Okay, it is Monday, August 18th at 7:15 p.m. This is the city of Brainard personnel and finance committee meeting and I will call the meeting to order. We'll start with introductions. Kelly Evans, city council, James Graphic, community development director. Mike Copy course, public works director.
Connie Hillman, finance director. Kevin Stewig, alderman at large. Nick Broyle, city administrator. Chris Schubert, HR director. Sean Strong, technology director. John Davis, police chief. Jason Burke, Brandon dispatch. Gabe Johnson, chair of the committee. We have five quick items. The first of
which is to consider reallocation of Habitat for Humanities Humanity SAHA funds. James, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, city council approved the distribution of $70,000 of statewide affordable housing aid, also called SAHA, for Lakes Area Habitat for Humanity at the February 3rd city
council meeting. This was for 426B Street. As a reminder, this is a property that the H and the EDA fund demolition of a fire damaged building. Uh Habitat currently owns four properties in Brainer. Uh Kevin Pelky of Habitat is requesting uh $70,000 be
reallocated to two homes, one on uh 10th Street South and then one on 13th Avenue Northeast as families have selected uh these sites for their future homes. Uh Mr. Pel did include um a letter for reference um in the uh agenda request as
well and they can answer any questions. Are they still going to build on B Street eventually? Yeah, they're still planning eventually building on B Street. They own four properties and these are the ones that are currently selected for for building. Okay. To approve. Sorry. Sorry.
Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Same sign. That motion carries. Next up, we have authorize the sale of two street division vehicles. Mike. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So last year uh
the street budget was approved for uh one vehicle and we have two to return. So I mis uh wrote that in the agenda request and so we are going to be returning uh two vehicles. One is going to be replaced with a new vehicle which
we've already received. Also engineering used one of those vehicles and they are receiving they already did receive a brand new vehicle from the enterprise lease. So essentially both of those vehicles are are going to be replaced
and and that is sort of why I'm here to explain that that we indicated that they we didn't need any replacement but we really are going to be replacing them when you look at it at the top level um whether it's streets or engineering it's going to be replaced u from that level
and with that I can ask any questions I make a motion to go with the recommendation Second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Motion carries. Next on the agenda is approve the revised public utility director job
description. Chris, at the last council meeting, council director staff to update the public utilities director job description to be comparable to the public works director job description. In your packet was a revised version as well as the red line version depicting the changes. Um these
changes were made to help clarify who the public utilities director reports to in the future. Um on a side note, we have discussed this with our GMP. They are the firm that helped us with the um public utilities director recruitment
and we have a guarantee that they will honor for the cost of expense only for that search. Uh we have reached out to them and so they are where we're at. The cost for that GMP search will be less than 6,000 and that depends on the number of candidates that are interviewed. The recommended action is a
motion to approve the revised public utilities director job description as presented and to utilize a guarantee from GMP consultants for the public utilities director hiring process. I have a question, Mr. Chair. Ask it. Does this mean we're going ahead with
the public utilities hiring? Yes. Okay. without answering any of the questions that were listed at our workshop because I listed 15 of them and suggested that we not hire until those questions get answered.
A lot of them were questions that our previous Mr. Evans brought up in his resignation letter. I would have to look back at that workshop and see what all those 15 questions were. I apologize. Yeah, I
would just be hesitant to approve. I don't mind approving the job description and I don't mind approving the um using the guarantee from GMP moving forward with the hiring to me seems seems
premature. I mean there there seems to be a lot of issues according to Mr. happened. And I think that's what the revised position description was trying to address those issues because I think his
biggest concern was um working for two bosses and he that gave him some confusion evidently as well as the resolution clarifying the council's intent for the charter language. I felt those two things addressed a lot of those questions, but
if there's more things, Kelly, that you want us to look at So, what would be the harm in tableling this for two weeks until we get answers to the I just would like to know I well and maybe we don't even have to table
it. Maybe we can, but I'd sure like to Well, I'll just be real specific, Mr. Evans. I know we're being taped and I know there's some concerns always about employee rights and privacy and stuff, but the letter was public. uh
Mr. Evans accused the hiring committee of lying to him. So just hypothetically, if we kind of walk this dog a little bit, if I had to answer that question, if we if we table this for two weeks and I answer that question, I would just my answer would be the hiring committee didn't lie to him.
