All right, we'll call to order. This is the city, Briner City Council workshop, joint workshop between the council and the Briner Public Utilities Commission. It is uh Monday, July 28th, 6 p.m. in council chambers.
Uh please, Tony, >> I'll call. >> No, Tony tonight. >> I can do it. >> Okay. Please call the role. >> Johnson, >> here. >> Stunn. >> Yes. >> Joerger. Ericson, >> here. >> Bevans. >> Yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. OD. >> Yes. >> Mike OD, excuse me. Mayor Bedau >> here. >> Uh, Commissioner England
>> here. >> Higgins >> here. >> Matten >> here. >> And Mark OD. >> All right. Thank you. Next, we just have number three. These are the discussion items. 3A is a discussion regarding roles and responsibilities of city council and public utilities commission.
And the presenter for this item is city administrator Nick Broyals. Take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not going to go into a tremendous amount of detail. council has as has as has kind of we bounced this around a little bit. Um there was some kind of as the public utilities director vacancy as a
backdrop. Um several conversations have been had regarding potential confl potential ambiguity and roles and responsibilities. Um we had a city council meeting a couple weeks ago where even in committee we had some lengthy conversations and the council decided in the full session that night to set up
this meeting with the joint a joint meeting with the council and the commission. So, um, staff is here. I think the appropriate staff is here if you guys need to ask staff any questions. Thank you commissioners for being here tonight. Um, but really we need to hear from the council and the commission on on kind of what your ideas
are going forward for some of the things that we pointed out in the the agenda item is the same agenda item. The text is the same agenda item as it was a couple weeks ago. So, I won't go into that, but I'm just going to turn it back over to the council for any conversation. >> Thank you, Administrator Broyals. Um, so
everybody got this packet. Everybody get a chance to read through the comments. Not everybody sent anything every something in. But, um, there's enough there. I think that we can have a conversation on where this confusion might be coming from. Um, but I I want
to open this up if anybody has questions for staff regarding anything in the packet or anything that's been brought up since. >> President OD, >> Mr. Chzach. >> Uh reading through what we have here. Um
I uh of course uh I have my opinion, everybody has theirs. Uh some I think people maybe have asked more questions and given their opinion, which is fine. Um I I I read what you you uh had uh submitted uh President OD and uh I can
see similarities and I I agree with your assessment of how uh this should be laid out. It seems to make sense to me regarding our interpretation of the charter, which I think is one of the things we're here to do based on section
five. And uh it it I I don't see a lot of u issue with how you described your thoughts on that. It it like I said, I I see our administrator's role as not being involved in operations. And I think that was I I don't know if that
had happened or what. I I think something maybe been uh implied there with uh our previous utility director's resignation. That's nothing we can actually verify necessarily by having him come in and
explain what happened. But at the same time, having um a utility director is the wishes of the commission by a vote. And uh however, I think they decide we should seriously consider u and uh I
think the interim for the time being is working out okay with uh Danny, Charlie, and uh Trent taking on those roles. Whether that's permanent or not, I guess is up to us and the commission or perhaps uh the commission. and they did vote and it does seem clear that the
shall we shall employ the necessary personnel if they've determined that I think it's their role in many respects to determine that that's one of the questions I think that was asked who decides what staff is needed um again that so I'm kind of I'm I'm very highly
leaning towards your interpretation and uh like I said I have some similarities not identical but that's where I wanted to start out with I I guess I'm looking for other opinions as well. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. I always love it when people agree with me. Anyone else?
>> So, my interpretation and I'll just expand on it is not to really change anything with what the commission is doing. I see the commission as what they should focus on is
what I consider to be the operations and the management are the projects that fall within Brainer public utilities having to do with the pipes, having to do with the electrical grid, having to do with any of that infrastructure that's involved in that. I think the way that the
the charter is written, I I read through it enough times to where I thought I think this is clearer than what we've been saying and that the employees always fall under the council under the city administrator and flow down from
there. So, I know there's going to be some disagreement with that, but that's that's the way it is written in the charter in my opinion. That's the way it is set up in our our organization chart. Um I think anytime that there is
miscommunication or or a disagreement between something that a commissioner from public Brainer public utilities is noticing that should be communicated with the city administrator at the very least and that should be communicated
with the future B public utility director as well. And I think the administrator should always be CCed in those in those emails. We always do. If I if I am contacting any department head, I'm always CCing Mr. Broyals. If I
have questions for any other staff members, I'm always CCing Mr. Broyals. It's just clear communication from the top down. I think that's super important. And I think maybe that's what we've been missing some of. Maybe we haven't been clear with that with all of our commissions and we should, but
that's my intent with that interpretation that I have and I think if we move forward, I don't think we need in my opinion a charter change. I think we need an official interpretation of what the charter says. So if anybody disagrees
agree I'm going to go with Johnson and then Higgins. >> Okay. Yeah. I'll just say I I absolutely agree with your interpretation too, Mike, that the public utility director answers to the administrator and the city council. All operational decisions
are made by the public utilities commission, but that flows through the the city administrator and the public utility director. When we amended the charter years and years ago now, we made the language very very similar for the
public utility commission and the parks and recreation board. And that's how I saw it working with both commissions is the parks and recreation board makes all of the decisions for the operations and the running of our parks. We may have opinions at the city council, but we
