All right. Today is Monday, December 15th, 7 PM. It's the City of Brainard Personnel and Finance Committee meeting. And we'll call it to order and start with introductions. >> Kelly Beaven, Brainer, City Council. >> McRoyal, city administrator. >> Connie Hilman, finance director. >> John Davis, police chief.
>> Sean Stro, technology director. Mike, public works director. >> Chris, HR director. Kevin Her finance manager Paul public utilities Dave Johnson chair committee we have five items on the agenda the first of
which is leasing a lakes area drug investigation division vehicle chief. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. um Lakes Area Drug Investigative Division known as Laid Task Force will begin receiving state funding in 2026 to support ongoing
operations. As part of this allocation, LED has designated $7,800 annually to the city of Brainard to offset investigator vehicle expenses and staff is recommending utilizing these funds to lease a vehicle for the laded
investigator. So, a vehicle lease quote was obtained from Enterprise with an annual cause cost cost of $6,293 short of that $7,800 allocation. Uh the remaining $1,500
$1,57 from the allocation would fund most of the insurance premium as well. The only equipment required for this vehicle is a radio, which the department already owns. So, as a result, no additional capital expenditures for outfitting are anticipated. Unlike
normally with other police vehicles, uh this lease vehicle would replace a current departmentowned unit that is 12 years old. If a lease is not pursued, approximately $2,000 in air conditioning repairs will be necessary to maintain
this vehicle. Estimated resale value in 2026 is approximately $8,000, but that's only if the air conditioner is repaired beforehand. So, the motion I bring for you before you today is to authorize staff to replace the 2014 city-owned
vehicle with the lease vehicle in 2026. >> I have no questions and I move to approve. >> Second. My only question is what what kind of vehicle are you going to lease? >> Um, it'd be a a smaller SUV like an Equinox, not all-wheel drive, but
>> you not want the drug dealers to know that? >> Yeah. Did you say >> I know I did? >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm just >> Yeah. And I'm not too concerned about that. When you asked, I thought it, but it's not too concerned. >> All those in favor say I.
>> I. Those opposed. That motion carries. Next up is the uh IU Parks Union downtown snow removal compensation request. Chris, >> good evening. So, at its October 20th meeting, the
council approved utilizing our park maintenance staff to conduct downtown snow removal duties instead of utilizing a contractor. Shortly thereafter, the union um representatives requested a meet and confer, and they asked us um to
discuss our expectations for this process. The union also submitted a letter of request asking that the city consider a memorandum of agreement. It's also known as MOA to address this new directive. In your packet was the MOA that was negotiated with the union that
clarifies the rate of pay that park maintenance staff should receive when they perform downtown snow removal duties. What this does is um right now the contract requires that they get overtime after working 40 hours in a week. Um and thisou will allow it so
it's more internal equity. So anything beyond your shift would be eight hours if it's for downtown removal. This MOA is is um retroactive to November 1st and will continue through the entire contract which is December 31st or until the new contract is ratified. The
recommended action is a motion to approve the MOA as presented between the city and the union regarding the compensation when performing downtown storm removal duties. I I do have a question on this one, Mr. T. I just don't understand why they
why why this working the streets down snow removal downtown is different from all the other snow removal that they've done since I've been on the council for 24 years. >> So, this is for the parks department. >> I understand. >> Street department has been doing most of
the snow removal down, >> but not all of it. >> Right. I've seen them in my park, Gregory Park. They're parks, guys. They remove snow. >> They do. That's why this is specifically just for the downtown snow removal area. >> That's like saying if I wear orange pants when I normally wear brown pants,
I get more money. >> That's as crazy as that is. That's just my comment on unions. >> Thank you. >> I understand. >> Okay. I have a couple questions. So, it's only for downtown Snow Room. So 100% of the overtime costs
this winter will be assigned to the special service district. >> So we've created a a pay code just for downtown snow removal so that we can track it. >> Okay. But my question can can I get an answer to that? >> Re restate your question.
>> Is 100% of the overtime costs on snow removal days going to be assigned to the special service district? So, I'm going to look at these two to see if they can help. >> And with the contract that we have, if I understand, >> it's yes or no. >> Well, it all depends on if the contract
indicates and and I'm not familiar enough with the contract. Are you >> So, I would say right now that yes, it will be, >> but some straight time might also be assessed at downtown snow removal as well. So, it depends on when the snow occurs, >> if it's early in the morning, if it's
late in the evening. So, I mean, it could be some straight time and the overtime. I'm hoping that not all of it is overtime, but I'm just saying that since they don't typically work overtime in the winter, that the special service district, which is the impetus for this change and for the overtime, would be
where the funds are coming to pay for it. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> I was more concerned about how the assessment is allocated. I don't know how that part is done. So, the union contract, we've set up the pay code so that it's done correctly. We can track it and we can charge that. But I'm not sure if 100% of everything is done. I'm
looking towards Paul just because he's done the downtown snow removal assist. >> There is allocation that goes to the street department based on the calculations that were done a long time ago. So allocation that goes to the street department, allocation that goes to
>> um the parking lot fund and the assessed amount the alley. Yeah, the assessed amount. So there is splits in that when when we go through and calculate all of the snow removal total costs when it was on a contractor basis. There was some
calculations by area that split everything into different forms. >> I think what you're asking though Gab is let's say there's a downtown snow event. The guys start at 3:00 a.m. and work until 3 p.m. They work a 12-h hour shift. four hours of that is going to be overtime and it's going to be allocated to downtown even though they were
working later on in the day in the parks department. >> That's my question. Is the overtime going to be assessed to >> for the most part? Yes. >> Because the overtime after 8 hours will be after they're done removing snow, but the impetus for the overtime was the snow event. >> Correct. >> And when they're done with they won't be
done with downtown until, you know, 8 n o'clock. And so part of their normal hours will also be assessed for downtown, >> right? >> And they shouldn't then work 13 hours so that they have another hour. I mean, it should all be allocated as much as we possibly can. Yes.
