##VIDEO ID:VZAGbh-TfuU## got the whole SE there yep all right it's October 2nd 11 o' we're in the city council chambers we'll call to order the city of Brandon personnel and finance committee meeting and we'll start with roll call Car ter award one ultimate large Kevin stun not roll call we'll start with introductions okay uh Tim Holmes Brandon fire Connie hman City Finance director Jesse Dean city engineer Chris Schubert HR director Chris Evans utilities director Nick broal City administrator and Gabe Johnson chair of the committee we have nine items before us the first of which is to accept the retirement of firefighter Josh Smith that is Tim yeah so Josh has been with the department for over 22 years um he will he submitted his resignation in August and will be done at the end of the year super great firefighter certainly will be missed and having those years of experience really makes a big difference so and just an update um we did a payon call a second payon call testing a few weeks ago and we were able to I think we're going to interview six out of that so one of those will at least be able to replace Josh's position so currently we're at 36 paid on call Firefighters so we're maintaining really good numbers still I make a motion to accept his retirement with regret and I will second with regret okay we have a motion and second one question Tim we want we want to be 40 35 to 40 basically on the paidon call roster yeah that's kind of what we've always shot for is is a good number and um we've yeah really been able to maintain that over since I've been here for sure all right thank you any other discussion nope all in favor say I I that motion carries next up is has approved the resignation of police officer Elizabeth gleon Chris police officer Elizabeth gleon has submitted her letter of resignation with that resignation to be effective October 4th um the recommended motion is to accept her resignation and to authorize staff to begin the hiring process to backfill that position um I make the motion second we have a motion and a second any discussion go ahead so she submitted I read the letter but I don't remember the date in which she submitted her resignation right 9:18 correct okay I was just wondering about the timeline for the October 4th seems like short notice but she gave us two weeks she gave the notice she is required to yeah okay and uh she has accepted a position with the croing county sheriff's department from what I'm told she will no longer be a position that's on the street so it it's ADV advantageous for her family so good for her yeah good for her other discussion all in favor say I hi that motion carries next up reclassify Jude Gregerson to cso position Chris Mr Gregerson um started his employment with us back in May of 20124 as a police intern uh According To Source Well's internship reimbursement program his last day he was eligible for that was September 30th so at this point we would like to reclassify judee to a community service officer position and then on a side note we will start advertising for another police intern um going forward as well I shall move second any discussion all in favor say hi hi that motion carries next up approve the resignation of recreation specialist Haley blank Chris yes Haley blank has submitted her resignation notice um that was received on September 19th and it was effective that date uh the Parks and Recreation board met on SE setember 24th and they reviewed the job description for that position and they did have some um minor recommendation minor recommended changes for that those changes are included in your packet in the redline version our recommended action is to accept um Haley's resignation effect of September 19th and then and to approve the updated job description as recommended by the parks and recck board and finally to authorize staff to begin the hiring process to backfill the recreation specialist position any discussion I've got a question you have interviews for the public works director scheduled for tomorrow correct should we delay hiring that person's direct report until we have them on board shortly so it's somebody they feel they can work with instead of hiring the subordinate and then bringing the boss on board and saying you this is somebody you have to deal with so if I'm following your train of thought Gabe we are advertising excuse me our interviews are tomorrow for the public works director yeah so that person should be on board before we do the interviews for the recreation specialist so that person is subordinate to the the park or the recreation excuse me the Public Works director so that director would help us do the the selecting correct I think that would be the the correct process MH repeat that correct that's what I think we should do right and that's the way it's it's planned to work at this point so um we've got three good candidates for our Public Works director position I'm very hopeful that we will have someone on board soon for that position so we'll wait to hire this Recreation specialist until we have that person to be involved with the correct okay I'm going to include that in the motion on I was going to say just to be clear what happens if we if the the three candidates don't accept then we're delaying this hiring is what Gabe is trying to say is what I what I would propose we that's fine add to the motion on Monday night I agree right like I want two people that can work together working together right keep it clean just in the interest of clarification the yet to be named new Public Works director will be on the inter interview panel to to replace this position that we're talking about right now so if the if the the onboarding of the new Public Works directory is delayed then we'll delay this position until that director is on board so they can be part of that decision-making process perfect that's exactly what I wanted to hear and I'm going to include that in the motion on Monday all right all in favor say I I those oppos that motion carries next up update regarding the transit operation specialist position Chris um we received eight applications for a Transit operation specialist position with two candidates invited to interview unfortunately we had an unsuccessful hiring process um we just wanted to let you know that we had done that process and now staff wants to get together and and try to figure out what our options are going forward this is just an informational item at this point thank you for the update any questions nope next up accept retirement of meter service worker Carl kizar Carl has submitted his retirement