have no authority to make any decisions on what happens in the parks because that's the park board. But all of the employees, all of the maintenance worker, the public works director answer to the city administrator through the city coun or to the city council through the city administrator. And that's how
you've written it here and that's what I agree with. That's the same with the public utility department. The commission makes all operational decisions on the plants, on the pipes, on the wires, and it's up to the city administrator
and the public utilities director to make sure their actions are implemented in in force. So, I just fully agree that was the one issue I had and why I wanted to have this discussion is our prior public utility director seemed to be
very confused that he had so so many bosses that he didn't know who to answer to when we just need to be clear as as a city that our next public utility director needs to know that they're hired. They have one boss. It is the city administrator. So, thank you. So
really kind of to piggyback on that, it is the city administrator's job to make sure that the the department heads are running as the commit the commission and the council have directed. >> Mhm. >> Commission directs Brainer Public
Utilities. Those those decisions made in those meetings are a motion by the entire committee and they pass. And that should be direction enough for those employees. When when that's over, when that's said and done, just like all the other commissions, just like all the other departments,
that is up to Mr. Broyals and the director of that department to make sure things are run that way. And the oversight from there might be noticed by you guys, but it should be reported to the administrator. I hope that I hope that makes sense. I hope that does
everybody. But Mr. Higgins, I know you had your hands up or hand up. >> Yeah. So, I got to me um thank you for letting me share and thank you for putting this meeting together. Um I've been studying this a little bit and to me there's really only from my
standpoint and my opinion there's two issues that that we need to be looking at or working on. Um the first issue is getting the commission should control all of the underground pipes including the gravity
sewer. that that is I've done some research and it's pretty rare to see a a public utilities commission that operates underground pipe and and at at the scale especially with the power at the scale we do where we don't we don't
take the money in and we don't have full control of all of the underground. Um most cities that I studied and researched are set up about like we have it. you guys, you know, the city runs the streets department. They run the
they they oversee um storm sewer, but when it comes to water, sewer, waste treatment, water treatment, and power, that goes under the commission. So, to me, that's kind of an anomaly. And what the reason I started talking about this
is when I started realizing that we have to put $100 million into our waste treatment plant in the next 10 years. And we we can't control what's going down the sanitary sewers. Like right now in Baxter, if I'm going to put a restaurant in, I got to put probably a
pair pair of to excuse me, 2500galon underground concrete tanks. Notch eight. I have a it's literally a box this big around underneath my sink. That's the grease trap. And you know, talking to Charlie about what's what's going into
into our sewers when he started charging Baxter for their coods and bods and I know you guys don't understand what that those are, but those are solids. Those are grease and oils and stuff that that takes a lot more effort at the waste treatment plant to get out of the waist
streams. He started charging Baxter for that. And all of a sudden, Baxter, city of Baxter, because it was hitting their pocketbook, started changing how they controlled everything going down their sanitary sewers. Right now, we have no control over that because you guys have
control over what goes down our sanitary sewers. So, there's a huge issue there with that that needs to be dealt with. I don't care how you do it. to me either get rid of the commission and just handle it all under your department of public works or completely separate it
and let us handle what this commission was designed to do. So to me that's that's the biggest issue that I have in this. The second issue that I I I don't understand. Could we pull the charter up and go to the number five
paragraph four is it says there that the city shall employ all necessary help for the commissioner to properly perform its duties and approve all terms and conditions of employment. Is that where
you guys are thinking that you employ the commission's employees? Is that why you think that? >> Yeah, it was a it was a long discussion we had through the charter meeting that started through the charter meetings and that was the intent of that. >> Okay. Cuz that is not what that says
legally. the charter. You guys have a very large issue with the way that reads. And I'll tell you, I'll I'll I'll show you what I sent this to a lawyer to read because I didn't understand it. Cuz it to me that doesn't say that you guys
employees. In a legal municipal context, the word employ can have two primary meanings. To hire or retain someone in a formal capacity, eg staff or contractors. or two to make use or of or you utilize
resources, assistance or support. In the phrase employ all necessary help, the second meaning is likely. It suggests the use of engagement or assistant, not necessarily through formal hiring. The word help is general and can refer to tools, services, or informal support,
not just employees. The phrasing is often used to grant broad authority to act efficiently without being limited to formal employment procedures. Um to make use of help rather than strictly to hire. The context matters a
lot. And in this case, the language seems to be intentionally flexible to allow the city council officials to act as needed. If this ever went to court, that word, this would go to a awful high court fighting over it. And I don't want to
fight about it. That's not what I'm saying. I just don't think like like this whole deal that we have going where you guys hire the employees that then we have to control. To me, it's like I own the Northern Pacific Center and I got to
hire Mary's employees. She's a tenant of mine and I got to hire her employees to work in the coffee shop. It does not make sense to me. I'm not going to argue. It's interpretation. There's 20 different lawyers could read it 20 different ways, but I wanted to
get that off my chest. Mike, I I read this whole packet a couple times. I mean, we could sit here and talk about and argue these points. I mean, till the cows come home. I just I we just got to figure out how to do it, how we can all agree and start moving forward. Thank
