##VIDEO ID:OpEHELPZQPc## you're not going to put in your app nope what nope okay we're going to have a talk I talked with Tiffany this morning okay it's uh November 27th happy uh day before Thanksgiving we'll call to order the personnel and finance committee meeting for the city of Brainard and we'll start with introductions Cara Terry W one only large Kevin stun Connie hman Finance director Chris Schubert HR Director James CI community development director Nick broal City administr and Gabe Johnson chair of the committee we have 10 items on the agenda today the first of which is to accept a resignation of it data analyst Abigail Sova Chris good morning it data analyst Abby Sova submitted her resignation letter on November 18th her last working day will be Monday December 2nd um the recommended motion is to accept her resignation um and then there's just some additional information I'd like to share after the motion I so move second we have a motion and a second do you want to share it right now sure so um previously our Public Utilities director did not feel we needed to fill the business office specialist position after we had negotiated that wage with the Union um after this resignation he has determined now that we do need that position for operational needs so we have started uh the hiring process for that position at this point also the work group um the integration work group has started talking a little bit about how this impacts the immediate it needs at public utilities and there'll be more information on that on the regular agenda on Monday night okay any discussion questions all in favor say I I oppose same sign that motion carries next up is to ratify the hiring of colon guten as police officer Colton gutov was offered our police officer position and has successfully completed the preemployment hiring process he will start on December 4th at step one of the police officer wage grid and staff recommends approval of that please move second any discussion quick question is she the local kid because his dad was I think his dad is Gary gutov who just retired from the sheriff suprem you're asking confidential information I can't share okay what religion is he I'll find out how many kids does he have I'll check my confidential thanks any other discussion all in favor say I I that motion carries next up is to ratify hiring of Lisa bosbach for administrative specialist Public Works Chris we received 31 applications for the administrative specialist public works department position and eight candidates were invited to interview staff offered the position to Lisa asbach who will be starting with us on December 23rd at step one of the 2024 administrative specialist Public Works wage grid staff recommends approval of her or ratifying her hiring I so move second any discussion no all in favor say I I that motion carries next up approve memorandum of agreement with ioe Street Division Union for 2426 wage adjustment Chris our first Union that settled with our new 2024 wage grid was the iuo Local 49 Street Division Union after that settlement we negotiated higher across the board increases with both the administrative support Union and the parks Union uh staff recommends that the council approve the attached memorandum of agreement with the IE Local 49 Street division employees to adjust the wage increases effective July 1st 20124 July 1st 2025 and January 1st 2026 this Mo MOA promotes uniformity within the city amongst the different bargaining unions and maintains a uniform pay scale and I so move second any discussion I'll just say this is what this council is committed to doing the whole time we've been doing the negotiations for the last year and a half is we want to treat all of our employees fairly we want to treat them all equally and since these guys settled first we're not going to punish them and not give them the same wage increases that other units got so we're going back and making it right I I think that's the right thing to do all those in favor say I I that motion carries next up approve a 2527 contract terms and wage resolution with ls local number 65 Union Chris yes this the city reached a tenative agreement with the law enforcement labor Services Union representing our police officers for the 2025 2027 Union contract in your packet is a summary of the terms agreed to by the city and Union during negotiations these are the same across the board increases that we have uh negotiated with our other unions so the recommended action is a motion to a ag approve the attached tentative agreement summary and then there is also a resolution setting the wages for this group I so move second a motion and a second to uh push both of those forward to council we'll do it in two actions at the city council but we can do it in one here any discussion there is a little bit more information in your packet talking about esst and because it was a new law effect of January 4 excuse me January 1st of 2024 and then the 2024 legisl legislature changed that law we will need to modify that um uh Mo MOA as well as our employee policy manual and that information will be coming forward when available okay and then I would say this is for 25 and 26 this is what we've