notice um and his retirement will be effective December 12th we get lots of notice from retirees usually because they need to submit their para application and it takes a while for that and we appreciate it with that said since Mr Evans is new and has only been on the job for about a month he would like some time to review the needs and the organizational structuring therefore he's requesting a delay in backfilling um this position to assess whether modifications if any or a complete change to the position is warranted so at this point the recommended action is a motion to accept with regret the retirement of meter service worker Carl keer affected December 12th and then staff will come up with a recommendation in the future nice so move second we have a motion and a second to accept with regret the retirement and to delay the back filling until the department can ident ify what its needs are moving forward any discussion all in favor say I I that motion carries next up authorize staff to begin the hiring process for an apprentice line worker so going back to November of 2023 since then we have had four vacancies in our journeyman line worker position we have hired two that started last month we have a conditional job offer for one other person hopefully um he will be able to start soon with that said we we still have one vacancy in discussing it eternally the recommendation is to do an internal job posting for an apprentice line worker instead of a journeyman line worker so since the authority that we had was a journeyman we wanted the council to be aware that we're Switching gears a little bit and that we would be going through this process um the recommended action is a motion to authorize the hiring process for an apprentice line worker instead of a journeyman line worker further that we utilize an internal job posting to fill the vacancy I so move second a motion a second any discussion just a quick comment um Chris on all of these positions I very much appreciate you guys taking a look and determining what the need is and structuring these requests in such a way that you believe is a good idea rather than just bringing forth a template to you know um fill them all just the way they are so thank you for all of that it is a team effort thank you uh I have one question what like what's the The Experience difference between an apprentice and a journeyman line worker go ahead Chris uh excellent question uh it it it varies from region to region but it's uh one component is time education and experience uh it can be you know whether or not a person has the training for doing live line work versus deenergized Line work so there is a distinction much like any trade you know it's you have like a a journey level then an apprentice and so it's training time and service and it it's rank so it it's a less of a skill set in that the person is learning the skills to be able to go to the next level uh I guess the trying to be timely to the needs of the department in review of the applications that were received and of those applications what percentage or what people within that group were actually qualified because you can say that oh I'm a I'm a I'm a journey level you know because even that varies from utility utility or just because you have a certification again you know we're just trying to find the quality to keep the safety reliability efficiency of our electrical system at the level that we're at and trying to raise the bar for that as well and so uh again trying to be timely that this indiv the individual that we're looking at as well as you know going through the internal processes do we have people that aren't quite there yet but under tutelage guidance support that we can get that person to that level eventually so whether it's you know 6 months a year two years you know if the person puts in the time goes through the courses goes through the training and works well that at that point that we would come back and say that this person now meets all the qualifications we want to promote them to a journey level okay think of it as a CPA Gabe a CPA license they have the tests they have to do all the stuff that it can take a while for them to get through that's how I look at it as a licens to CPA license so if I remember correctly it takes about four years to become when you start your journeyman program to become a journeyman and there are several testing process throughout that um in the Union contract it says as long as they're progressing in their books they Advance every 6 months in a wage adjustment it's based on the full Journey Min wage so it's a percentage of that based on where they are in their books and where they have completed their testing process so okay do we employ any Apprentice line workers currently we have in the past we've hired a couple of them um we usually try to do the journeyman but we also can train people on our system and right now we've got a good person that has been there they this person was here in the summertime and has continued to work for us on Fridays so um I know that Trent and his crew are very happy with this individual and so that's why they're asking for the internal process okay yeah to me it seems like a good thing like we should be having one or two Apprentice line workers and training them in in our system and working them up through our organization instead of always just trying to high you top down train from the bottom up it's kind of like we're doing at the police department and if I may you know this is also a a shining example of the internship programs that the uh city is graciously uh developed so kudos for that thank you and um yeah I mean there's always a risk of revolving door but you know if we can hire local where it makes sense and you know establish the relationships I think I think it's a win going forward thank you great anything else all in favor say I I that motion carries next up approval of the 2025 health insurance broker agreement Chris so in your packet is the 2025 service agreement between the city of Brainard and North rist partners for North rist Partners to be our health insurance broker For The Better Health Collective Insurance Pool for the city and the HRA um the Northwest Partners is asking for a slight increase this year since we have been with them since 2020 it has been a 25,000 a year split between the entities based on full-time employees that's how that cost is allocated for people that are eligible for this plan uh for 2025 they're asking to increase that for $2,000 up to 27,000 they do bill us on semiannual installments um I've been very happy