you. >> Thank you. Yeah, I know. The way that we've been doing it clearly doesn't work. We just hired somebody new and that it was too confusing. So, my idea for the best way to do this is an interpretation that would take that conversation out of it. Whether we agree
with it all together or not, that's whatever we want to discuss, we can discuss, but I don't see the ambiguity there that you're trying to point out. I understand where it's coming from, but I don't I don't I think you have to pull that ambiguity out of the situation in
that sentence in order to get there. I just don't I think I know the intent. I was there when when we made that change in the charter. It was very very clear and there was there was commission members that came up and asked questions and didn't necessarily agree with that
part because of this, but that was the intent whether it was written the right way or not. Maybe chat GPT wasn't smart enough for us back then or something. We didn't know exactly how to put it in there. But if we need need to make a change, it's going to be a lot more
difficult to clear that up than it would be to just interpret it. Mr. Chzach, I know you have your hand up. >> Thank you. Um, I guess to both of your points, um, it is up to the council, according to our city attorney, to interpret this, and that would have to
be done by a, uh, a majority vote to interpret the language that we're reading here. And I don't know, that seems to be able to clear it up real easily if at least four of us can come to an agreement through a motion and a vote on how we interpret what Mike had
just brought up about that particular line. And I I mean that would be my idea of settling this and just moving on. Of course, that interpretation could change at our um the the meeting after we uh make a decision on it based on how
council action doesn't um require a future council or the same council even to follow that standard. So I I think we all understand that. But that's how I was looking at what Mike was saying. if we have, you know, four or more council members seeing the language as one thing
versus another, that's how we make that decision. Um, if I think I'm correct on that, don't would you agree, Mr. Uh, Brook? >> Yeah, I think I think we have our attorney on Okay. >> line. Do we have Joe? Are you on there? >> I am here.
>> Um, if you're following along, is can you answer Jeff's question? Yeah, council and and commission members. I mean, yes, the council could make that determination, could make a take a vote on it and make explicit the
interpretation of what that means. Just a brief little history on that that paragraph. The original language in the charter before we modified this in 2021 and by original I mean from 1985. The charter goes back 100 and some years.
The the 85 version said that the commission shall have power to appoint and employ all necessary help to properly perform his duties and so forth. All we did with bar four was change that
from the commission to the city council. So it reads the council shall employ all necessary help for the commission to properly perform his duties etc. So and and we also have language in here about personnel policies. So the word employee
means the same thing it has meant for over 40 years. you're going to hire them, you employ them, and instead of the commission employing them, it's the city council employing them because they are in fact city employees. And we
needed to clarify that because the issues we were having uh over the past number of years with the pay equity act, with various state laws and so forth, and personnel policies not being consistently applied across the entire
city. The idea of course was to clean up all that, make it clear that the EU employees uh were in fact city employees and we're all subject to the same rules. Um so yeah, if if the council and the
commission feel that is still unclear, you certainly can take a motion. Normally we don't do it in a work session, but it's not illegal. Um, you can make a motion and and and make that have that clarification made on the record.
>> Thank you, Joe. Anybody have any other questions for Joe? Doesn't >> look like it. Thank you. Um, the way I see it, it there's two ways we can do it. We can
I'll take a motion if somebody wants to take a crack at it or we can ask our staff. >> Oh, Mr. Angler, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, just a couple of questions and I think really for us as a commission, I can't speak on behalf of everybody here, but it I would
just say over the last year or so, there's been um just confusion with so when we meet as a commission um you know, we're talking about day-to-day operations. We're we're talking about uh all the different things that we are
responsible for and what BPU staff does. We we often times Dolly, can I hold this up? So, we we take a look at our organizational chart, how we set within the city. We understand that, but when we get together and we make uh strategic initiatives, we outline what we want to
do from a from a staffing perspective because we want to make sure that all the positions are filled. We want to make sure that we're thinking about succession planning and you know who do we have in the right positions and making strategic hire strategic hires. What was really difficult this year was
just the uh discussions about consolidation and and trying to create efficiencies from an overall citywide perspective. So that that created uh just hesitancy on our part in terms of how we view our day-to-day operations
and how we want to move forward as an organization and most effectively serve our customers. So as it relates to employing uh staff and making recommendations, you know, that that was a difficult year I think for us looking back just because there was there was instability or there was just
uncertainty I should say. So I think as a commission that's one of the biggest things and then we meet as a personnel committee and so we we reference this, we redline it, we think about it, we talk about specific positions and and how we can move forward. So I think that's where the the
challenge is for us as a commission is is from a personnel standpoint and employing >> staff. And so my question is and what we've started to do as a personnel committee is we we've met with with uh city administrator and and with Chris, we're trying to bring them into their
meetings now just to try to increase communication between the two. But as far as ultimately the city council making decisions on staffing and and our strategic initiatives, is there a way that we can deliver that
information to you? like how do you process that information now to make those decisions? And so I'm just asking that question in general because I think that would help how we look at this and what our opinion is I guess of paragraph 4 here and as a commissioner what value
do we bring to this entire process here. You know what what should we concentrate our efforts on? >> And so I think that would be a great thing to hear from the council is how do you make decisions based on our recommendations? How do you receive those recommendations?
