is just sending a robot. >> Call to order. This is a Briner City Council and Charter Commission joint meeting special meeting Tuesday, April 14th, 2026, 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers. Tony, please call the role. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> here. >> Stunn.
>> Jagger. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> here. >> Oay >> here. >> Bedau, >> here. >> Lambert, >> yes. >> Norwood, >> yep. >> Shape, >> here. >> All right. Thank you. If you'd please rise for the pledge of allegiance. Yes. Do >> thank God
to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Thank you all for coming here tonight. Um, it's a obviously a special
meeting. We have a uh resignation is is the main issue uh that came up and coming into construction season. Want to make sure we get into the hiring process as fast as possible. That spurred another discussion uh regarding our charter changes that we have already
discussed in the last joint meeting uh along with some other organizational changes. So I'm going to hand it over to Mr. Broyals uh if you want to start off with the first item. >> Thank you, President Ode. I just want to say thank you to all the counselors for responding on short notice to a special meeting. Uh it doesn't go unnoticed and
staff does appreciate it. Also want to welcome Chairman Ship and the other two commissioners from the charter commission. Thank you again for the short notice attendance. Just want to talk briefly. There's three items on the agenda tonight. You guys can see those. A is the charter, B is resignation, C is
organizational discussion. Uh we're going to when we get into agenda item or excuse me, agenda letter A, there's going to be two recommended motions. The first motion is for the charter commission to act upon if they so choose and the second motion recommended motion
is for the council to act on if they so choose. At that point, um after we're done with letter A, the charter commission's formal voting responsibilities likely will be over. Um, President OD can certainly bring you
guys into conversations as he so chooses for the remainder of the meeting. But with that, we'll just jump into item A. Did you steal my >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Um, so basically what
this is based on the comments from the city council at the last meeting, we've had several meetings over the course of the last few months about charter commission. um the comments from the last meeting knowing full well that eventually this needs to be a unanimous vote from the city council. Um they wanted they directed staff to
essentially leave the entirety of the existing charter as is with the exception of chapter 5. So we so the the the the attachment that you see in front of you is the original charter that we are operating under today and with only
red lines to chapter 5. and we can just hit a couple of the highlights if we can. Oh, thank you. You're already way ahead. Um, you can see there's not significant changes. Hopefully, you've had a chance to look through. We can talk about a few things. I have I have asked a few members of the staff to be here tonight to to help answer
questions. But the most significant change here was we added under n number one, we added item D, the storm water collection, conveyance and treatment systems as responsibilities of the public utilities commission. And then also paragraph number three, the
commission shall prior to September 1st of each year review the proposed 10-year capital improvement plan for streets, water, sewer, and storm water systems, including anticipated capital expenditures, planned street project system improvements, and related infrastructure investments. The commission shall submit its recommendation to the city council for
consideration at its first regularly scheduled meeting in September. Um on the next page at the top, we added storm water. Um so the commission would be in charge of setting the rates for water, wastewater, storm water and power. Um I think that was some of the most
significant changes. Um paragraph number 12, we added that we've been operating basically under that process anyways, but it was not codified. So we added um paragraph 12. So again, this portion, Chairman Ship, if I may, President Ode,
Chairman Ship, this is kind of your your guys's opportunity to to kind of run the meeting and and uh we'd love to hear some feedback from the charter commission. And if you are so inclined, you could you could vote to approve as as as recommended from staff.
>> Mr. President, Mr. Chz, um I apologize, Nick. I think you initially said it was storm water. Did you not mean sanitary sewer? You're talking about for setting rates. >> No, for the change you indicated the first change was storm storm sewer
>> item item D was okay. So basically the first paragraph says the public utilities commission shall control operate and manage the following utilities and A, B and C there we added booster stations under letter A. >> Yeah. >> Under B we added the collection system.
Uh and C was no change other than just semantics. In item D, we added storm water collection, conveyance, and treatment systems. >> Okay. I you only pointed out storm. I thought the other two were also added to the original charter.
