Okay, it's 7 PM. It's Monday, October 20th. This is the City of Branch Personnel and Finance Committee meeting. We'll start with introductions. >> Kevin Beans, city council ward two. >> Nick Broyal, city administrator. >> Connie, finance director. Chris Schuber, HR director, >> and Gabe Johnson, chair of the
committee. We have five items tonight. First of which is to review our grant application policy after six months. Nick, >> so I think you just kind of highlighted it at the April meeting. City Council granted authority to staff to administratively approve grant applications
um particularly if they were time critical. City council also asked for a six-month review to see how it's going. So I think in the last six months we've exercised this authority twice for the traffic safety enforcement grant and the traffic safety officer grant. In both instances we administratively applied
for the grant and then we did back brief the council after the fact to let you know what we had done. There were no issues. So um if council concurs, I would recommen we continue with the policy answer that we came up with six months ago. >> I have no questions. >> I have no questions. Go ahead.
>> I recommend that we continue with the uh policy as written. >> Add another six month review. >> Yep. Another six month. Sure, why not? >> I'll second that and and I agree with the motion. I like that you present the times you did do it and you did get back to us anyway on those two grants. But I
think looking at this every six months or maybe in the future, every 12 months, just give us a the things that were applied for. >> I would say 12 months next time >> on this motion. You want to change 12? >> Yeah, I would I I'd like to do 12 months. Let's we'll go a 12 month review
on this. >> Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor say I. I. That motion carries. >> Next up, public utility director hiring update. Chris Nick. Nick. >> I can brief it. Uh the public utilities director work group. We interviewed one
candidate on October 16th. Um, we have that was Paul Sandy. Um, I think you've all seen we extended a conditional offer to Paul Sandy. He has signed that. That's a step five of his current grade.
U, it is also a $10,000 signing bonus. He has to stay with the city for 24 months. If he doesn't, he would have to repay that $10,000. Um, thirdly, he uh, and this was in the email they gave to um, was a previous
employee left in good standing. Um he would start at an employee like an employee that had been here for six years as far as his acral for PTO. So how many hours is it every >> so for his vacation normally they would start at 10 hours a month. He's starting at 14.
>> He's starting like as a sixyear employee. He's been here for six years and I think that's fair since he left in good standing. I don't have any issue with that. >> Was there one other item? Did the 40 hours of vacation leave? >> Yes, >> he had he had a previously a commitment for a vacation around Christmas New
Year's. So, HR said we can preload his vacation balance by 40 hours and then he would not start acrewing until he had worked off essentially that 40 hours so we can make so we can continue with that vacation on Christmas. >> It's not going to advance. >> Exactly.
>> The only other thing is that he will be starting on Tuesday, November 4th. So he's not going to come to the November 3rd council meeting. >> Well, presumably he will give his twoe notice tomorrow. He's not going to do anything until after council makes a motion tonight.
>> So I presume he would give his two weeks notice tomorrow. So be two weeks from then. >> I mean he could come but he would be be as a private citizen or a potential hire but he >> I mean I can ask him but mandated. >> I don't think there's anything pressing.
>> So what's the motion? So the motion is to approve the hiring of Paul Sandy. Hired date November 4th. Step five in recognition of his years of service. He will approve vacation at the rate applicable to employees that have six years of service.
>> So move you can read the search heard. >> Yeah, it's all the same. I got four things. I'll read the whole thing. >> You're not going to add anything in there. >> Let's see how I feel between now. >> Game Johnson gets that 1988 three-tonon truck. >> I'll second that. Any other discussion?