I can I can answer from my perspective at least. I don't I don't remember if we've had any personnel recommendations from the commission that we've just said no. The only time we have delayed one was during this session here while we're
talking about let's figure all this stuff out before we hire a new public utilities director. Other than that, if if there's a recommendation that comes from the commission, it makes sense. I don't I don't really see a whole lot of push back from anyone on this council.
But Johnson, >> yeah, to answer that, we have as a practice, if the public utilities commission has a recommendation for an employee or a change or anything. As a matter of practice, it has gone straight to the consent calendar. We haven't we
trust you guys to be doing the right thing. If things start getting out of hand or something seems like it's going haywire in that department, we may start pulling it off of consent and discussing it as it counts. But we've never even had a discussion. We we just trust that
you guys are doing a good job and it's been on the consent calendar as a matter of practice. That's not written in the charter or employee policy manual or anything, but that's what we've done for the last couple years. >> Sure. Well, I think that's good to hear and it it I guess for us just as we're
talking about whether it's an interim public, you know, works director or public utilities director or um if we want to hold off and and and have a a full-time or permanent director. What, you know, when do we have that conversation? When do we get
you all that information to explain why we're feeling the way that we feel? >> Can I answer that, Mike? >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. As far as I know, the majority of the public utility commission voted to hire a public utilities director. That was brought to the city. That one did
not end up on the consent calendar. That was put on personnel and finance. Maybe because of me. I don't know. Maybe Nick, I don't know why, but we needed to have a discussion because the the process for hiring the past one wasn't perfect. I don't know if there is a
perfect process. and the length of time that individual stayed in the city coupled with the uh the resignation letter he submitted raised a lot of questions and some things that need to be figured out before we move forward to set somebody up to fail. >> What potentially set the next director
up to fail if there aren't some questions answered. So, as far as >> I'm concerned, as far as how I read all of this, you guys have requested that you want to replace a full-time public utilities director. We are in the process of doing that right now. Sure.
We're not not doing it. >> That's why we're here. This is all part of that process. >> Right. I know uh one second. Mr. England, Mr. Jagger had comments too. >> If he has a followup, but we can close that conversation. >> Go ahead, Mr. Angel. >> Yeah. So the another thing just as we're we're talking so as we look at our org
chart there are for example when we have our personnel meetings we identify what positions haven't been filled yet you know and we and we talk about uh is the job description and again having meetings directly with Nick and Chris I think have helped out a lot in in terms
of justifying the need explaining what we're looking for what we've budgeted um and so again I think just just asking that question tonight if and I'm just offering that if it ever seems like it would be beneficial for one of us to be at uh one of the meetings with you uh on
the PNF uh commission or committee, I would welcome that, you know, and and whatever we can do to just clearly communicate what our objectives are and especially from a personnel standpoint and employment, uh we would welcome that and and um you know, again, we're we're
identifying the need. uh we're not in addition to just thinking about the positions themselves, we can explain why we're thinking that way and then also just what we have budgeted for that. So I'm just offering that we would be more than happy to to attend any kind of a meeting, provide you additional
information. >> I think that would be great and I think that's something that whoever the PNF chair is at the time should communicate with uh whoever is on personnel at the uh BPU committee as well. We always have a few days to make that request in
between when we see the agenda and we have our meeting. So I think that's workable. Mr. Jagger. >> Yeah. Quickly, um, thank you very much. Uh, thanks for everyone for being here. I was a part of the park board and I was also at the simultaneously on the charter commission when this a lot of
this language was rewritten. The park board conversation was a a a large impetus to how this all got started. The park board in their understanding basically worked fully autonomously with employees at the time. Joe, Mr. Langel
hit it right on the head. That presents a a certain measurable amount of risk to the city. I think anybody in this in this room can understand how if we have an entity that is technically hiring Brainer employees, running them themselves, passing out their own
handbook, managing their time, managing their PTO, whatever. That presents a real problem for the continuity of the city. So that was a large driver in why a lot of people felt that this should be written. I happen to agree with that. I can also say that as a when we made the
change at the park board to go to a a a public works director, a lot of the issues that we were having with staff instantly kind of worked themselves out. At that time, it was Mr. Sandy. He had they the staff had somebody to answer to. Mr. Sandy came to the comm came to
us to to to make recommendations on what staff they felt like they needed if they were higher level staff and then we brought that along down along down the line. I think that's exactly how it should work. In my opinion, the long-term healthiness healthiness of our commissions and our council not getting
bogged down in what employee means or what this word means or that means is quite simple. We want an o I want an open communication between our commissions. Come before us. Tell us what you have for obstacles. Tell us what you need for staff and why. Tell us
how much you know what that what what is needed there to do your daily duties. and then let's all have a conversation of of should we or should we not? That's how I would like to see it work. I have no appetite whatsoever to take on the task of hiring BPU employees and
determining what your org chart is. I have no appetite for that. Me personally, I do want somebody who's out there every single day with obstacles, hurdles, successes, and failures to come before me and say, "This is why. Help me solve problems. Help me succeed out
there. Help me grow." and then I can make a decision on that. There's one other little tidbit to this that I think is a factor. When you have commissions acting 100% autonomously out there, say for instance with a director, similar to what we have with the park bud for we only see these people maybe once a a
month. So we're placing an enormous amount of in my opinion blind trust in some of these commissions that they are making decisions on their own with staffing that is in the best interest of the entire city as a whole. I don't like that concept and that was one of the big
reasons why I was a proponent of bringing the people the employees back to the city council so it could be in an open communication. So that's kind of where I'm at with this. I I I feel if this is all working right, commissions, you know, commissions uh authorities come before us, tell us what your needs
are, talk let's talk through that and then we can make a decision either prior to budget time or whenever. Budget time obviously is a critical fulcrum point for us in every year. But I'd just like to see the open communication. I think all this will work itself out. That's all. >> Thank you, Mr. Jagger. Mr. Chzach, did you have something?
