##VIDEO ID:cxp6IIUhDlE## okay we'll call the order the city brand personnel and finance committee meeting and we'll start with introductions uh I forgot where am UT large Kevin stck Chris schuber HR Director Connie hman City Finance director Nick Royal City administrator Sean strong technology director Kelly bav city council Mike Kor Public Works director James graic community development director Teresa B BR dispatch Kevin har represent from country man Scot Keyhole country man Anthony Fen CEO country man and Gabe Johnson chair of the committee we have seven published items on the agenda tonight we are adding an eighth one for an item that just came up today and that's about our bond Council but we'll start with the first item which is consider approval of a technology department organizational chart and job descriptions Chris Sean who's taking this I'll start it um so on January 21st the council reclassified Mr strong as our new tech techology director for the integrated technology department staff noted at the time that we wanted to work through some operational legal questions before submitting a department order chart and applicable job descriptions for the council's consideration Mr strong has met with various Public Utilities Department management team members on three occasions since that date to learn more about the Department's current operations as well as immediate needs and future priorities after considering those items um we have attached a department or chart in job descriptions as recommended by Mr strong and myself there um is listed in your packet proposed wages as of January 1st 2025 as well as the classification points for each position we will need to negotiate a memorandum of agreement with the union and um we are asking that the committee uh approve the technology Department job descriptions and classification points as presented and also to direct staff to negotiate the wages with the I so move second we have a motion and a second to approve the job descriptions uh any discussion Kell I have a question did we hire a guy we've hired one person so far okay and then after we um negotiate the me memorandum of agreement with the unions then we will post internally and see if we have any internal candidates for some of these positions the positions that are still vacant after that will do an ex internal hiring process okay and did we hire this person under the new job description um that was at the last meeting that we hired the technology director under that job desp I understand that but we were looking for another position so we're looking the public utilities department had included a network administrator and a system administrator both of those positions are listed here we can't hire someone until we negotiate the wage with the Union got it so we're getting close no we haven't I know there was a lot of concern that we get another it person on so what we can tell you though is since we have integrated the ID depart it Department we now have three people that could help immediately up up the utilities if needed so Mr strong and Lori trakowski our it Specialists both could help if something came up so we are better off than what we were decr in the first place I have another question okay when we do hire another person will they go into a public utilities Union or into what's the uh administrative support administrative support they will go into the ibw administrative support Union the public utilities Union the BMS certification our unit certification says they have to be employed in the public utilities department these people are being employed by our city technology department just wanted to make sure thank you thank you Mr chair yeah um maybe just a side note um we did work with both Connie our finance director as well as Danny lock today to talk about budget P um situations and things like that I don't know if Connie wants to talk about that a little bit just based on our initial placements our estimated higher dates assuming that these go through the unions um also an allocation for estimated time uh spent between the city and BPU departments is looking like the city will be about $3,500 over budget and BPU will be under budget by about $83,000 ,000 perfect it's based on a whole lot of assumptions yeah I get that yeah we see as it goes on any other discussion no okay and then I did have uh some employees reach out to me asking why they have to apply for their jobs like we already have employees and now they have to apply if they want to continue working at the city and when I asked Chris she showed me the language in the Union contract that anytime there is a new job title per the Union contract it has to be posted internally for five days so we're doing what the union wants us to do by having our employees apply for their own jobs any other discussion all those in favor say I hi oppos same sign that motion carries did you handle both of those items with that motion one item with that motion okay one next item is to direct staff to negotiate for wages for the new technology department positions with ibw admin support move second any discussion all in favor say I I same sign that motion carries okay good job CHR next item up is the S Saha funds James yes thank you Mr chair so at the December 16th city council meeting Council authorized staff to adverti for brainers available Saha funds there was some left over from last year as well as what we received from this this year for a total of $104,000 $484 the city did receive two proposals the first one was from my my neighbor to love Coalition which requested the total amount to go towards the remaining construction cost of their 12px uh the other ASP was from Lakes area Habitat for Humanity which requested $70,000 to go towards the construction of a single family home on B Street uh given the sharp increase in construction costs and I can answer any questions any