with our broker they' provided us some really good information and insight they help us with our open enrollment um and then also during our last um employee Insurance committee meeting Adam who is our broker was here talking about maybe next year might be the year we should be looking at possibly going out for bids for health Insurance the last couple years we've had some pretty high utilization but realizing Health Partners is now losing this pool um they may look at us a little bit more favorably so it is something that is being looked at as well for your 2026 [Music] renewal the recommended action is to authorize retaining North RIS Partners as is our health insurance broker for 2025 For The Better Health Collective formerly known as sourcewell in the amount in the amount of $27,000 further to approve the attached 2025 service agreement between the city and North RIS Partners nice on move second we have a motion and a second any questions any discussion Chris how long have we had this broker since 2020 since 2020 what did we have before that um we utilized RG Insurance um they did not uh they were not a broker at this level this broker is more fully engaged um and truthfully RG Insurance just helped us with what we were asking for at the time in 2020 we had went out for health insurance quotes and so they were much more instrumental in helping us review those quotes and giving us guidance right and we didn't have a broker right RG insurance was the broker before that what was their fee um I believe it was $5 per month per contract it was a much different level of service what what is that in the tens of thousands of dollars annually it was part of our actual bill they just added the amount the the $5 onto our monthly fee so we didn't actually get a a feed separately from RG something like that time 5 * 12 that's not very much but what I'm saying is this how much 99,000 what I'm saying is this $27,000 is an opportunity to save money we have always had a broker we don't necessarily always have to have a broker we could not I mean an 8% health insurance increase isn't really worth 27 Grand in my opinion but just bringing that up because it is an opportunity to save money right now with that we'll vote all in favor say I I those opposed I motion carries number nine approv flexible spending account Administration contract with wex Incorporated so um the as part of our Better Health Collective Insurance Pool we have utilized Health Partners insurance and starting on January 1st of 2025 we are transitioning to Blue Cross Bo Shield um we have had Health Partners as our flexible spending account administrator for many years and that was primarily because they were our medical service provider um with transitioning to Blue Cross Blue Shield um we need to switch our medical or FSA Administration or we should it's easier for people that utilize their employee portable and things like that we are recommending that we switch to wex for our um flexible spending account Administration they currently do our Cobra Administration for us so we already enter all employees into their system um so that they have the information um it helps us administratively not to utilize a separate vendor to do that type of thing uh with this um there will be a slight increase in costs um they do require a $500 one-time setup fee in order to become our new provider they also charge $4.95 per participant per month which is a slight increase of 425 per month that Health Partners at charged um at this point staff is recommending to approve the contract with wex to provide our flexible spending account Administration effective 1125 with set agreements subject to the city attorney's review and approval he is looking at them right now and the final versions will be included in the packet ISO move second a motion in the second any discussion go ahead so who um who takes on the 495 per participant fee the city the employer does so what we do is we look at who actually utilizes the benefit and we will split that cost up um to Pro redit based on those people that actually elect the benefit first I'd like to preface this by saying I have no um investment or anything in wex um I do utilize them as a um benefit for croing County and I can speak to the employee experience seems to be very easy and streamlined I am not sure if that creates a conflict of interest since I use them as an through my employer but I want to be transparent that way I'll speak for Joe and say no it doesn't okay but I just wanted you to know okay thank you I I would just like to add I think you know we've had this for many many years and we were tracking the fee incorrectly compared to where the payroll savings were coming from so in the next couple agendas I'll come up with a transfer of funds from the general fund to this flexible spending account and about $119,000 because over the years that has built up the admin fee and all that kind of stuff and I just think we needed to starting January 1st if this is approved start over so the fee will come out of the general fund as well as the payroll savings and then the the payroll deductions and that will still come out of that operating fund but it it we shouldn't be negative we should only be positive budgetarily what's that look like good or bad it just 20,000 it's reported in the general fun for the auto purposes it'll be fine it'll break even there'll be a slight slight cost I think for the okay that's bad then well and we're talking slight yeah well every dollar yep M the pennies the dollars will take care of themselves yep all in favor say I I oppose same sign that motion carries that's it anything else to come for us I have one more thing I think Connie we should look at the Street tree budget that we put $25,000 to and I think we should cut it this year I think we should bring it down to $115,000 and I know this was a not a staff but a council initiative that we enacted a number of years ago but with our Levy looking like it is like we we've got to be cutting everywhere so I think even Council initiatives got to be cut down so I think let's bring that tree budget down I don't does that do you want a motion to that effect or sure I would appreciate a motion we cut the tree the street tree budget by 10 I'm fine with that I make the motion second we have a motion to Second any discussion all in favor say hi hi and that is also one of the park board's recommendation was also cutting the tree program and their budget as well oh good okay with that we've got our next meeting date Connie our next meeting will be October 16th at 11:00 October 16th at 11:00