the special meeting. It is Monday, September 29th, 2025, 6 p.m. in council chambers. Tony, please call the role. Johnson, here. Stunn here. Jagger, yes. Erikson, yes. Beans, here. Chzach, here. OD here. Bedau, here.
All right. Next, we have approval of the agenda. Looking for a motion to approve. Motion by Chzach. Second. Second by Stunic. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Again, same sign. We have an agenda. Moving on to
number four. This is new business 4 A. We have uh the adoption of a resolution setting the 2026 preliminary levy for the city of Brainard and the Brainer HR. And I believe are we going to let Connie take this one first? Go for it, Connie.
All right. So, the city council needs to adopt a resolution setting the city of Brainard the city and the Brainard H's levy by September 30th. The final levy amount in December can be lower, but it cannot be higher than the preliminary levy set tonight. And the preliminary levy is what is used to send out the
preliminary tax statements in November. The HA levy is separate from the city's levy and appears under other levies on the tax statement along with the levy for region 5 in the Crowing County HR housing trust fund. The resolution that was included in the packet has a HA levy
at $227,866 and that was was passed by 70 vote at the September 15th council meeting. At the September 15th council meeting, the preliminary levy was $7,854,799 or a 10.66% increase over the 2025 levy.
I have since discovered that I was using 16.95% for the employer portion of the PN of the police and fire pair rate when it should have been 17.7%. The corrected rate added about $24,900
more expenditures to the budget. Therefore, the levy needed at this time would be 7,879,75 or 11.01% increase. This recap was included in the packet. There were basically four open items at the September 18th or se September 15th
meeting. They were health insurance. The current budget has a 5% increase to the better health care collective plans and a 10% increase to the teamsters and 49ers plans. The council went out for RFP for the 2026 health insurance provider. The RFP does not affect the
teamsters or 49ers plan. The insurance committee met last Thursday to review the proposals and recommend staying with the better health collective, roughly a 3% increase to each plan option. This option would reduce the levy by approximately $14,100.
This however is not the lowest cost proposal. The lease premium increase was through the Minnesota Healthc Care Consortium with an average of.1% increase to each plan. this plan which would reduce the levy by about $35,500.
This item will be presented to the council at the October 6 council meeting. Another item outstanding was the pilot amount. The motion from the September 15th meeting was to request the utilities commission to consider a change to the contribution policy to be
a percentage of revenues. The commission does not meet until tomorrow. Currently, the budget amount for the pilot contribution is 780,000, which is the same amount used for the 2025 budget. Staff projects that the amount for 2025 could be about 775,000.
3% of sales is estimated to be 805,000. If council wants to increase the budget amount to 805,000 from the 780 that's currently in the budget, will result in a decrease needed for the levy of $25,000. The third item was the EDA levy. The
budget presented by the council president, PNF chair, and city administrator kept the EDA levy the same as the 2025 levy amount. Any change to the EDA levy would affect the amount of the preliminary levy. And if council would like to change the levy amount,
now would be the time to do so. And the final item was the debt levy. This was discussed during the agenda item to pass a resolution to issue the series 2025A bonds. Staff was instructed not to capitalize interest and to keep the debt levy the same as 2025 levy. So that one
has been taken care of. Included in the agenda were amounts of the levy based on various increases from the 2025 levy as well as four different alternatives based on the pilot and healthcare options. The council needs to set the levy in a dollar amount, not a
percentage increase. And so the recommended action is to adopt a resolution setting the 2026 preliminary levy for the city and the Briner H. Thank you, Connie. Does anybody have questions for Connie? I have one. President O.
Yeah, Mr. Chzach, go ahead. On other levies, Connie, this uh could you just remind me of SR activity green space and comfest? What is that exactly for? Do you need the dollar amount there?
It's right underneath permanent improvement. Yes. So, these are the levies that are listed in the charter for green space, community festivals, and um um senior activities. Okay, that's what I thought. And then
and that's based on last year's Yes, it's a percentage of last year's total levy. Thank you. More questions, Mr. Chzach or no? Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I'm not comfortable with 10.16%.