settled with other bargaining units this is the first one we're getting under contract for 27 and that's at 3% right now and I think that's a that's a fair wage adjustment any other discussion NOP all in favor say I iose same sign that motion carries next up is authorization to enter into a contract with r Wick rosac and baloney for civil attorney Services Chris or Nick thank you at the November 18th 2024 council meeting Council elected to remain with ratwik rosac and Maloney for civil attorney services and directed staff to enter into negotiations with them and present financials to council for consideration attached in the packet is the proposed agreement um some of the financials non- retainer hourly wage increase of $10 an hour for 25 that would put that at $180 an hour currently at$ 170 and then an additional $10 per hour in 2026 which would put it at $10 second um for development matters an hourly rate increase of $5 an hour putting in it at 200 per hour and this is generally passed on to developers this cost third litigation matters hourly rate rate increase of $10 per hour putting it at 195 for the term of this agreement and this is a 2-year agreement for 25 and 26 and last ly retainer amounts would increase by 2,000 in 25 and an additional 2,000 in 26 and those would be 57,000 and 59,000 respectively we're currently at 55,000 for a retainer and then there's some historical information that shows what we've total expenditures for Legal Services civil Legal Services over the past 10 years or so um staff would recommend approval of this uh proposed agreement second we have a motion and a second one question it looks like it's been 70 to 80,000 of general fund dollars the last 10 years yes sir do these change in rates do you see that affecting it all that much like what do you think the budget difference is going to be is it going to cost $10,000 more or Connie do you want us do you want to I can speculate but do you have any insight into that at all we have budgeted $80,000 in the general fund it is so hard to predict and that's based on the 5-year average that we've had so even though they're proposing a rate increase we haven't proposed to increase the amount because it varies depending on what projects they're working on and for who yeah we'll just commit ourselves to getting a fewer lawsuits next year any other discussion all in favor say I all right that motion carries next up authorization to enter into an agreement with CLA for 24 audit services gnie so um cliff and Larson Allen has been our Auditors for many many many years um I messed up and I should have came to you in July or August and asked if you wanted to go out for an RFP because at this point we really don't have time to go up for RFP and get the audit done by the June 30th deadline so I have a note to bring this to council back in July and August of 2025 to see if if the council does want to go out for RFB but that is an option for Council to go out for RFP if they want to um CLA is proposing a um basically a 4.7% increase from the 2023 base um Services based audit fee there are additional fees that it could cost up to $1,163 for total Services um as I mentioned counil could go up for RFP but I'm afraid we're up against a deadline and then below was a history of the audit fee and how the airport has split the cost we based it on Revenue um and in the budget we have 52,000 for the 2024 audit services for the general fund staff's recommendation would be to authorize signatures on the statement of work audit services with CLA for 2024 audit Services I so move second we have a motion and a second any discussion all in favor say I I that motion carries next up a silur update the state local fiscal relief funds otherwise known as arpa we can take our pick what we wanted to refer to it so the city received about $1.4 million um the city elected the standard allowance so we could use those for General provision of government services the funding needs to be spent or committed by December 31st 2024 um it is staff's understanding that if it's committed you have entered into a contract by December 31st 2024 then you have an additional two years topend it um staff attached a worksheet kind of on what we have spent it on what we are going to pay with the next round of bills and so we have $168,000 left to be be spent um we have contracts with the um for the stairs for the historic water tower as well as the future capital projects that'll eat up the balances of those budgets staff's main concern is the allocation to the Eda Main Street um Main Street Grant however um a demolition permit has been received from um the DW Jones for the development and it is our understanding that they are going to start demolition in December and will be able to use up those $80,000 so the options are to stay the course um staff can provide an update on the December 16th meeting on the Main Street Grant if they've started demolition yet um if Council wants to have all the funding spent by December 31st rather than having to commit dollars and just have it all be spent we could amend staff's recommendation could be to amend the police department um HVAC pedestrian bridge and motor grader because we've already