Was that what you were doing here? Comparing the what's existing to what you're proposing to be amended? Am I >> Paul? Can you help me out with this one? >> I could. >> Anybody? >> Johnson? >> Yeah. Jeff or Mr. President, I think the
the answer to the question is under 1B, the wastewater system used to include a half a sentence that said not including the gravity fed wastewater collection system. That is being removed. So with the public utility commission controlling all of the wastewater
instead of everything except the gravity fed system. >> Okay, >> that change is included. >> And that that's what I I didn't hear. I thought Nick was identifying just the changes. So I didn't hear sanitary. >> That was my mistake. I >> That's okay. That's why I was asking. I kind of thought you might have just No
problem. I understand though. >> Okay. Anything else, Mr. Chz? >> No, thank you. >> Mr. Sandy, anything to add to that? I know. >> No, I think uh Nick laid it out pretty well. Thank you. >> Good. Mr. Ship, you want to chime in on this? >> Yeah, thank you, Nick, for running with
the changes on this. Um, I'll just start. I think this lines up with what we had looked at as the commission as part of the broader changes. So, it's exciting to me. Janer James, do you have thoughts, questions? >> Chair, I thank you. Um, I I like it. Um,
it's staff did a good work and so >> I only have a couple questions. Um given the changes that we're making, is there a possibility within the next 5 years uh as far as staff's um insight on the subject that we would
be revisiting chapter 5 in the next 5 years? How likely would that happen? >> I can answer that. I think each year we have to have a charter meeting regardless. So if the charter commission wants to visit that that's up to them
every year or do you have a is it more specific your question >> well more in line with as far as any within the next 5 years would we be looking to change chapter 5 of the charter again?
>> Hopefully not I would say. >> Okay. And then um these changes, how how best does this end up preparing the city for the next 20 years? >> Are you asking me or are you asking staff?
>> I was more asking staff. As far as these changes, how is there enough modularity and ability to is there enough freedom within the changes that are being made as to be able to function well? and
uh yeah for staff. >> Sure. Nick, >> I can make a couple comments and then Paul please jump in. I think absolutely yes. I think this would this would bring us in line and consistent with the way municipalities are organized. Um you know in my personal opinion even when I
got here two years ago when I saw this differentiation between sanitary excuse me um the force mains and the lift stations versus gravity that's very odd. I've never seen that before. So I think this is in my opinion is certainly the best way to go forward and it's going to give us the most flexibility and agility
to be responsive to our taxpayers and rateayers. So I think it's the right path to go. Paul, did you have anything to add? >> I don't. I I think you know to add to what Nick said just from a project development standpoint, um having all of
the utility systems under one roof is certainly a benefit from a staff perspective. being able to um control plan development operations um kind of everything that takes place from our utilities is it's important I think to have everything under one roof and so I
think it this definitely clarifies that >> that's all anything else from the charter commission at this time >> I'm just looking for a motion if either of you >> well before you do the motion I have um some questions myself so when we look at chapter 5 I like all this stuff right
here. I think I think these are the right changes in my opinion that you see in the top of chapter 5 which is titled public utilities commission. Now scroll down to the next page that 12 I think it was
called or numbered there it is. So the commission shall have the right to the reasonable use of the streets, alleys, and other public grounds of the city for the purpose of maintaining and operating such utilities and repairing the same or making any extensions, improvements, changes, or
additions there too. But whenever the surface or any street, alley, or public ground is disturbed, the commission shall cause the same to be promptly restored as nearly as may be to its original condition. When did our
commissioners start doing those things? Because who are we talking about? I mean, I I I see the intention of this giving the the the freedom to our utility workers to be where they need to
be, and I agree with that. But we made it clear over the last several years that the employees of the public utilities department are employees of the city council. I think this is implying that they have employees under
their thumb and they're allowed to do this thing. I I get the intent of this. I don't agree that it should be in the charter. I think it should be in a department policy or some type of employee policy. Um, I was a little