I know this is a preliminary levy. I was hoping we would be well under 10% even for the preliminary. We haven't really moved as much as I thought we would have. I think we still have room based on some options we still have out there.
But when this preliminary levy gets voted on, whatever we put it on, statements get sent out to our constituent constituents and naturally they think that that is what they're getting taxed. So I was hoping we would get a little
closer to the actual number we're going to end up with, which I am confident it's going to be a lot less than 10.16%. So looking for a motion, Mr. President. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I I got to I'm going to reiterate what I said at our last meeting about the
airport levy. Um we gave 148 roughly,000 uh to the airport in 2024. Last for this year, we approved 1,000. They're looking at I believe 215 is it
for this year? Is that correct? Okay. somewhere else. So that that in itself is just shy of 3%. Because you go Yeah. And um it it's um if we would have given 150,000 last year
that this increase would only be uh 65,000 or just shy of 1%. You know, so realistically I understand that it's what people see. They don't care about the airport levy as far as what how that affects that number and
and what they see reported as a 10 point whatever percent. So I mean I hope we all keep that in mind. We didn't you know so overall we've given 150,000 in the last two years to the airport. So if we were to give this if everybody
approved the 215 there is some it it's funny numbers in that sense but I I just want to make sure that that does make our number larger because we gave so little next to nothing last year. That's all I have. Thank you.
Yep. That's a good point. Even even without that let's say we knocked that down 3% and that stayed flat. Most of that 7% remaining is from our own costs and services. Our
operating budget has gone up significantly due to a pay study that we had. So, we're stuck on some of this stuff, but we're trying to avoid peaks and valleys in in these situations. So
we have to be flexible and find ways to to cut something down on this PNF chair. Anything? I can't abide by any of the numbers up there in the option. I think I acknowledge the basically 3%
increase to get the airport back on this year, but I honestly believe we can operate the city consistently for another 150 years with 2 to 4% levy increases and I think we should be able to figure that out. So this year that would move it to 5 to 7% or somewhere in that range
because of the airport situation, but I I don't see a number on there I could support. Mass, Mr. Sure. Just kind of based on on what Chairman Johnson said, what was the levy increase percentage-wise last year? I think it was only 2%. Two or three, I believe.
Yeah. So, we were under that. We were in that two to four. Mhm. Arguably, maybe should have been closer to four, but nobody wants to overlevy. Mhm. Right. But I mean, if there's going to be a It's easier to budget if you flatline budget
and m maybe we maybe we should have last year that point. I'm not I'm not saying we that might be part of why we're when you cut $150,000 levy out, it makes it a lot easier to have a small increase in your percentage,
right? But but but maybe that that that's counterproductive to the flatline levy because 4% seems about right. And that's just to keep up with our
union negotiations and inflation. So, Mr. and I'm still not comfortable with those, Mr. President. Yeah, Mr. Chz. Um, when we set our now, I I apologize if I'm incorrect, but I believe our final levy, we did have additional money
that we weren't sure if we were going to need it or not to cover what the negotiations came in. I think it was roughly, and if I'm wrong, somebody please tell me. Wasn't it roughly like $125,000 we increased just to kind of have a a buffer there because we weren't sure of
some of the negotiations. Is that anybody recall that? Anybody up here? Connie, I think that that was for 2025. I mean 2024, not 2025. Jeff, because everything all the union contracts were settled except for one in
2025 and we used an estimate based on the way the other contract have settled. So, I think it was for 2024 that we increased the levy more than what we needed for operations because we didn't know how the contracts were going to settle. Okay. Then I'm I think what happened there was there was some question as to
whether we may want to I think it was a preliminary levy. We're talking about maybe having something for the airport still if we change their mind. That's what I'm think I'm confused on. So, thank you. I remember that now that you say that. Yeah.