>> Yeah, I just kind of a a clarification. I I know Gabe said a lot of times the hires are on consent. Um I I what what I think we find um our our resignations are on consent. I just looked up a April meeting and we do have the hires
approval on our PNF agenda. I think what maybe Gabe is saying is they're very non-controversial is I think what we find, but same as consent, but we we do have a a motion and a second uh uh for each employee. That's what I'm looking
at here anyway. So, not that it's a big deal, but I just wanted to let the commission know that it generally speaking, we don't just hire or approve the hires on consent. Not to not to sit here and
challenge what you said, Gabe, but uh that is generally how we non-controversial. So, >> yeah, I may have misspoke there, Jeff, but but we we've put maybe not the the hiring of individuals. We put a lot of recommendations that we get from the commission in the
employment sense on consent whether it's at a position description or some we've had a lot on the consent calendar. Not maybe not everything but we trust that commission is doing a good job. >> Thank you. That's a good way to put it. I like that. >> All right. Is that all Mr. Chzach?
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> I do have uh comments from the mayor and then Dolly will go to you. >> Sure. Yeah. I just want to follow up on on what Kevin said because I participated in that process as well as the liaison to the park board. Uh long process getting to that decision,
but ultimately the correct decision, right? The park board decided they no longer wanted a director. They wanted a public works director so that the city could operate with some pieces that could move back and forth. Um is it perfect? No. I I now watching the pieces afterwards, there still is some
confusion from time to time in terms of what does that mean? You know, who hires the park and recck specialist, that sort of thing. But it ultimately has worked out in that the park board has the decision to make in terms of how things then operate. You know, some of the
pieces get swung around and and our, you know, decisions are made from from the people that are employed to run it for us. But once those decisions are made, there's still that continuity in terms of what we want our park board to be.
Does that shift if somebody new comes in? Absolutely. Does that sometimes end up in that instance where we have a fresh set of eyes on everything and we're completely kind of restarting? Absolutely. But in terms of from the city side of things, it's easy for us to
say this is what you're in charge of. take care of this stuff and then when stuff comes up it's on the liaison and whatnot to say wait a minute let that come back to the city deal with those things from that standpoint focus in on this and it it does work pretty well I
park board much smaller I will say that much smaller but if we put the pieces in place correctly it should operate on a topdown type scenario >> thank you Mr. Mayor Deli. >> Yep. And so I'm just trying to formulate
my thought process here because I do remember asking when we when the charter was changed. Um I was one of those that wasn't happy with it. Still thought it was vague and I I thought that we needed to footnote it as to what the intent was at the time we this charter was being
changed. And I think ultimately it we might have to tweak the phrasing a little bit um because I think the intent was for the city council to provide final approval on all employment and and I think that's why there's confusion, right? Because as uh Mr. Johnson was
saying that, you know, ultimately these are usually on the consent agenda. You know, you're giving final approval. I think the commission really just wanted to be involved when it came to that department head being a part of, you know, that hiring process because it was a little bit more involved than um than
the positions that are on the org chart. The the the purpose of our personnel committee isn't to establish um uh wages and what have you, but it's to establish to make sure the job descriptions are clear um that the job um positions are
really what are needed. I think it's been tweaked a number of times, more so just even recently is to not backfill a position because it isn't needed. So, uh, as we move forward, but I I think on a micro scale, that's what we're dealing with to bring it to you on the macro
level. Um, and I think that that's why the intent there on number four was still vague when it was written and clearly five years later we're still talking about it. Um so and I am a firm believer that the city administrator and should be involved. The city
administrator should be able to oversee all department heads period. Um ultimately they are making the um making sure that all departments are functioning and operating on a at a legal level right as the attorney was talking about as far as the wages and uh
and and just the policies. I mean, we even had some uh miscommunication more so recently with our policies um that we were able to chat with Chris about and she clarified and and our our decisions to do certain things had changed because of that. So, I believe in the
consistency amongst all the in the employees and the policies, but I still think that that number four um language does need to be tweaked just a little bit more with exactly what people are saying at this point. It really ultimately comes back to city council
making the final decision on all employment all all recommendations of employment andor um those that are you know putting in their resignation and that's all I have. >> Thank you >> Johnson. >> And I have a slightly different
interpretation I think of number four here. I think it says the city council shall employ all necessary help for to perform its duties and approve all terms and conditions of employment. I think as Joe brought up, if it still said the commission shall employ all necessary
help for the commission to properly perform its duties and approve all terms and conditions of employment, I don't think anybody would say they're confused on what that means. They just wouldn't because it would say that the commission shall employ and approve all terms and conditions. This
one just says the city council instead of the commission. It's not confusing to me, but that goes back to not we're not just as a city council, we're not just approving hires and fires. We're they're city employees that are managed by the