questions no okay so they're looking for a recommendation this money needs to be spent by we have four years four years to spend it so the 20123 funds need to be spent by December 31st 2027 okay and the 2024 funds by 288 yes okay so we don't have to spend all this money right now I I think I would favor a motion granting the $70,000 for Lakes area Habitat for Humanity and holding on to the rest for another housing project that may come down the pipeline but it's all moved I'll second that okay thank you for that and the reason you know I have nothing against what they're trying to do over in the my neighbor to love Coalition but it the proof of concept isn't there so I don't really know if it's going to work or what's going on over there where L where Habitat Humanity is long proven model of getting people in homes Kelly uh Mr cranbeck and I attended a uh presentation by Charles from string towns today and he labeled the my neighbor to love Coalition as brainard's future slums that's a concern I mean he was very direct so I I'm not making any comments on myself or for the council but just that Charles Chuck has a lot of there's a lot of gray area yet for us to start giving money right start putting public funds towards something that could end up not working cuz they have the for Plex that they've had for 2 years now but they have yet to provide any support in their Supportive Housing concept so I think we don't Shel government money towards that but habitat we've worked with many times they build a quality product and get people homes so any other discussion all in favor say I oppose same sign that motion carries next up is delay payment of charges for Country Manor yes so there's a deferred assessment on one of the country manners Parcels from the Beaver Dam project the assessment is now due because the property has been replanted and development is and and it's going to be developed the principal amount of the assessment is just under 65,000 with 10 years of interest at 5.75% for a total of just under $12,300 Country Manor is requesting Council to consider waving the 10 years of of interest at the 5.75% which is about $ 37,3 47 and to delay the payment of the principal amount to start 30 days after the building opens for service the assessment would be paid annually over a total over 5 years the actual sack and whack charges are not known until the building is constructed but are currently estimated to be $468,500 Country Manor is requesting Council to consider delay the payment of sack and whack charges to start 30 days after the building opens for service and the assessment would be paid annually over a total of 5 years Country Manor is also proposing an interest rate of 1.5% attached to the agenda was a amortization table using the uh suggested interest rate and the sack and whack estimated charges and principal amount of $64,900 of the Deferred assessment based on council's action tonight the interest rate and Arrangement will be included in the development agreement that will be considered at the February 18th council meeting we also have representatives from Country Manor if there's any questions and the motion is to approve the request as presented or to deny the request with recommended changes the country maners requests to delay payment of sack and whack and deferred assessment for the Country Manor development project okay I have one question are you guys aware of our Park dedication fees no so that's $500 per housing unit are you going to ask us to defer those and should we incl in those being deferred tonight or are you going to pay those up front when you get the building permit that's probably just thing you haven't run into yet yeah so it has early come up I can answer that um certainly the big one is the sack and whack I did I'm aware of this yeah and so so the park dedication when I did add it out for a commercial property um because this is a mixed use senior livings also in our commercial table it's a little bit different than an individual house with of $500 so we calculated at 5% of the land value or $1,000 per acre um of the of the developable area so you'd be looking at approximately $338,000 because of development's occurring on 38 acres which is greater than the 5% so I did take out to about 500 bucks a unit to yeah a little bit less than that but yeah similar but are you guys going to come later and ask for that to be deferred might don't we just include it we could include it tonight if you can include it that would be great yeah I would make a motion to approve what was presented to defer it along with the park dedication St I'm not seconding this okay and I I'll explain if we get a second yeah can I second it yeah yeah I'll second it k i i the sack and whack I get we like to give incentives for people doing big projects and I'm really excited about this project so I don't mean to to um I I represent this area geographically and every single year somebody from 15 years ago who's had all this property comes and complains about the assessments on the sewered water that went underneath the road in front of your proposed development and here's my thought on that that's not your responsibility anyway now the entire city is it's the seller's responsibility the assessment was on the property before you bought it yes if you bought it with the assessment knowing that you were going to come to us later and try and stick it to the rest of the taxpayers that isn't fair every single person on that road had to pay the assessments we have not deferred one they're all zoned residential now yours is a different type of residential but I can't I can't get reelected telling the other 30 people who had their assessments deferred and had to pay them when they sold or developed the property but you guys don't it just isn't fair to the other property owners out there who had to do what you're asking us not to do so I it just it