spent the amount of those funds that are remaining on the grants um or we could do combination of the two that or anything that's listed so I so move to motion oh there's no recommend just can I ask a question sorry um or we could put this money toward our police officer budget for 2025 because law enforcement expenditures would be covered and so that whole amount could go toward law enforcement not increasing their budget but paying for personnel expenditures and that could bring our Levy down down further then we wouldn't be committing to these other projects and I was on after all of this Corona virus allocations was I think approved so I don't know what the history is with those or what our commitments are to those yeah so the it's not a bad idea I mean yeah I I have a couple questions I I don't yeah I don't hate that idea except for that we are already using like onetime funds to supplement the yeah I know the that's true Public Safety budget yep I and I get that too and I I know it's pushing the kicking the can down the road um however if our goal is a lower Levy for this upcoming year and we have the funds available to be able to use it to impact the levy then I don't know that it's such a bad idea to but again I don't know what the commitment is to these other projects the only thing is we have committed to for the Main Street Grant this $80,000 that was yeah I have questions on that we actually Grant the Eda actually granted that project $200,000 80 of it was from the the These funds and the other was that Main Street through the initiative Foundation what's the status of that 200 I'll refer to James cranic so because this is tied to the arpa dollars it has to be spent by the end of the year um they've DW Jones as well as myself and Eric sharpener have been in contact with the initiative Foundation from that perspective they have until next June to spend the uh those remaining dollars so the $350,000 estimated demolition is when you look at the matching grants is actually more than the 880,000 plus they have architectural costs in there as well um so they'll be also um submitting costs to the initiative foundation for that but the arpa dollars are kind of the first one so they use up the full um $80,000 from the city from the Demolition and then be submitting stuff to the initiative Foundation because they have a later deadline okay thank you that makes sense I'm I know we already awarded the money so I I I don't really want to take it back but I'm a little hesitant since there isn't a anything being built I'm a little hesitant to just tear every tear something down downtown prer and just build a pit and hope that the government gives them $15 million in the next two years right then we're just that we're not building Main Street we're tearing Main Street down at that point so it I I don't know I'm a little hesitant on that 80 but I have I have more questions JC's Park we've spent 135 you're going to spend 167 more next week so over $300,000 was spent at JC's Park M to dig a hole $300,000 to dig a hole I can't answer what was done there oh it was a hole was dog in the middle of the park I don't know I I do I've been there go check it out it's beautiful it'll be a nice little swamp next summer but that was really $300,000 I thought their contract award was to the contractor was only like 130 or 160 it it's over $400,000 and and the award for that contracted the lump parwas part or EXC no I'm not talking about Lumber kuas let's stay on point here I'm talking about JC's part I don't know I know that the whole contract was for all three of those projects and it's $447,000 okay you've got 553 there be 553 budget 575 total spent 332 plus to be paid 21 yes so there's other Engineering Services in there there were other expenses for those projects can I before Monday get a detailed yes itemized Bill list for the work at JC's park because quite literally they just took out a bunch of dirt and built dug a big hole in the middle of the park if that cost $300,000 I got to get in the whole digging business don't do that and you think the historic water tower 52 will be spent by the end of the year I don't know if it'll be spent by the end of the year well we have a signed contract I don't I don't like being told that staff thinks or staff is confident I want to be told concrete things like if we have it committed by the end of the year is it guaranteed that that money still resides with us and and will be spent that is what I have read in the information am I 100% confident no but that is the information I've read I thought it was spent or committed on by 25 it is 2024 and May maybe the county is different than the city I don't know maybe you guys are a large issue we're a small we're an NE I don't know the requirements I know the requirements for any use is that it's it's spent or committed by December 31st 2024 okay well then I think I think we should stay the course we've already committed and we think the money will be is all going to be spent we're not at risk I I I requested to have this on the agenda I was just wanted to make sure our ducks were in a row that we weren't at risk of sending having to send any money back that could be spent in our community