city's organizational chart that has the city council, city administrator, all department heads, including the public utility department under the city administrator. So, it's it's management, it's oversight, it's disciplinary, it's all coming from the city administrator's office. It's not just approval of
hirings and firings. So, that's just how I see number four. >> Thank you. I see the one small part of that sentence, the one part of that sentence that you could maybe pull the ambiguity out might be that part where it says, "All necessary
help for the commission to properly perform its duties." That is that is a vague statement. That part might be the confusing part. But in the beginning of that, the city council shall employ and approve all terms and conditions of
employment is pretty clear. So I by adding in all necessary help for the commission to properly perform its duties, I think was in my opinion an intent to give reason why we're employing these
people. but it still says that they are city employees employed and hired by the council. So, Mr. Chzach, >> um to your point, um I I mean, if we want to change language, we have to have a charter change. If we want to uh uh
have an interpretation, I would just right now suggest that um if I think if we have a consensus here that I I'm I'm seeing it the same way Gabe is, the same way you are, um it's our interpretation. And it's our job to interpret this under, you know, what Joe
said, we have authority to do that. So, if we came back with, they say, at our August 4th meeting or perhaps our second meeting in August with an interpretation based on what we're talking about tonight, I'd be prepared to uh just uh ask staff to come back with that is is
what from what they're hearing from us tonight, unless you need it in the form of a motion to have them come back. >> I don't necessarily need that in the form of a motion. Um, but that's kind of the way I saw this coming out of whatever way the conversation went. So,
>> I mean, I guess what I'm getting at, it gives clarity. Um, and uh, and and if there's any u ambiguity, it it just says >> here here's the council's interpretation. Um, it wouldn't have to change the charter because that requires
a charter commission meeting and then their recommendation if I'm not mistaken. And then of course unanimous of the council. >> Long process. >> Yeah. Unanimous. Yeah. So, so I guess if we want to get this off a dead center
and I don't know if anybody else has any other objections to uh what other language is ambiguous or whatever. But >> Mr. Higgins had his hand up and then Mr. Joerger. >> Um I I've learned a lot. I understand
by listening to you guys and listening to what happened in the past. I I would love it if Jeff would make a motion and we just get this done right now. >> I just have a a quick question just as a part of process. Maybe somebody can educate me. How does an interpretation get passed on to future generations?
>> Well, we could write it down. That's why my idea would be to have staff come back to the next meeting, have us vote on a interpretation that >> is it attached to the charter then or No. >> No. The last >> So, somebody has to dig it out to find it a resolution. So the the last time we
interpreted the charter was after the last round of charter changes, we changed the uh green space and arboritum funding to go to an organization located in Brainard and it came back to the city council and a majority of the city
council determined that Northland Arboritum on conservation drive in Baxter is located in Briner. So that is currently the interpretation of what inside Briner means in the city of Briner. Yeah, understood. I was just I was hoping to h get some finality to this that could be passed on for more
than a couple years. So, >> you said that was a re resolution, Gabe. Was that a resol? >> I don't remember it was a resolution. I remember that conservation drive is currently in Brainard's. >> Can I ask what our administrator thinks of this discussion so far? And if he has anything he'd like,
>> he's just chiming in. easy. >> Uh, just a couple comments. I think clarity of expectations is critical. Um, there's a lot of people in this room and they have different opinions probably across the spectrum and I and I respect all those opinions. Um, I also think
that a clear definitive direction from the staff whether whether people agree or disagree in my opinion is irrelevant. As long as we have clear expectation of what the rules of engagement are going forward, staff can be successful. So, I just appreciate the dialogue. I'm not
emotionally invested in a decision one way or the other, but uh staff will absolutely carry out the direction of the council wants. >> Okay. >> Well, I wasn't planning on asking for a motion, but if if somebody wants to make
a motion for a resolution to come back and clarify and interpret the charter that we've been speaking about tonight, we could just do that. Be done with it. >> Mr. President, >> Mr. Chzach, >> I would move that we uh direct staff to come back um as hopefully at the August
4th meeting or perhaps whatever works best for them to come back with a resolution um clarifying uh what they're hearing tonight based on what they're hearing tonight, the interpretation of uh what is it? Item four of the section
five subdivision, >> the one the one that Mr. Higgins discussed there and then Dolly that the one that we're mainly talking about um shall employ the necessary help. I think that's the I mean I I I agree with what I've heard from Gabe and Mike and uh I I understand there could
be some confusion. So just have staff come back. That's my motion. >> Second. >> Motion by Chzox, second by Johnson. Johnson, >> I support the motion. Absolutely. Do you want to uh have a second motion or address the uh gravity
fed lines? Should we bring back a possible charter amendment for that as well or >> that would be that would be a charter amendment discussion if you guys want to go into that discussion next. I think that's separate. >> Okay. >> Um but I think it's something that we as a city need to discuss going forward. It
does doesn't necessarily have to be um part of this discussion, but I know Mr. Higgins brought up some pretty pretty serious things about that that we shall think about. So, >> shall >> shall think about. >> Anyone else on on what Gabe talked about there? If I could.