But regardless, we did what we did. So, Okay. And I'd like to add, two years ago, the levy increase, final levy was over 8%. Last year, the preliminary was 8%. Here we are receiving an option that the
lowest option we have here is 8%. So like by lowering peaks and valleys, it just seems like they're trying to just stay at a peak at all times and just accelerate the taxes on the citizens when that's not really justifiable just given the
economic circumstances. Not everybody in this town is getting an 8% raise this year. Yeah, the easy route is always to just raise everything 10%. But we have to figure out how to not do that. I'm not seeing anybody's hand jump up to
make a motion either way though, but we have to make a preliminary budget decision tonight. We're not going to be meeting until. Mr. President, Mr. Chz, I can't remember the exact number that was quoted by Connie, but I would move to approve. Could you repeat that number
for our preliminary levy? So, I just put in what we would need based on after my correction, which is 11.01%. I would probably, if I was king for the day, and you asked my opinion on what I would set it at, I would probably set it
right now at the 10.46%. Which would be 7,840,28. That would be staying with the Better Healthcare Collective and moving the pilot to $85,000. And I will tell you, we will work the hardest that we can to get the levy
down. I mean, the biggest percent or the biggest difference is personnel and the airport levy makes over $845,000 increase. This would be an increase of about $742,000. Um, may I? Yeah. Um, based on the pilot, that's
contingent, that number is contingent on whether the public utilities commission is agreeable to that tomorrow. I don't know if I would say that for sure. Um that's the rub. Um because we're increasing it from
we're going from being a percentage of kilowatt hours sold to a percentage of revenue is what I'm looking at that how we're changing the pilot. Mr. Broyals make a motion. Okay. Just one last comment. When you guys see
the 805,000 for pilot, that is derived basically from a 3% of gross electric receipts. If we went with the historical methodology for computing pilot, we historically have been about at about 775,000
780,000 somewhere in there. So I hope that answers your question, Jeff. The 805 is derived from 3% of electric gross electric receipts. If we divert it to the percentage of kilowatt hours, which we have done historically, it's about 780.
And I guess my I appreciate that, but my concern was does the Okay, so we're back to that. Does the utility have to take our recommendation? If they don't, then we're over uh we're overestimating our revenue and then we have to make that up by our
final levy. We can't go down. We can't go up. We're we're starting out higher with our revenue. So we so get is that am I thinking about that the wrong way? If we if we put in more revenue than we are going to get. Really what you're what you're setting with this motion would be just the
number for our amount levied. So the the numbers could be pulled from many other areas shifted around. So that's just Conniey's math kind of put on the chart I believe is what Am I right Connie? If if I
Connie did you have something to I'll defer. If we want to stay with the Better Healthcare Collective, which was the which was the insurance committee's recommendation, and keep the pilot at 708,000, then I calculated it to be 10.81% increase.
So, I would not recommend setting it at the 11.01%. Because that was our starting number and then looking at those four big options, that's how I came up with the different options to put in the packet. Okay. Yeah. My my concern was if we if
we set a preliminary levy at more revenue than we are actually going to get, then it's harder to go down, is it not? It's always hard to go down. But but we can still do it. Okay. I see your point. Yeah. If if I can, Mike.
Yeah. Mr. Johnson. Yeah. Jeeoff, a few years ago when the we were onboarding the crypto mines in the city, we upped our BPU revenue to like 900,000 something like we upped it really high and didn't hit it and we had to drop it back down. That just happens. It's just budgeting. Yeah.
You know, it's like the the good questions you asked Connie today that our budgeting in 2024 left an additional $350,000 sitting on in the couch cushions at the end of the season because we didn't spend the budgeted numbers, right? So, it's just budgeting. You're never going to be perfect. things are
going to go up and down, but we know we have $354,000 in the couch cushions we can play with. And just a reminder that after 2024, we were at 23% of our fund balance policy. Just a reminder, you committed an unfair labor practice.