just you know I I get what you're saying it's a huge development it has it has a lot of Merit and and for us to compensated to help you out makes perfect sense except for why does why why do you guys not have to clean your room when I do do you understand it's I mean maybe you don't but it's it's it's it's to be fair to everybody else by the way there's probably more deferred assessments out there tons more and the minute we open the door to you we're going to they're all going to and then you know well we did it for you so how many are out there I mean not very many have not how many left but we just went through this on one but we they do always have the option of having an assessed over 10 years of requesting counil to re not any oh these people do or right no these people don't the assessment over 10 years already happened that 10 years is long gone right but we I have it in my notes that they could request Council to recertify for 10 years with no interest okay so that's at at no interest because it but it would be the whole amount not just the principal amount it would be the whole 1023 I think that' be fine if that's part of the deal that's available for everybody according to my notes with this project that that was allowed yeah I can well this should be accelerated right yes pay after 5 years instead of 10 so I support the motion I I was hesitant at first 1.5% interest at it's a pretty good deal but we did with that with the people who hooked up without permission we did wave 10 years of interest already we've already established that we're letting people pay the 2012 cost of the hookups are so I'm fine with that that in the past it's part that's part of the it's not the entire motion so I support it I support putting off the if they a 2012 assessment which includes interest correct that includes some interest it was just the 2012 fee I wouldn't have a problem with that M cuz that's part of the same deal for everybody so they would lose a considerable amount of Interest yeah I don't have a problem with that but that's not what this motion is no this motion is waving 10 years of interest and having them pay it off over five years and then sack them back over 5 years and partition so they'll pay the principal yes yeah the 100% principal at 1 and a half% and they'll pay the interest up through 212 2014 or 2014 yeah 2015 now yeah which right because they're only they're only getting 10 years of free interest of no interest so they're only going to be paying interest at 1.5% versus a 5.75 from here moving forward right but the amount is this amount it's just the principal amount the okay so it doesn't include any interest up to 2012 correct because the interest 10 years correct4 the other people had to pay interest up through 212 well this is only withing 10 years of Interest so the interest through she just said that so the the bond has been paid off the interest stopped after 10 years we continued to collect interest we continue to collect interest that I do not know according to my notes I don't know how what can we wave if we didn't collect if we didn't charge I don't know what was done on the last property that we just did I'm sorry I'm still confused about that don't worry about that let's look at what we have right in front of us they're asking for the principal they're asking for $344,000 of Interest we W that's 10 years of interest on the project they're asking for 10 years of interest but any other interest before those 10 years is included in what we're calling principle tonight the principle that was the assessment amount was $64,000 so that doesn't include any interest that doesn't include any interest so no interest was ever added on to 64 was the original amount was the original amount and then we added 10 years of interest at 5.75% so when we started it in 26 or 2006 then we added one so the interest is from 2006 to 2016 we only aced 10 years of interest and we stopped acre interest on we stopped acre interest after the debt yes that wasn't oh the other according to my that's not the way I recall it either and I was there so normally when someone defers after the bonds paid off we stop acre the interest really yes well nevertheless I support the motion I think it's we've already given them tax abatement we've already went through the public hearing process and found that this was a public benefit to have this develop in our community so I I absolutely support this any other discussion kellier okay no I certainly support 10 years of Interest abatement since 2000 but my principal amount would be the initial assessment amount of 64,000 64,000 plus interest from 06 to 2015 which it doesn't appear appears they're getting 20 years of interest because of the way we calculate assessment interest and they are requesting for all of that interest to be wait yep which is more than 10 years more than 10 years yeah 20 years how do you intered crewing in 06 it'll be 20 years in 2026 the fact that you haven't been collecting interest is only a Mis understanding of the assessment process and that is how we have done so it was the interest calculated the 34,000 interest was calculated by taking the principal amount the 64,000 * 5.75% time 10 all right we've got 10 minutes and like five more items so uh we're just going to vote on this all in favor say I I oppose I okay let's get on to the next item ratify hiring of Aaron forstrom Transit operation specialist Chris we receive four applications for the transit operations specialist position we invited three people to interview and made an offer to Mr forstrom he will start with us on February 12th at step two and the recommended action is to ratify is hiring so move second have a motion second to hire any discussion all in favor say I that motion carries next up consider approval of employee policy manual Chris so several employment law changes anything different from the last time you