>> Yeah. Well, I'm just since they didn't work overtime and now they're going to be working overtime for one reason and one reason only, >> right? And then another question for Connie says the for the financial impact you said the cost for this change that
was requested after we decided to use the parks department was considered when staff completed the analysis of the costs. >> I did not do any part of that. So >> yes, Jesse and I did that and we also >> you got out at Crystal Ball and realized
that the union was going to come to us and ask for a change in their overtime structure. >> No, we we actually foresaw that that Yes, >> you did. You got out the crystal ball. Well, yes, we in well, we just wanted to do an analysis on that and that was time and a half and then we also did what if
the union came and asked for something similar to like the streets and they wanted double time before 6 p 6 a.m. So we even did the analysis on double time for that and we would still have an estate piece for that for them to come
downtown. Okay. Worst case scenario, what you're trying >> We just looked at every variable. >> Okay. 239 bucks of property. I got it. >> Move to approve. >> Second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> That's with the understanding that the
overtime is being. >> Correct. >> Next up is the third item, temporary transit operations specialist position. Chris >> in 2024. The council had authorized
employing a temporary part-time transit operation specialist to assist the transit department when we were in the hiring process for the full-time transit operation specialist. That part-time temporary position proved to be very helpful after the new full-time specialist was on board to help with
document um the performance deficiencies that the third party contractor we had noticed. In addition, this temporary position will also help cover workload issues as the transit coordinator is expected to be out of the office office for a few weeks in January. Staff is
requesting authorization to hire another temporary position for 2026 utilizing the full-time transit operation specialist wage grid. Division and workload needs will be re-evaluated after the in-house business model is presented for council consideration. Um,
as far as a temporary position, they cannot work more than 67 working days in a year. And the recommended action is a motion to authorize staff to hire a temporary part-time employee to assist the transit division and utilize a transit operation specialist wage grid
when we're hiring that position. >> I have no questions and I move to >> second. Did the tech request this? No, they did not. This is coming from staff just in in the past few years uh the federal the state and federal
administration have pushed down a lot of their grant requirements and we're just required to look at more procurements oversight data financial documentation and it just is roughly about 30% of work increase from the state. They are just pushing down all that documentation to
us and this is this is not going to expand our services but it will be as county can verify it's going to be absorbed by the transit budget itself. It's already in the 26 budget. >> Why didn't we bring this to the T committee before bringing it to the
council? It was something that we needed uh and we are just really falling behind in our reporting and that it will we will be having it on the TAC when we meet again
with TAC for the last two TAC meetings. It we have not had a quorum and so we are struggling with our horns um with TAC. When do we anticipate higher than >> we were hoping before the uh first
second week in January? >> So just two months in January, February and be good for the year. Um then we'll have our business model done and then in the business model we'll be looking at uh a full model regarding if we take on
the in-house operation or if we even continue with a third party contractor what will it take for us to take to continue doing the third party contractor. This temp is going to do the work for the the model of doing an in-house service
or they're going to handle the honors paperwork? No, they're just our business model will show our operation more clearly. If what do we really need in that operation to continue as we are with a third party contractor or if we bring it in house, what is that model going to look like? We want to just
answer the question if council does not authorize to bring it in house, what are what do we need to continue our operation as it stands right now with a third party contractor to be compliant with all of our grant requirements because it's it's 100% grant funded. We
need have that documentation properly and even with our third party contractor, the the compliance to make sure that they're doing their job like they're supposed to takes a lot of data. uh preparation. >> So, they'll be doing the paperwork.
>> They're going to be doing the data the data verification for a lot of the receipts and the funding uh invoices for that. And yes, and we have a complete spreadsheet on all their different tasks that they have um to work on that
accounts payable, data verification regarding they have to all the invoices that we get from the third party contractor. We have to verify all of those whether they're we just have to verify them per state and federal guidelines. We have to double and triple check all of those and that someone has
to literally uh double check those and uh it's just becoming a lot for our current staff to operate. We're already we're almost done with our fourth quarter. We just finished our third quarter milling.