I did not. I had nothing to do with that. Um but so our fund balance policy is to be within 35 to 50%. And at the end of the year, we were at 23%. So, yes, I agree that we increased our fund balance last year, but we're still not within our policy for operations. And
that was asked during the bond rating call or the prepping for the bond rating call is how are you planning on getting it within your policy? Mr. President, Mr. Chzac, Donnie, read me that number again on that 10 point you say 1%. 10.81%.
Yeah. Where we'd be staying with the Better Health Collective in the pilot at 780,000. Mhm. That amount would be $7,865,471. So moved for our preliminary levy. Motion by Chzach. Second. Second by Bevans. Any discussion on that
motion? No discussion at all. Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I personally can't accept anything over 10%. I I think it's disingenuous to the public. Um I don't want to look people in the eyes and say I'm raising your taxes 10%. I just don't. And you are absolutely correct. This is what
goes in the paper. This is what goes out to people. This is what they see. Brainer is increasing its taxes 10%. And I think that all the work that we've done over all the years that we've been doing this, if we can't get to a point where we are not telling people the sky
is falling, you're going to get a 10% increase. I I think we are doing a disservice to the public. So, I just don't support anything that high. I agree. I won't be voting yes on this so you guys know. Anyone else?
And this would also be setting the resolution with the H levy at the $227,000 amount. Correct. Um yes. Friendly amendment. Second or okay? Yes. Okay.
Yes. Yes. Um and may we have a roll call, please? Okay. Tony Johnson. No. Stunnk. No. Jagger, no. Erikson, no. Bevans, no. Chzach, no. I'm Yes. I'm voting yes for that.
Sorry, I got hooked on the nose. You're on Johnson. O day. No. All right, that fails. Six to one. Anybody want to try anything else?
Ain't that the rub? There's some other numbers up there. Yeah, I I'd move to set it at 766066013 and 227866 for the H. And I so move
7,666,13. What was the second part? I'm sorry. I didn't hear about for the H 2278.66. I'll second by Johnson, second by Joerger. Mike, this is 8%. It's the lowest option we have. I would have went 6% if I could
have seen that number, but it's not on there. I think we'll end up around 6%. I think 8% is is excessive. It's more than enough. So, if we can't get it lower than that, at least we still have enough money to
do most of what we wanted to do next year. Maybe we won't buy a something something. But we'll have to get by. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, Mr. Chair. So what what number is that exactly? Where are you where are
you finding that? You went seven 8%. Yes. What what did you what what comes off the the what items did you take off of the original the first motion that was made here today? Mr. Johnson.
Well, I'm I plan on staying with the Better Health Collective. I plan on adjusting the pilot. I hope the public utility commission rules favorably for us tomorrow. I uh think we can use some of the excess money we didn't spend in 2024 to offset
this year. I I noticed reading uh Baxter's budget presentation in their council packet. They they kind of do that as a matter of rule. Anything that after the audit you taxed the citizens and didn't spend, they just kind of put it back in the budget two years later because it's we're not taxing people to
build up a huge reserve so staff is comfortable with it. we're taxing them to provide services. So, I think we have the money there we can use. I I think there's other ways to find money and and tweak the budget numbers. I know our personnel line is too high. We do have retirements coming
up this next year. There there there's there's much more that can be done, Mr. President. Yeah, you have the floor. So, my motion, and I'm not arguing about the no votes. I didn't like it either, but I
my whole intention was to come back in December and have that number down. Of course, that's what to Mr. uh Mayor Bedau's point is that's what people are going to see is that had that passed. Okay, so I get that. And uh do they know
it came down later? Well, maybe. um if we if we were to do that. So, I like what Gabe's doing here. Um it does concern me at our last meeting, you know, Mr. Johnson said the inflated number was our
uh what was it? $585,000 for uh uh working funds, personnel costs. and and that's assuming that we don't have any retirements, resignations, nobody quits or gets fired over that 365day one-year period.