James has a James yeah I do recommend that we should probably revisit this at the next city council meeting to make sure that DW Jones has followed through at the Demolition and give them you know essentially a deadline to have things submitted by then um so if we need to reallocate at that meeting at that point we're able to okay I like that so let's have it again on the 16th and see if DW does have their well that gives us just much more clarification into so we're staying the course and staff can provide an update at the December 16th meeting on the Main Street Grant yeah let's take let's need a motion on that let's do that so I make a motion to stay the course staff can provide an update at the December 16th meeting on the Main Street Grant second we have a motion and a second and Connie is going to get me an itemized list of expenditures at JC's Park doesn't need to be part of the motion I just know she's going to all in favor say I I that motion carries okay next up the 2025 nonworking funds budgets Connie okay so by State Statute a city has to adopt a budget by the end of the year for the general fund however the city has also historically adopted um officially adopted budgets for other funds in the past and there was a memo that included kind of the detail they're all included except for the Eda fund which the Eda fund will be meeting next Thursday to talk about their budget and break it out by line items um so we had the agenda or excuse me we had the staff member that just listed out what the funds were used for and each one of the budgets were included in the packet for each one of those funds so we have the transit fund the library fund wait a second let me see that Library fund I heard their radio advertisement saying their funding was stagnant that doesn't look stagnant to me I do believe that's the county the radio ad said the library's funding has been stagnant I heard that too and that doesn't look very stagnant I heard that they were encouraging citizens to come to the county to they did encourage people to come to the county they didn't say the county funding was stagnant they said the brainer public libraries funding has don't know I can't control what they advertise no but I'm just saying why are we going to increase it if they're going to buy radio ads saying that it's not just a question thank you for letting me stopping there okay so we have the library then we have the recycling fund this is the used oil we transfer in funds from the storm sewer fund to help pay for the cost of the oil Recycling and the dumpster um we have the parking lot fund we're still negative um we're increasing our fund balance each year but we're still a negative this is something that we've looked at the last time the city council raised the rates was in 2022 okay so that's like we're budgeting for $30,000 of Levy dollars to fund our parking lots there's no Levy dollars okay what's the transfers oh transfers out transfers out this is the parking lot share of the downtown snow removal and Downtown special services District okay um we have the permanent Improvement fund this is based this is basically our operating of our Capital the crack sealing those kind of projects we have the mayor's contingency fund we transfer $2,500 for the mayor to use any funds any funds not used at the end of the year transferred back to the general fund the sanitary sewer um Enterprise fund so this accounts more like a a like a business so we only have the interest expenses we don't have necessarily The Debt Service but we do look at a cash flow purposes and we may need to consider um issuing debt for the 2025 capital projects can this fund sustain it not Beyond 2025 with our current rates and the project that's being scheduled but talking with the city engineer and the public works director they do think that the projects for 2025 will be scaled back we had it basically funded to do about $500,000 a year in capital for the sanitary sewer uh and I think it's double that being proposed currently right now for 2025 yeah that that goes to a capital Improvement planning problem then right so we have the storm sewer or sanitary sewer and then we have the storm sewer fund you notice that there's a big difference down here in the intergovernmental Revenue this is the um baxer share for the environmental resource Tech position in 2024 we were getting some grant money for the do for the Gully project so that's why they're so different for this year okay and how is this fund's health this is also an Enterprise fund y charges for services and this one needs to be looked at either rate adjustment or bonding okay so they're both the sanitary sewer is fine until 2025 yeah that's in storm five weeks well if we do all those projects that are budgeted right now yes but they're going to be they're not set in stone yet yeah okay so the this item is just um informational review and discussion of the budgets the official adoption will be at the next council meeting okay just information we don't it's informational all right yeah let's go ahe next up discussion of the 2025 operating budg and Levy I lost some sleep over this last night not going to lie me too Connie so we have the overview