confused when I saw this. Not that I disagree with the idea of it. I agree with the idea of it, but it's this this is the kind of stuff that we put in a charter. That's the source of confusion. So, I don't like that. I think the entire paragraph should be scratched. I
think it just needs to be written in a different document somewhere else. >> I don't know if anybody else feels the same way. Mr. Johnson, >> I absolutely agree with you. I'm not sure if our commissioners are out doing the repairs or or if they aren't. But I
think you're absolutely right that this section establishes the authority of the commission. It is has nothing to do with anybody employed by the city of Brainard. It's the commission's powers. So I I do think 12 should be removed. And I would go further. And if you go up
to eight, it says the commission shall perform and enforce contracts on behalf of the city and do any and all other things. Joe, can I get a legal interpretation of any and all other things? It seems a little broad. That might be
confusing in the future. >> Yeah. >> Any and all other other and we do the other things >> and the other things. >> And I think you're right. Yeah, I didn't catch that one. But I think these are the little things that we can tweak right now and it'll be less confusion in
the future. A >> and one other, Mr. Chair, that I I think would cause more confusion in the future. I do love section three. I think it's great that we'll have the commission looking at the the capital improvement plan. But if you go up to
section one and we add a bunch of words, you know, executing necessary actions for sustaining current infrastructure, planning for future growth, economic management and fiscal responsibility thereof. I don't think we want to add
language to the charter that gives economic management of the city or the fiscal responsibility of the city to the public utility commission. I think those are city council responsibilities. I don't think they should be added to the public utility commission's plate.
Otherwise, why would we even have a finance department? So, those are the those are the three things I noticed reading this. I mean, I'll go back to what I said at our last joint meeting. We need to add one sentence and remove half of a different one. Those were both
done. I like that. Everything else, I don't know any and all other things. Joe, do you do you have an interpretation of that for me? Well, council and commission, I think that the any and all other things is constrained by the purposes expressed herein. I
mean, it's it's within that context, but does it need to be in here in order to carry out the purposes of what I think staff was intended? No, I don't think it needs to be it can be removed and still have the same effect. >> Okay. Thank you, Joel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are the three items that I
didn't think should be added. >> Thank you. Anybody else on council want to comment? Mr. Chzach. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I I agree with what I heard and I'm wondering if there's a rationale that was used who by staff that drafted this
um that might maybe it was just an oversight on their part, but is somebody willing from staff to explain why they put that wording in there, if that's even necessary because I mean what I'm getting from you guys and and I can't disagree. It makes a lot of sense your argument. So, is that is
it even necessary to ask that question on my part? >> I can just I I can try to make some comments, Mr. Chzach, and um and and we can see where the conversation goes. Um I'm going to start with the last one that Councilman Johnson had, item 12.
Again, this was not in the previous charter if this is our common practice, but I think he brought up a very good point. This talks about the the the powers of the commission. So item 12 was not in the original charter. If it's not in the charter going forward, I don't
think that anybody's going to have a tremendous amount of heartburn over that. Um that does I don't have any issue with that. As far as the rationale, I might defer to Paul a little bit when I'm done here if he wants to comment on that. On on paragraph 8, I'm not a lawyer, but I I I
do agree on behalf of the city and do any and all. You could just scratch that between on and things and say the commission shall make, perform, and enforce contracts that may be necessary to proper and carry out the processes expressedly herein. I don't think it adds value to that statement. Um, I don't know why it was added, but I as I
read it now, I don't think it has any value in it. I think it's just extra words. Um, item number one, paragraph number one, you know, when I think of economic management and fiscal responsibility, maybe it's just semantics. I do think the commission has a fiscal
responsibility to manage the infrastructure in a fiscally responsible manner that keeps the enterprise solvent and profitable. Um I think it's a fine line between when does that when does being fiscally responsible for maintaining infrastructure and planning