I didn't think so either, actually. I mean, a lot of it would be just Mr. Evans being it would be a lot of the answers if I had to answer all those would be speculative somewhat in nature. based on my experience and if Chris answered from him, she would base him based on her experience,
but we will do whatever the council wants. I don't see a tremendous amount of value in that, but if that's what the council wants, we will do. I'm not 100% sure I do either, but it seemed like when you have a circumstances like we
just went through, I might suggest that the revised PD and the resolution and the charter commission is going to take up that resolution, start talking about Yes. Yes. I I think in light of those two documents being rewritten, I think we kind of take the oxygen out a lot of those
conversations. And you were part of the hiring committee. Yes. And you were part of the hiring committee. And you agree? I agree with Nick. I You were part of that. I was not. Carry was. Karen Terry was. All right. Okay. But what's the solution? Well, I'm I don't I don't know that
there I I I suppose we move forward now. I I mean, I'm I'm comfortable with the answer because I thought it was the always the answer that I had in in my own mind because I had some experience
in these circumstances with So, I I think your answer is correct. I agree with your answer. It just seems like But I'm just one person. We'll see what the We'll see what the council says. Yeah. My primary concern was the two
bosses. Yeah. Thinking that he answered to the commission and not to the city administrator and that would cause a problem with the future hire potentially. Yeah. More likely than not. And we answered that one. So we since we have that answer to the position description and the and the resolution,
I think I'm comfortable moving forward. I I I I will I will support moving forward. I just I just was a little bit concerned that we didn't we answered a number of concerns, but not necessarily all of them, but I'm comfortable that we
that the the answers are obvious. So is that a motion? Yes. I'll move to uh to approve the revised public utilities director job description as presented to utilize the guarantee from GOP consultants for the public utilities direct hiring process
and then and to move forward with the I'll okay anything else and if there still are questions or concerns let's still get them answered even yes we don't have anybody hired yet we can still talk about this and make sure when
somebody's onboarded We we're more secure and we're confident that it's going to work out better this time. Yes, sir. All in favor say I. Post same sign. That motion carries. Next up is to continue the discussion on the software purchase request.
Good evening. So, uh, two weeks ago it was requested of staff that we compile a list of all the current software that the city has, uh, including cost and utilization. And that's what we have for you tonight in this item. Um hope you had a chance to look it over. Uh the the
key notes here is we spend about half a million dollars a year on software. Um about 215 of it at the at BPU and about 283 of it here. Um when software is no longer used, we do get rid of it in
fairly short order. Um we don't currently have any software that check all these boxes right now, but of the perform or the next request. We have spreadsheets. We have fillable PDFs, we have other things. Uh these softwares are intended to make those processes
work better. Um so for this evening anyway, the request was of the extra or the software list. So if there are any questions about our existing software, otherwise maybe kind of falls back to the item from two weeks ago was actually considering the putting
the software in the budget. I was shocked to see that we spent $500,000 a year, but I really appreciate you putting this information together. And it does look except for Zoom like they're pretty much all needed. I would make a motion to move forward. Second
to move forward with with to move forward with both of those softwares or one of them. I would say both. Okay. After meeting with Connie and Nick and Mike last week, I'm not very comfortable with going forward because
the budget is looking pretty rough right now. I did I did talk to Nick and if we only have one the prioritization from his point of view next request be next request for all the data requests we're getting. And I recognize the budget challenges
that are facing you guys. One of my main reasons with moving forward with this John's presentation two weeks ago. So that's with the next request and also the performance review software. You want to move forward with both or the next request? Next request.
Next request. Next request. The one John wants. Yes. Second. Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second to move forward with next request in this ASAP, whatever get in the 2026 budget and then consider the performance
review software at a later time. Perhaps next we're going to budget in a week. Talk we start the budget. Yep. All in favor say I. I same sign. That motion carries. Thanks again, Sean. All right, Connie. You have two minutes
to explain the debt levy. Where did it go? It disappeared. It did. I don't know what happened. You're using the old You're not using the uh new.
Okay, here we go. Um, so there was a memo in detail that of the assumptions that were used to calculate the debt levy. The biggest thing is is that usually we budget 105% of the scheduled August 1st, 2026 and
February 1st, 2027 payments. Staff did not include that this year when calculating the levy. We also assume some 2026 assessments. If you'll notice that the new 2025A bonds, assume that we would get roughly $50,000 in prepaids
and about 245,000 would be collected in 2026. Therefore, we just needed a small levy, proposed levy. Um so the assumptions were all made even without the 105. We resume assumed 100% of the special levy assessments would be taken and then we took the cash balance over
the life of the regular bond. With that all calculated the proposed levy is an estimated increase about $55,000. I think one thing I would like to talk about is just the 2025 um debt structure. if we want to issue um state
aid bonds or do we not issue state aid bonds and hopefully the state will reimburse us. Um with the current 2025 projects, we will be up against the statutory limit that we can get advanced. We'd be very very close concerned with having to find a
different contractor or subcontractor to do finish up some of the work that we could be over that limit. Well, we'll talk about that during the budget process. Okay. Thank you for informing because we'll be we'll have a meeting on Friday to talking about the different structures. So, we need to work on our structures to get it going. So,
right. So, Connie, Mike, Nick, and I will have a recommendation. Yep. After we look at closer together. All right. So, that's it. All right. We're turned. Maybe you're right.