where we've reduced the capital Levy by $100,000 and the airport Levy is at $1,000 we have the proposed Capital detail which shows a decrease in the um Parks long-term maintenance by $100,000 and we also have decreased the street tree budget by $10,000 I'm just showing you these here to make sure that these are exactly the things that we talked about so since I've been our last meeting oops hold on here um we've adjusted for personel services for conditional job offers made and updated a couple health insurance elections and then the city received the work comp renewal information on Monday we had initially budgeted for a rate increase of 5% an experience mod of 1.07 with the renewal our experience mod is9 excuse me 89 and the rates dropped so therefore we have a savings to our operating budget of $135,000 now I just want to give a tip of the hat to the city's uh Wellness committee seem to be doing a good job I think that's also a tip Chris that we make sure that employees get back to work as much as they can do light duty assignments that really really really helps the city and our work hom claims um we also got an email on Friday from the league of Minnesota cities regarding our property liability and auto insurance so I updated some additional adjustments and reduced our working fund by $27,000 our current recap is showing in order for a balanced budget right now we would need a 37% increase in the levy over the 2024 Levy Balan budget got now you're speaking my language so you can notice here that we we know that we don't meet our fund balance policy just an FYI um so you can set the levy final Levy at the next council meeting at the 37% increase we can remove the use of additional fund balance in the amount of 13 um this would help the city work towards meeting its fund balance policy this would mean a 2% increase over the 2024 Levy or we can set the final ly anywhere between a range of 375 to 4% increase we can restore the capital Levy increase permanent Improvement Levy or just increase fund balance to get in compliance and we have a more steady increase in the levy rather than having the Peaks and valys in overall let's go back to that budget overview yeah scroll all the way to the bottom there so that 113 is one time month the public safety Aid that 95 is going to be potentially zero in 26 no we have one more year we'd have one more year at at 95 or we cut it in half again we cut it in half again okay thir so there's another 50 so that's 160 that's right back on next year and what I granted I don't set the levy I'm just giving recommendations I just look at our increase in Personnel Services as a 6% increase that it's $513,000 you know this was a onetime probably decrease in our Levy as well The Debt Service decrease I mean that helped us a lot as well this year yeah with the Personnel 2025 due to our contracts we gave like six s% wage adjustments in 2025 it'll be 3% in 26 plus step increases so it's probably at least a lot of people are still moving through the step so it could be potentially a six and a half to 7% increase in wages as they're moving through the steps I just have double and triple checked the workers comp and I am still just in shock okay well I think I think I think two I think 2% is fair I think we're going to get any better go ahead so I had sent an email to Connie and Nick about the um article in the dispatch regarding our Levy and the comments around Tim hul the former County Administrator authorizing the increase of its Levy by the 9,420 and we as the city then reduced our Levy it says by that amount thus alleviating the being taxed twice issue um at that time um we've already talked about reducing our Levy at the last meeting whatever that was where Kevin and I um talked about reducing and you brought it up the 25,000 for staff costs and then still um authorizing some airport Levy dollars to be allocated so Gabe do you have history on that increase in the County Board decrease here for the airport Levy and how that was to alleviate the double taxation so when you know I I think it was Jeff that originally brought it up when he was first elected and it was because on city taxes and on County taxes the city taxpayers pay the airport Levy whereas like for the library city of brainer taxpayers don't pay the county Levy they only pay the city Levy for the library so we're being double taxed instead of taking the citizens of Brainard off of the county tax which was the original request Tim H did the math and determine that 10 grand was the difference then we split that and that in a sense of the city's net tax capacity compared to the counties that's how we came up with the 9% and that's how we came up with that $110,000 difference okay well yeah some math was done and that was a number that was supposed to alleviate it but we're still being taxed by both entities in a sense yes see I don't I don't understand this well enough to not allocate any money to the to the airport and so I've sent him a message so he can help me walk through the math so I can understand where he was coming from I am not comfortable leaving the airport Levy at $1,000 at all I don't think it's the right thing to do um I don't know where uh 2% would get