for the infrastructure and the future of the infrastructure when does that bleed over into uh fiscal responsibility for the city's resources city's dollars? So I I does anybody from staff, if I may, is that okay, Miss Anybody from the
staff have any comments on what our thoughts were behind that? >> Dandy, >> I'll start at the same thing on paragraph 12. You know, we as a utility right now. You know, we do use public ground streets and alleys. I think the rationale behind the statement is is
that if we're executing projects that maybe are outside of a street reconstruction project like we're working on power um within the right ofway. This just ensures that the commission is aware that we need to be restoring the public grounds as a
commission to as near the original state as possible. if we're out doing a repair on a water service in the street that we're repairing and making these improvements to make sure it's back to its original state. I think that was the intent. Um, this was language that was
taken from the proposed charter that you guys saw here a few meetings ago. Um, but like Nick said, I mean, it hasn't been in the charter before and it hasn't been a problem. So, it it frankly I I it can go away. It's just um ensuring that the commission is aware that we need to
be restoring things if we're doing utility work outside um of street projects or something of that nature that is being restored to as near the same condition as it was. >> Okay. I I think I I I figured that was
the intent somewhere along those lines. But can you think of a different document that that could be entered into besides the charter? Um I don't know if if your department actually has a document you >> I mean I think I think city code touches on this item in the right of way
management ordinance and so that's certainly something that we're all bound by um in res in restoration of public grounds for um people subject to the code which the city staff certainly is and so >> um I think we're probably covered either way.
>> Okay. Anybody else have comments, questions? Um, may I, Mr. Um, if if this is something we're looking at our charter commission to either I don't know, I guess they we're asking them to approve or or reject it.
Um, I would want to know if they agree with what was just been discussed here. If we removed all of those things, would that change anybody's opinion on >> I would love to know as well. Anybody from the charter commission want to >> take that on?
Um, yeah, Mr. Chair, >> I think the changes make sense to me as well. I >> our ultimate goal with this change is to follow through on your desire as a council to integrate all the utilities in one spot, especially the um the the
wastewater changes. So, if that's aligned with your goals, um I saw the value in in section 12. Um, to Paul's point, that seemed like a good thing, but also not creating the perception that of maybe the different employee
structures or relationships is uh more top of mind for you than than us. So, >> here's where here's where your power as a a charter commission lies, where the the recommendation has to come from you guys. You don't all have to vote unanimously on it, but there's only three of you here. So, two of the three
of you has have to recommend something to us if you would like to tonight and that would help move things forward. So, based on what you've heard, if you want to try a a motion or if one of you has more comments before that, that's fine, too.
But that would be our next step in this meeting. >> Can I make sure I've got the changes that were discussed? Um, just so that we have a a good handle. So removing section 12 um from section 8 removing and do any
and all other things that may be necessary or proper and then I don't know if I had good clarity on the addition in section one >> how folks felt about that. >> Yeah, Mr. President, that was that was
my uh concern for for confusion. I think the first sentence of section one doesn't need to be changed at all. So if we just don't add the of the city including executing the necessary actions for sustaining current infrastructure, planning for future growth, economic management, and fiscal
responsibility thereof, I don't think any of that is is necessary. I think the council and the mayor should have those expectations. They don't need to be written down. I think the mayor should be appointing people who are naturally going to
operate that way on the public utility commission. I I don't think those words are necessary and I think it would add confusion for we've had talks of integration in the past and if if we ever get to a point where we're looking at integrating finance, is there going to be confusion that the public
utilities were giving fiscal responsibility? It it would just lead to confusion in the future that I don't think we're intending to create. So I I'd like that sentence removed. >> Thank you. So you're suggesting just leave the first sentence.
>> Leave it as it is currently. Yeah. >> Everything else after that. So those three changes I I believe. >> Does anybody else on council have any other changes they would like? >> Okay. >> Okay. >> How does this sound, >> Mr. Broyals?