explained it Noe okay I approve second we have a motion and a second any discussion all in favor say I I that motion carries next up the investment policy con the only change that we're requesting is to have the um interest be allocated on a quarterly basis instead of a semiannual basis as recommended by Municipal advisers um for our debt service funds and update the signature block recommend a motion is to approve the investment policy as presented so move second any discussion all in favor say I I that motion carries alley parking lot so I had a conversation with Dave peringer a while back that he was renovating the top of the for Bob and Fran building and putting in seven or nine apartments or something but he was mandated by the city to provide for parking stalls and he asked me if we could transfer the lease from Bob and FRS to Dave so he just has the four parking Cs and they're right next to the building and it's convenient and I said I will try so that's why this is here the city has a historical record of just having a weight list and there are a few people on the weight list but in my opinion this is a different type of situation because we are telling the developer you must provide parking and we have the opportunity that with a tenant moving out boom four parking spots are opening up we can transfer to Dave he's satisfying his variance or conditional use or whatever take permanent was and we're being helpful instead of a hindrance there are some seven people currently on the waiting list just an FYI I look at this as a continuation of the lease more than a open lease now the only question I have is Bob and fr do they care if they have a truck still there or they did recently I mean I hate to I hate to give them to Dave Bob France wants to keep them for their trucks well we wouldn't transfer yeah that would be the only I would move to approve the transfer from Bob and fr to Dave perer who's the building owner yeah which is where it probably should have been anyway and uh as long as Bob France approves Sor yeah that's that's a good point I haven't talked to Bob and fr about it so we have a motion to approve the transfer contingent upon Bob and Fran's approval any other discussion all in favor say I I oppos same sign that motion carries and the final item Connie Direction on bond Council and economic development matters yes so staff received word today that effected today the entire team of bond lawyers in the public finance department at Kennedy and graen have transitioned to qat rock LLP therefore the city either needs to move to qat for Bond Council services or grow up for RFP Sophia Ley is our bond Council and attorney for development development matters such as Tiff and tax abatement with Kennedy and Graven since 2021 2022 the city could save with Kennedy engraven for economic development matters but we need to another attorney um from Kenny and Graven for those matters with being in the middle of several large and ongoing projects it would be staff's recommendation to continue to be represented by Sophia Ley in connection with Bond and economic development matters this item is of importance as Miss Ley is planning on being online tonight for the country manner tax abatement agenda item and Miss likey could not represent the city if the city is not going to continue with her services so the recommended motion is to continue to be represented by Sophia Ley with qap Rock LLP in connection with Bond Council and economic development matters and then the further action would be the discussion if the city um should go off RFP for Bond counil and economic development matters looked at a little history it looks like we've been with Kennedy engraven since 1974 I shall approve the motion what is the motion Kevin the motion is to continue to be represent correct okay I'll second it but I might vote against it yeah have discussion I have a question I mean when when our attorney this happened just recently with our attorney and we ended up with langle and the guy that recommended that we whack the fire department um and we ended up with Joe and we just stayed with the same firm I'm sure Kennedy engraven has somebody who could take over with not Bond Council the whole entire team moved that's the difference here okay we could stay with them for economic development matters but then we have understand so it's a special type of and the second question is are we in any obligatory contract with Kenedy and Graven assume we signed a contract with them we have no contract that we can find okay well do we know anything about CAC rock it is a uh what do I want to say they're all over the United States a national firm it's a national firm never heard of them we just look we Google them for 5 minutes that was about that's what we know of them that's okay we know they they hired our bond councel well that's in so everybody El on must does that um Jeff uh chesak or council member chesak did ask a question what what the rates would be and I did receive a response back that they are not looking at increasing the rates and she's about $230 per hour yeah I support the motion for now I've had no problems with our vond Council and my time on the council and we've got things going on like the right like the assist Housing Development other things that Sophia has been working on and is deeply knowledgeable of so I think we just stick with her for now and if she something up like Eric quiring did then we we look in a different direction if we um if we do if this motion passes are we obligated for any length of time since we have no contract no no so we can always change all right I'll support it anything else no so at this point not going up for RFP then right now just going with Sophia y keep the keep the e you have to keep calling a cute cat though yeah cute cat all favor say hi same sign that motion carries and we're adjourned for a few minutes to get upstairs