us in terms of that or if we would even vote to increase I don't think I have the majority on this um I think a discussion with the County Board uh for 2025 is appropriate in terms of uh airport ownership but I I know that um it's not going to happen this year it is what it is and brainer needs to step up and do our part in the airport uh funding at least for this year so we did our part in trying to have the conversation you know there's a lot of behind the-scenes stuff that occurred by some members of the council that um poisoned The Well of discussion that not everybody might be aware of and I don't feel I'm at Liberty to to speak to it but I can tell you that um a lot of stuff has occurred that isn't appropriate and we the city might have shot ourselves in the foot hypothetically speaking um for any further discussions so I don't think we're at a point where we can say nope we're not having any part of it without risking the airport the staff who are um you know unsure about what's going to happen I I think we put forward the funding amount that we had talked about less the Staffing wages and if we've already made the adjustments and accommodations with the county increasing their Levy and we us decreasing ours I think we we should be in good standing for for 2025 and have discussions in 2025 in hopes that we can come to an agreement so I don't know if a 3% Levy increase would put us there or a 2% would give us about 140,000 so actually know what would give us if we because I got the 2% was I just zeroed this out so the two it would be a little bit more than 2% if you went to 125,000 that you were talking about no I say if we did a 2% Levy it would give us about $140,000 for the airport of left of money that we could put towards the airport or filling in that hole at JC's park or whatever I like keeping the 113 to the fund balance policy though um I don't think we should necessarily be pulling from there yes ma'am so this is actually reducing our fund balance is what this is doing the 113,000 right and I would like to keep that plus increase for the airport so then you're looking at a 2% plus oh yeah then we're looking yeah then we're looking at but probably less than 3% yeah so I I would like I would like to see us in between there covering that airport putting the money back into the fund balance so we can be at our policy level I don't think we cut down to the bare bone because it's only going to impact us next year um however if the goal of the entire council is to reduce the levy to as low as we can go then that's that um but I would say between that two and 3% I yeah I I like I love between two and three% I think 2% would be good for this year but I wouldn't wouldn't hate three that's when we started at eight or whatever right I I'm fine taking a motion from this committee to council recommending a percentage to set it at I'm not find reinstating funds for the airport we've tried two three times on it and that's that's just a full I've been stable on you have been and I think you should bring it up at the council meeting but I think that's just a full Council discussion at this point absolutely so I will move um for a 4% Levy increase no I'm sorry 3% Levy increase my apologies um 3% Levy increase to include the um the addition of the 113 or not using the 113 188 um as well as increasing the airport well you don't want that in that motion we don't want the airport we've tried that so okay so we're inreasing F balance not using the 113,000 and adding to our fund balance policy with a 3% increase in the levy yes and so this today or at this meeting we really don't have to do anything it's more for discussion okay our next council meeting is when we will actually set the final Levy Okay cool so okay yeah so yeah we discussed it I you've got I mean you've got Direction at 3% I think we're all in agreement that that's good to move forward there but I think we'll have discussion with the full Council and see so I'll Pro I'll probably toss it over to you to give a short presentation so the council can full Council can give their input on where the budget's at right now too okay so I will just pull up the Excel spread sheet and say this is where we're currently at these are the things recommended by the PNF committee to get a 3% M well don't bring up the airport I'll do that but yeah but we didn't make a motion so we have no recommendation coming out of committee so just present like you did to us Y and at this council meeting um we will also have the public budget public hearing which I would use at a 4% increase in the levy because that's what you guys told me to last time like 475 didn't we no you told me four four okay I was at 4 75 you guys said use four oh right that I just took her down yeah yes so then and I'll do that but I'll throw in what a 3% increase would to just because okay cool that sounds good Connie thank you anything else to come before us we got a we're going to meet again sometime yes our last meeting in 2024 will be Wednesday December 11th at 11 o' Wednesday December 11th at 11 o'clock here in council chambers with that we're adjourned good job that's going to be such a long meeting on Monday I won't be here for the 11th P um P.M