>> Um I I think we're talking spec specifically about roles and responsibilities. I I think we're deviating from our special agenda or meeting agenda. If we want to do that, we'd have to be very careful. But I think if we have that come back at our future meeting soon, that'd be great.
>> Yeah. back what he said. >> Any more discussion on the motion? >> Seeing none, let's all go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Those against, same sign. That motion passes.
And that will conclude that item for tonight. Looks like we do have three B. >> Mr. Chair, >> Evans, >> an unrelated but related comment if I may. Okay. I heard Mr. Angland mention twice our org chart.
I heard Mr. Jagger mention the public utilities your org chart. Is there two different org charts? >> Are you just talking about your section of the org chart? >> Oh, okay. But when >> my radar went up because I think a lot
of times people hear what you say and it sounded like you were drawing a line in the sand that there's two different companies here and I think that's part of how we got in this position is sometimes people hear what you say. So
please be careful. It's not two different companies. It's the city of Brainard and it's not our anything. It's all of our everything. So when you say stuff like that, you may not be thinking, but I heard it and I heard you
say it. Oh, the PUC order. Like they're a separate company. And that's kind of how we how we got here. It hurts people's feelings and they don't know. They don't know what what did he mean by that? Who do I work for? It can create confusion. So, I just wanted to mention
that that it's if we can all start thinking >> like the city of Brainard, this will be >> easier. There's no us versus them. There's just us. >> I heard I heard our I heard our Thank you. >> I do have one question as since you brought that up. When I do look at the
complete overall structure of the org chart, um I do see boards and commissions being above the city administrator, which to me it doesn't make sense. Um, I I I thought that you mean I I know that we're giving directions to our department head when
we do get one. Um, but right now the three are filling in. That's great. But I if I look at the city's org chart, it would tell me that all of the department head department heads report to the city administrator, but the city administrator is being overseen by
boards and commissions and that all of that is being overseen by city council. So, I think there's some confusion where those lines are being met and I think you need to address that at some point. >> Bringing that line on the far left down below >> above city administrator.
>> Yep. Bringing it down to below city administrator is what you're suggesting. >> Yeah, I think that's a really good point. >> Okay. >> I just >> I just look at that mayor over there by himself just out in there in no man. >> You used to have a police department. >> I know I did and you took it away from
me. He used to have night watchmen too though. So >> night watchman. We got to get that added to the chart. >> But I think I think Dolly brings up a good point. If we want to bring that up uh at a next council meeting as a agenda item that's worth a discussion
for sure. Thank you Dolly. Anyone else comments on that? Closing comments? Otherwise we're moving on to item 3B and that's accessing packet training. We're doing that tonight. that for the commission too or >> do they not have to stay for that part?
>> They do not have to. It'll only be a couple minutes but you can clear the room if you want. >> Are they on a different packet distribution system? >> No. >> I hope not. Okay. You should stay around. This is good information. >> Change soon. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Couple quick minutes.
>> Don't know what you're going to miss. this whole uh topic came up because of packet size and people doing things differently and your computers are getting old which so we have new ones they'll be replaced fairly soon battery life all these things were addressing all of these in one false swoop uh the
idea behind civic clerk software here was to use um the board portal we've talked about it quite a bit in a meeting last Wednesday I think it was we talked about it it's probably more difficult to use than uh than any benefit in
particular in the case of in the meeting. Um it works great for making the packet for from the staff's perspective, but for you guys or people sitting in a meeting scrolling through this. If you pick I don't know if anybody's looked at the board portal before or not, but I'm just going to
show you real quick. If you go into a meeting, this is what it looks like. Sorry, Jeff. It's uh >> All right. >> It's not that exciting. I'll just leave it at that. Um, everything is individualized. If you want to go into an item, you got to click on something. You have to go individually open each
PDF as you're going. >> Cancel contract. >> You got to hit the next item. >> Done. Fired. >> Right. The the benefit of board portal is if you came in here, you could enter a bunch of notes and have them in front of you when you're at the meeting. But on a
13-inch screen where you're normally just bookmarking and scrolling through, having to click on every individual thing, having to scroll down to the next item every single time, this is not a help a good way of doing things for you guys during the meeting. So, we tried
something similar to the draw board back on those surfaces two versions ago for those that remember. It didn't get used. It wasn't great. So, we're going to try to squash the idea of using board portal in meetings itself and just move towards
a standard email that is autogenerated every time a packet is uh published. I don't everyone should be getting these. If they're not, we got to get you subscribed to the meet to the uh alerts themselves.