All in favor say I. I. >> That motion carries. Next up, the health insurance broker agreement. >> Um, >> in your packet is a the 2026 service agreement between the city and Northris partners for them to be our 2026 health insurance broker for our better health
collective plan. This agreement would be effective October 1st and the broker we do it that way because the broker assists us with our 2026 open enrollment. The broker fee is split between the city public utilities and the based on the number of employees enrolled in the better health collective
plan. So the city share for that broker's fee for 26 would be $11,000. Um just a side note, we um recently went out for requests for proposals. The broker did help us negotiate a reduced rate and the premium savings from that
negotiation that they were able to enterain saved the city about $150,000 in just for 2026. So the recommended motion is to authorize retaining Northwest Partners as our health insurance broker for 2026 for the better
health collective. Further to approve the 2026 service agreement between the city and Northwest partners. >> So move second. Any discussion? >> Nope. All in favor say I. >> I. That motion carries. Next up I accept
a retirement of HR Director Schubert. Chris, >> I'll I'll kick it off and then Chris can fill in. Uh so Chris has submitted a retirement notice. Her last day will be 23 Jan 26. Staff recommends accepting her retirement. Authorize staff to
conduct an internal hiring process for backfill. Um so the recommended motion would be to move to accept the resignation of HR director Chris Schubert effective January 24th, 2026. Further to approve the updated HR director job description as presented
and lastly to authorize staff to conduct an internal hiring process to backfill the position. >> No questions. Second, I I asked Nick on Wednesday and I think he's probably thought about it. Chris as
well like if we have the correct structure in our HR department an HR director department head and one assistant HR person under it or if there is something we should change going forward and obviously staff's recommendation is >> they think we have the right model
>> maintain the status quo >> yeah okay so >> I brought it up staff thought about it they think maintaining the status quo is the right thing all in favor say I same sign and motion carries Next up, authorization to enter into a
service agreement with UFS for a very complicated divisional problem. So, as authorized on September 15th, um staff got a quote from UFS for a rate plan design study for the sanitary collection and storm sewer rates. The
quote that was received was for $15,500, 8,000 for sanitary, 7,500 for storm. And this was an increase of about $3,400 from the last study. staff does not recommend doing these studies in host um that the recommended action is to authorize staff to enter into agreement
with USF as presented to prepare the financial plan of redesign studies for sanitary and service rates. >> I do have a question on this one, Mr. Chair. Why why do we recommend going outside for these >> because >> I mean that's been such a benefit on
especially out of wages. >> No, you know what I'm saying? We know how much we're going to spend. We know how much we're short, >> right? >> It shouldn't be rocket science. We have to cover our expenses, >> right? So, I look at it as that having an outside professional doing it, it
protects us against raising breeds for a certain class. I also like the fact that they can decide if we should have more as the fix and more as the flowage or vice versa. >> Yeah. >> So, I just think that they have more expertise than what staff does in house to determine that. Also going back to
when we first did these rate studies, I did talk to the utility director at that time or finance director at that time and it was his recommendation not to do them in house as well. He said he had done them. It caught up to him at the end and he would just think that it's better to have an outside person looking in.
>> That's a long way of saying staff doesn't want to be accountable for the final numbers. They want to point to a consultant and say the consultant said that. Don't ask me anything. I don't know. >> Well, I actually kind of agree with that. a little bit because, you know, and I don't I'm not sure it's a
liability as much as doing the right thing for our citizens, >> etc. I I think our rates do need to be looked at. >> They need to be increased on a regular basis. >> Yeah, absolutely. Because the because the costs go up. So, and how it's done and to make sure it's
done fairly, I think, is important. I kind of knew the answer, but I wanted to make sure it became part of the So, I will move to approve this. >> Yeah, I'll second that. I do think they should be done in house but if staff wants to go out we can go out it is just division I've been part of a couple rate
studies now and every time I ask them so does this fix our system is this good enough and now we say oh god no this is just the numbers you told us you were willing to spend and we divided into months the number of hookups that you have this isn't enough you're going to
need more but this is the numbers you gave us to do division so that's ex again what we're going to do is we're going to say, "Well, we've been spending 400. Now we want to spend 600 on the sanitary." And they'll just do the division for us. It's just going to be 50% higher rates. It's not
>> There is some truth to that. >> You want to try one? >> I'm going to wait till I'm off council. I'm going to under bid these guys by $100. >> Will you hire me? >> I was voting. >> Oh, yeah. I All in favor say I. That
motion carries >> and then we're adjourned.