>> No, I think it >> I guess a question for Chairman Sh. I just want perfect clarity. What words do you want stricken from paragraph 8? Do you want it beginning with on and ending with
things? In other words, the commission shall make, perform, and enforce contracts that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes expressed herein. >> Yes, that was my understanding. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
>> Thank you. >> Either of you be interested in crafting a motion. >> Commission Chair, I will make a motion as to um recommend the charter changes uh and of the draft editing section one to
read. The Public Utilities Commission shall control, operate and manage the following utilities, comma, and then ABCDE. Um, and then in
section 8, the commission shall make, perform, and enforce contracts on behalf of the city that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes expressed herein. and then the removal of section 12.
>> I'll second that, Lambert. >> Excellent. Um, any discussion from you two and then I want to check in with that work. Okay, >> that was a clear motion for me. >> Okay. Um the recommended changes that we've discussed um
I believe that they do not significantly change the overall intent and what the mission of the charter commission was and so that is why I made the motion. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Jim.
>> No. Nope. I'm fine. >> Perfect. >> And then that good you making everyone >> Yeah. I don't see any anybody raising their hand over here for discussion. So may I ask a question? >> There he is. >> Chaz. So based on the motion, all I'm
hearing right now is you're changing the draft in front of you eliminating whatever you discussed or identified and then can I expect that if that passes and you'll perhaps make a motion to recommend what's left over to us? Is that how you plan to proceed?
>> That is a fair question. James, were you intending to improve or approve the draft with those changes or just make the changes and then have a second motion? >> My intent was to make the changes to the draft. It's so striking and so the
revisions of chapter 5 only those changes are what I see as being the edits. >> Yes. Did you also want to then recommend that >> the entirety of the Yeah. The entirety of the draft would then also >> the city council
>> be recommended to the city council. >> Okay. >> And I agree. >> So just for clarity, you're recommending this version minus those three changes that you mentioned. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. >> All in favor?
>> Do I call the vote, Nick? >> We do. Okay. Uh all in favor say I. I. I oppose. Same sign. That passes. >> All right. Thank you, charter commission. Um, now we're just as a council next
steps. We're looking to get a motion to ask staff to direct or direct staff to draft an ordinance for the first meeting in uh for the first reading April 20th meeting uh and schedule public hearing for May 4th,
2026, 7:30 p.m. in the city council chamber. >> So, I'll move Johnson. Second >> motion by Johnson, second by >> Chznik. >> Chznick. >> Chznick. >> Heard that one in a while. >> Be interesting to see what Theresa does
with that. Any discussion on the motion. >> Um, >> Mr. and then at the public hearing that will be if we so choose, we need a unanimous vote to approve this draft that we're moving forward to the public
hearing. Yeah, I believe we would need unanimous votes twice or just the last vote. >> The last vote. >> Okay. >> Not just unanimous. It needs to be 70. Nobody can miss. >> Oh, I mean, sorry. Correct. >> Well, that's unanimous, isn't it? >> It is, but we last time we changed it, we had a 6-0 vote and we had to go back
and do it again because it wasn't all seven. >> That's why I'm asking. I believe Mr. Ager is absent, so we can't unanimously approve it as he hasn't showed up. >> Right. >> Okay. So, >> but we can still go forward with this motion for now. That's what I was asking. So, okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Any more discussion? >> Well, just should we ask Joe just to make sure we're good on that? >> He's sitting right there. >> Okay. >> All right, Joe. Everything good with that? >> Yeah, you're fine. You're just asking staff to track the ordinance. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks, Joe. Thank you, Jeff. Anybody else have discussion on the motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. All right, that ends that item. I think next
we have the resignation of city engineer Jesse Dean. And I believe this is uh Britney Cummit. Go ahead, take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. On April 8th, 2026, city engineer Jesse Dean submitted his resignation um with his last working