We're going to format this a little different. So, it's a link straight to downloading the packet. We'll put the instructions on how to do it at the bottom of every single email. All of the different meetings will come out the same way. There won't be special emails from people that have modified versions
of the packets anymore. Jeff, of course, you're the exception to that. You'll still get whatever Tony currently sends you. >> Yeah, it's just like you're describing. >> We'll continue the same way, but everybody else for all the meetings, not just city council, but planning and park and all those things will all be
standardized. Um, >> Don, I think Gabe has a question for you. >> Oh, go ahead. >> So, what I'm hearing is we're still going to receive one email with an attachment to a PDF that we click on. It'll just be slightly different formatting >> almost. There won't be an attachment to
the email. >> Well, there'll be a link to click. >> It'll be a link to go get it. >> Oh, and then download it on So, it's two clicks instead of one. >> Oh, it's probably more than two clicks. >> Oh, >> but >> but the PDFs are getting too big. >> The PDFs are getting too big. That's the biggest thing at this point.
>> I'll take the paper copy. >> No. >> Yeah. >> Single-sided or double >> coming out of your paycheck. >> They don't make a font big enough for you, Stunic. >> Um, >> I still have my dreams of >> 45 point. >> So, um, >> so that's where we're going with this.
We're going to schedule meeting with every single person who makes a packet. Make sure they're all doing it the exact same way, trying to standardize, make everything consistent. But yes, you'll get a link to go download it probably from the website. And we need people to actually download it to your computer,
not just click on it. We have these little issues all the time where the Wi-Fi is not working fast enough and people are waiting to load their packets and stuff. So, we're going to try to get first of all new computers so they work a little faster, but then also make sure everybody's doing it the same way and getting it downloaded before you get
here if possible so we don't have these little glitches right before meetings and stuff. So that's where we're going. I think I hit everything I had written down. Are there any questions about where we're headed here? >> Thank you. Once it's Sorry. Once it's downloaded, the tabs still work. The
shortcuts still work. >> Yes. >> Bookmarks. >> Bookmarks. >> Bookmarks. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Just real quick, >> I actually have a question as the end user of some of these things and I know I've brought this up. I don't remember who I actually chatted with. Um, James,
um, to find the city of Brainard on the website or not on the website, just to find the city of Brainard is impossible. I am three pages in and I can't find the city of garbage. They went to header and nothing is registering anywhere. It's absolutely terrible and it's a little
bit of work would get us back on top >> to to find the agendas as a enduser is difficult. So, I'm just wanted to point that out. It's great, but if a average citizen was going to look it up like myself, >> unfortunately, the first step, the first solution to that problem is to not use Google, >> okay,
>> which most people aren't going to use because that's what the issue is. It was fixed for a while a couple months ago, appears to be broken again. Civic Plus seems not be able to keep that at the top of our website. >> I'll bring it up again, but >> Jeff, and then and then Danny's got something. >> So, so Sean, um, if if there is a packet
too large, it can just be split in my case, right? Or something. >> Yeah. Our send receive is 50 meg right now. So if it's over that Tony would have to send yours in two pieces. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Thank you, >> Danny. Um the BPU website does have a link to
all the the city of Brainard's website. If you click on bpu.org, scroll all the way to the bottom. There's a link to the city of Brainard's website for anyone that has trouble finding it. >> Thank you. >> So that's about the update. Like I said, new up or new laptops in uh probably in
August and we'll just have everybody come in individually, bring in your old, set up the new and be on your way. So, those aren't too far out. So, I guess that's all I got. >> Thanks, Sean. Mayor Bedell, >> I just have one comment. We We have a council member, his name is Gabe Johnson. His >> second
>> company is to do SEO. Literally does this for a living. I would love for us to make our council member who is really good at this fix the website so that it operates correctly. >> Chair of personnel and finance and IT.
>> Yep. >> He can not saying that our it >> I can meet with Sean and take a look on the back end and see what we can >> you have said outside of these chambers that you can fix it and so now I demand that you fix it. >> Not be hard. >> We need a motion for that or is that okay?
>> I'll meet with Sean. We'll talk about it. All right. >> Thank you. Uh, I think that's it for tonight unless you have anything more, Sean. >> I do. I think he should paint the fence on College Drive. >> And I don't think we need a motion to adjourn. So, >> let's just adjourn. >> We don't. >> All right.
>> Thank you, everybody. offenses. They