No work comp claims. Yeah. So, so all of those things I I understand. And if you if there is a pending retirement as was stated, then why are we even budgeting for that? You know, I mean,
if we want to give the people the best number, why aren't we looking at that if there is a pending retirement or other things like that? Yeah, it's a good point, Jeff. Yeah, I I can't answer that for you, Jeff.
Those are the things that we can dig deeper into as we get closer to the final number, and hopefully those start to add up and pile up to where we get to an even better number than what is being proposed right now. Fair enough. Work ahead of us. Yep. Mr. Mayor.
Yeah. 8% is about where I saw myself at for the preliminary. Again, this just all comes back to the same thing. The public wants us to set a budget that we can operate within and to know that we are doing the best we can to be uh responsible with the
taxpayers's money. I I think as an organization, it is important for us to shake off as much of the excess as we possibly can, but it also is an understanding to everyone involved that as our personnel costs go up, that puts a burden on the rest of the city and our
services. So, if we continue to see skyrocketing things in terms of our personnel costs, there's going to be other things that are going to suffer. And so, we just have to balance everything out and uh make sure that we're being as fiscally responsible with the taxpayers money as we possibly can. But 8% is as high as I would like to see
us on the preliminary. Thank you. Anybody else have comments, questions, concerns? Looks like no. Tony, please call the role. Johnson, yeah. Stunic,
yes. Jagger, yep. Ericson, yes. Bevven, yes. Chzach, heck yeah. OD, yes. That motion carries. So, we have a preliminary budget levy levy. Uh, next we're looking at 4B. This
is uh setting a date and time for the public hearing for the budget. And it would make sense, I think, for us to just have this at the next meeting. Connie, we need to include this with what we file with the county. So, this has to be set prior to September 30th.
Okay. I move to set the meeting on December 8th at 6. Second. Motion by Johnson, second by Jagger. You said December 8th at 6 PM right here. Is that our Is that a meeting night?
That's the second Monday. That's when we typically do it, not during the regular meeting. Gotcha. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. Again, same sign. That motion carries. Moving on to 4 C.
This is a additional item that came up uh establishing a work group for the hiring of a public utilities director. Mr. Broyals, if you want to take this one. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be as brief as I can. On August 18th, city council approved the revised position description for the public utilities
director authorized staff to begin the hiring process for set position utilizing GMP consultants. The position has been posted in staff request that the council formally establish a public utilities director workg group as required by our employee policy manual. Um I have the excerpt from the employee
policy manual up there. If you can scroll down max to there should be a highlighted area. So basically when hiring a public utilities director, the city council will establish a work group to oversee the hiring process with up to two representatives from the BPU commission personnel committee will be included included in said work group. So
that's where our employee policy manual says. The recommended motion might be something to this effect. Motion to appoint the public utilities director work group consisting of city administrator Broyals, HR director Schubert, public utilities commissioner Angland and Matten, and one or more
appointees selected by the city council to serve as your representative or representatives. That's all I have. I'll answer questions if you have them. Thank you. Anybody have questions for Mr. Broyals? No questions. So last time we had this,
we went through this a year a little over a year ago. We had I believe from the council, we had our liaison to the public utilities as well as was it the president of the council or was it the PNF chair? PNF chair.
It was it was Carara. I was I was indisposed with the union negotiations with the bargaining unit over there. So I pass the baton to council member Terry for that. Are you currently indisposed? I am not. I could do it. Okay. One meeting.
Mr. Liaison, are you comfortable with that? Yes, I am. Okay. Everybody else comfortable with that? Yep. Okay. I'll make a motion to appoint the public utilities director work group consisting of administrator Boils, HR Director
Schubert, public utilities commissioner England, and and Madden, as well as Mr. Jeff Chzach and Gabe Johnson uh to serve as our city council representatives. Motion by Jagger, second by Stunnik. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Now we're looking for a motion to adjurnn. So move. Motion by Stunnick. Second. Second by Ericson. All those in favor say I. I. We are adjourned.