flower beds and whatnot downtown what are the other 1.5 seasonal employees doing Parks maintenance and Lyman P white the roundabouts and just general Park maintenance that we've been spread through for correct so just we're just adding two employees to deliver the exact same service we have been to to improve on our service uh We've noticed that it's been a stretch for a lot of our staff to continue to keep up and get through our entire Parks uh system on a regular basis uh and want trying to maintain this uh level of service that the park board would like to keep okay can we go back down to the budget so it's in a sense you could say it's 8.97% increase but if you go up a few lines the operating increase is 18% over last year and that just seems like too much for one year like could they make it work with one new FTE I mean they made it work with neither of the employees last year right sorry these are going to be seasonal employees so we're talking $9 $10,000 so I don't know what percentage that would change the overall operating increases just to let you know it's pretty easy math it's a flat Million last year's operating so 180 is 18 10% would be 1% 10 grand would be 1% so if if we can't I'm just trying to save money where we can you know we're sitting at a nearly 9% Levy increase for the city and that's that's unacceptable in in my opinion so can we eliminate those can we get by or are they needed necessary the less you have the the harder it is and obviously the longer it takes to get through the entire park system so it's it's a matter of level of service what's acceptable um I'm just mentioning what the park board had approved so if it's the wish of the council to go with less seasonal staff that's that's up to the council yeah go ahead sorry Kevin um so I know the park board has a a plan and you'd think I'd have it memorized by now but I don't so I'm looking to you for help um with bringing these folks on board it would be to to currently have upkeep on all of the parks with everything that we have in place Curr currently status quo right um are there reductions in the park planned um for the upcoming years that wouldn't necessarily need additional Staffing can you help me remember that Jesse what so we did have a couple uh demolitions planned obviously we haven't been putting a a lot of effort into those buildings use the the beach restroom building for instance obviously that was a building that we haven't uh invested a lot of effort in into recently uh so they're more identifying areas where they don't want to invest large Capital dollars into rather than uh areas where we haven't been uh putting in regular maintenance into uh I suppose that would be a discussion to have with the park board is maybe after we've identified some of these areas where they don't want to uh identify large Capital uh expenditures into where do they Envision not wanting to expend kind of maintenance dollars into if they want to change some of the the vision and focus into some of the parks areas um and identify it from a staffing level that way I'll tell you what worries me right now and for all of these increases is what's going to happen with our um Union negotiations I don't know how that's going to hit us so I'm really leery to increase much of anything at the $2,000 for the library but but um so this the 9% Levy increase to council member Johnson's point is is unacceptable to me too and looking where we can save dollars um yeah so I I know that's not of any help to you I just want you to know where my head is at if we're not going to increase HRA it makes no sense to increase this either if we're looking at saving money based on Union stuff and on our 9% Lev well I'd like to not give the whole 180 one but I do know some of it is utilities like we hadn't been budgeting for the water cost at the splash pad or anything at line a number right that's a number that we have and also though your Revenue increases by the same amount so the utilities kind of a wash the agreement we have with utility whatever is paid for out of the parks BPU comes in as Revenue so that's one of the reasons you see the $339,000 that charges for services or I'm Excuse me other other revenue and your part of your services increased by 39,000 so that's a wash so the utilities doesn't have anything to do with the increase in the request it really is the Personnel Services that is be driving the increase and we are still looking at leasing vehicles and what we need for vehicles and the analysis so that's the main cause would be I would say your personnel service costs which are your full-time which we're not adding full-time employees we're adding seasonal temporary employees and then the leases are what's driving the increase in cost right and we have a settled contract with them with the union and it is going to increase our costs so I'm that's why I just asked the question like what can what can we cut right what can we not increase how about that and I think that would be a question that would go back to the park board Jesse too if they would say you know what the city does not want to fund the additional you know one and a half temporary employees and then go through with it I don't know for sure direct staff to go back and tweak the pencil yeah how about how about yeah let's do that Jesse we can do that I know the other discussion was the potential for the long-term capital maintenance fund and if that would uh be the same as the request and I don't know if that I don't know if Connie can advise on that if that would make any difference either on your overall on the on the park board's request yes it would make a difference and we would basically transfer that that cash into the operating fund to kind of offset them would be what I would propose if they if you know that's a capital fund is showing as funded right now right we're not going to decrease the capital Levy but we could transfer some Capital funds into operating for a one-time alleviation to reduce the overall Levy of the city but that it's a short-term fix it's a short-term fix we're sitting at two years in a row looking at 8% so we need more of a long-term fix somehow but yeah that would be one of the options I think you should present back to us and we can look at what we can do I fully support the park board and them wanting to enhance the services delivered in the Parks right and if two two part-time employees for 20 grand can help with that maybe it's worth it but let's have staff go back talk to the park board go back see where where we can limit this operating increase it's that's what bothers me is the operating increase because that's the Baseline for next year correct when do you think the assessment of the least versus purchase Vehicles will be complete Connie you know I'm still working on that I think it's going to be a longer term as well because then we're going to need to build it into our Capital plan if we decide not to I'm granted we you know the number of vehicles and that kind of stuff but we need to build it into our Capital plan then as as well so I'm good with that okay you know I just want to point out that last year's increase from actual to budget was $100,000 you know you're looking at you know almost $200,000 but $135 of that is due to personel and that's with the new contract and the new pay study and so really the increase that the park board has control over I mean 20,000 of it is the staff of or the temporary staff but also the you know they don't have control over the union employees contracts either so yeah we made that bed do we need a motion or just direct staff to I think you understand Jesse Connie right like let's let's put this on a future agenda maybe talk to the park board maybe run numbers yourself see if we can get this 18% operating increase a little bit lower yes sir we have a meeting on the 24th uh we can have that on that agenda perfect thank you thank you and with that we're meeting in weeks Connie actually we're meeting in three weeks three weeks it'll be Wednesday October 2nd at 11:00 Wednesday October 2nd at 11 o' we'll see you then and with that we're adjourned second