day being May 8th, 2026. The recommended motion is to accept the resignation of city engineer Jesse Dian effective May 8th, 2026. >> Thank you, Britney. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chzach. >> I would move uh to approve that recommendation of uh Mr. Dean's
resignation with regret. >> Second, Johnson. >> Motion by Chzach, second by Johnson. Any discussion on the motion? >> They will miss you, Jesse, if this gets approved. If it doesn't get approved, I don't know what happens. Johnson, >> I just uh appreciate the professionalism
in his resignation, giving us the full one month notice and and appreciate everything Jesse has done for the city and his time here. >> Absolutely. More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. >> Next item, we have a organizational discussion and this is Nick Broyals, city administrator. Take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um obviously in light of Jesse's resignation very recently, I believe it was late last
week, that was kind of the catalyst for accelerating some of these things. Um so the next discussion is um has several layers uh and several members of staff have wor been working on this over the last few days quite aggressively. So, just to summarize a little bit, staff uh
believes that with the recent charter discussions that we've just had and the resignation of our city engineer, Jesse Dean, this is an appropriate time to consider an implementation of an organizational restructuring. So, as reflected in the attached organizational chart, the proposed changes include
basically four things that we're talking about tonight. Um, it would be renaming the public works director to the public services director. And just for frame of reference, that would be essentially Mike Habagor's old position. Renaming
the public utilities director to the public works director. Um, that would be involve Mr. Paul Sandy reclassifying the current city engineer. So this is Jesse's departure, his position, reclassifying that role from city
engineer to deputy public works director/ city engineer. And fourth, establishing an electric department as a standalone department led by a newly created electric director position. So there's a table on there. HR and finance
work together and they point to these. Um so obviously I think there'll be be some discussion but the recommended actions from staff would be to approve the attached org chart number one. Number two approve the attached job descriptions points and wages as listed
above. Number three authorize staff to begin the internal hiring process for the electric director position. And number four authorize staff to begin the hiring process for the public services director and the deputy public works director/ city engineer positions. We
did. Um, thank you, Mr. Chazdock. He sent me an email. In the original agenda item that you're seeing tonight, it says NA for financial impact. That's obviously not the case. Staff was just still going through calculations. We finished those around midday today. And I did send out an email around noon
today. Um, some of you may or may not have seen that. Um, can we go Can we bring up those calculations? Oh, they're not in here, are they? They're not in here. >> Oh, they are here. Okay. Can we go down? This kind of highlights and then I'm just going to hand it over for
discussion. If you can blow that up a little bit. Um we you know obviously what is people are going to ask what's the financial impact of this. So this is um renaming the public utilities director to the public works director. The points don't change the the there's
three columns there. There's enterprise funds allocations, construction and uh transit in some cases allocation and governmental funds. So the enterprise funds, those are obviously rate dollars and the governmental funds are proprietary funds, those are levy dollars. So with this move, and a lot of
this has to do with allocation, too. For example, if somebody is making $100,000 a year, and 10% of their salary comes from this pot of money and 20% comes from this and 20% comes from this. I mean, their salary might be $100,000 all day long, but the different funds that pay that salary are different colors of
money. Some are driven by some are revenues from rates, some are revenues from levy. So we just had to kind of speculate what the what that salary allocations were. So basically the takeaways from this for the first move um change in public utilities public
works no change in points that would b basically be $121,000 less coming out of enterprise funds and $44,000 more coming out of levy. The next position going from a city engineer reclassifying to a deputy public works
director city engineer points go from 724 to840. Um enterprise funds additional $36,000 comes out of the enterprise funds and the levy would decrease 25,800.