>> Okay, we have a motion. >> I think we have a motion. Yeah. >> Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chair, I will move to authorize the staff to hire this temporary part employee. >> And I'll second just a good measure. >> And my only comment is this. This almost
seems like a screwy thing. The whole transit operation. I mean, thank goodness it's all funded by somebody else, but I'm wondering if the juice is worth the squeeze, >> right? >> But I mean, we're sort of stuck with it.
So, we have to do this, correct? to stay in compliance. We need some help down there. >> Yeah, it's wild that 12 months ago, one person could handle everything and now we need at least three and we're doing an analysis for maybe needing five. I It's
>> It's a little concerning in the house. >> It's a little concerning because a year ago one person could do everything, but all in favor say I. I. >> That motion carries. Okay. Next up is the uh revised
contribution policy 2003-01 pilot contribution. Paul, >> good evening. So at it meeting on November 25th, the PUC approved the revised language in the contribution policy 2003-01
payment in l of taxes. Um in the packet there's a red line and a clean version of the language that was approved. Uh following prior discussions between the city council and PUC, the city council requested that the PUC review the existing contribution to city policy and
consider revisions to the methodology of how that payment is calculated under the current policy. Um monthly contributions to the city are based on um a 045 per kilowatt hour of energy sold to retail
electric customers in the previous month. Additionally, a separate contribution rate of 0 00025 per kilowatt hour applied to medium and large industrial customers. The city council proposed transitioning the pilot contribution from a per kilowatt hour
basis to a um percentage of electric utility revenues with a phase structure of 3% in 26, 4% in 27 and 5% in 28. This changes was intended to align contributions more closely with overall
utility revenues and provide predictable uh framework for these contributions in the future based in the amount of utility revenues. Um uh the PUC took this under consideration and voted to revise the policy to the 3% contribution based on
the monthly retail electric sales for um the previous month starting January 2026. Um they also elected to remove the separate contribution structure for the medium and large industrial customers basically applying that 3% across all um
electric utility revenue sales. Um furthermore, the PUC um deferred approval of the four and 5% increases until we can complete a full cost of service rate study in 2026 for the electric utility um to see um how that
four and 5% contribution would potentially impact our rates uh moving into 2027 and 2028. So the revised contribution policy to the city was formally approved by the PUC at its regular meeting on November 25th. And our recommended motion is to
have the city council approve uh BPU's revised contribution to city policy 2003-01 with implementation of said policy to take effect in January 2026. >> Thank you, Paul. Any questions, Kelly? >> I have no questions and move to approve.
>> I second. I I appreciate that the at least the half effort was made to adjust it to more of an industry standard based on retail sales. I'm a little disappointed that there's no movement towards getting to the national median
of the 5% that most public utilities pay, but I'm optimistic that once you get the rates, once you get the study done that we can get there. I mean that's really 5.2 is the national median and supply is still below it. Yes, it's
going to say rates need to go up. Yes, the commission is going to say staff and the commissioner say we don't want to increase rates but you don't pay taxes. They're municipally owned. You have all the benefits of being of that. You don't you get municipal bonds to fund all of
your infrastructure. You get so many savings being owned by a city that I think being at the national median I'm not asking above. I'm asking below, but at least being at that national meeting is a fair request from the city. >> All those in favor say I.
>> I. >> That motion carries. Thank you, Paul. >> Temporary service agreement technology for the city of Baxter. John. >> Yeah. Good evening. Um, you just mentioned tonight we're talking about the city of Baxter. they're going to
have a vacancy in their IT department here in three or 4 days. They reached out to see if we were available or had any availability to help them out um on a limited as needed kind of emergency basis. Um the backstory is um we are
willing and capable of doing this. It's not something we really want to do a whole lot of hours on. So if it ends up becoming a big burden, we'd have them reach out to a third party anyway. But we have been working with Baxter pretty closely for about 20 years. So we know how their place works. We can help them
out as much as uh they need unless it gets ownorous like I mentioned. Um because this was a kind of in a pinch a quick thing we had attorneys just modify the shared service agreement that we had at the airport and they embellished a bit into it but the uh contracts been
vetted by both Brainer and Baxter attorneys. The compensation rate is our load full loaded rate plus 5% admin fees which I guess is the standard. And uh so the request tonight is to authorize staff to enter into a temporary agreement to help Max out as needed for
the next uh 60 to 90 days probably. >> I have no questions. I move to approve. >> I second. I fully support, you know, helping them out. They've got that vacancy and you have to have IT staff. So, I'm glad we're willing. I'm glad we're able
and I'm glad to hear that maybe you learned a lesson with the little bit of work you were going to do at the airport turned into a more honorous project that we're not committing ourselves to here. Right. >> And then you said you guys have worked together with their IT staff members. Are they a lot of the same systems?
>> Yep. They have same finance package, same imaging, same network, same police, same lots of similarities. >> That's fantastic. All right. Anything else? >> No. All in favor say I. >> I. >> That carries and we're adjourned.