The next one would be to create a new electric director position. Um we have some we we have uh a a a very viable candidate in house. Um the points would go from 790 to $870 and that would be a
wash for uh levy funds because that's purely coming from enterprise dollars. Um that would be an additional $11,000 from enterprise and then there should be one more and this is the public works director going to the public services director. Um this is essentially my categor position. Points would go from
834 to 786. Enterprise funds would the money the outlays out of enterprise funds would decrease by 25,000. Outlays from levy would increase by 15. So the aggregate of all that uh is the outlays from enterprise funds would decrease about 100,000 and outlays from the levy
would increase by about 335. Um, with that, I'm I'm certainly open to answer questions. If you have questions for staff, I would just turn it over to the council for any questions. >> Thank you, Administrator Broyals. Anybody on the council have questions
for staff at this time? >> I'll try. >> Mr. Chzac, >> um, I guess this is mostly maybe for Nick. Um, I I this has been explained to me and I I believe I understand it well enough,
but I I'm curious maybe more than anything when we've got a public utilities director and I'm emphasizing public utilities director and Nick, I I mean I'm just going to be completely forthright here and you know
there's been a you you've had a kind of a real um passion to get things into public works and I and I if and Mr. Sandy is the person that would be changing that title. So, I don't have a
problem with that at all. But why would why is it necessary to change from a public utilities director to a public works director? And I'm just going to throw this out there as a suggested answer you might have. Is it just so we can create these
other positions to have them make more sense or is there could we why can we not just keep a public utilities director I guess is my question. >> Mr. Broyals. >> Thank you Mr. Chzock. Great question. Um the you know as as you look at
municipalities um the thing that makes us unique to in some regard is having a city-owned basically a public utility. You know, I grew up in Fergus Falls. We didn't have a public utility. It was Ottertale Power. So, if we did not have a public utility, and don't get me
wrong, I'm not advocating for that at all. Uh, but if we did not have a public utility, all of the other infrastructure in every municipal I've ever seen ever is public works. So, I think it's more appropriate for all that infrastructure
to be under public works. Um just because again if if our if our public utility were private we would have a public works department. We would not have a public utility department in my opinion. I've never seen that in any municipality I've ever seen in my life frankly. So that was my reasoning. I
just think that infrastructure, water, sewer, wastewater, those in my mind are traditionally public works activities. >> Well, if I may, um isn't it just um u the same thing by a different name? >> It is. It's just semantics. Okay. And then if if uh if we were to have done
this, if we said our charter change says public instead of public utility commission, it said public works commission. It it seems to me that would almost make more sense if we're changing from a public utility director to a public works director. And again, I know
semantics is it's it's just odd for me to understand. It just seems I guess it seems so important to you to keep going back to that public works quote unquote perhaps department. However, will we have a public works department if these
job descriptions get changed? >> Jeeoff, I can I can try and answer that that first. Mr. Broyals, you can try too. But I because I thought about the same exact thing that you're talking about today, Jeff, and I thought, well, maybe maybe in the same meeting we we changed that in the the
the charter asked the charter commission to change the title of of chapter 5, which is all we would have to do. But at the same time, the public utilities commission is in charge of all the business having to do with the utilities themselves. That's listed out clearly in
there. If this becomes position of public works director, then the department itself is called public works. And I kind of like that separation. It it it clears that up more when when it comes to this everlasting argument
about who runs the day-to-day operations and and whose employees are these, you know, these these arguments that we've had in the past. Simple language changes like this actually make it more clear. That's that's the kind of the ending that I came to in my internal argument.
But Mr. Broyals, if you want to try to add to that, go ahead. >> No, I understand your point, Mr. Chazak, completely. I will say unquestionably, I'm most interested in making sure we're organized properly. Um, my opinion is that it should be the public works
department, but you know, as the expression goes, my opinion and a quarter will get you a bad cup of coffee. So, Paul has something to say, too, if you if it's okay, Mr. president when I'm done. So, I I think it's ultimately up to the council. I mean, we're going to do what you want. I think most importantly, I want us to be organized properly so we can be most
responsive and most agile as we respond to the public. Um, so I think that this structure gives us that. Uh, however you guys want to name it, I think it should be public works, but that's just my opinion and my opinion doesn't count so much right here. So, it's your guys's opinion, counts on the paper. Mr. Sandy,
>> I'll just say, you know, so my position right now, obviously being the utilities director, my main and sole focus is the utilities that are under the commission's purview. Um, with the change that is presented in the job description, my job description would be expanding to
a degree to cover also streets, um, being the voice to the city council in that regard. And so maybe utility, the name public utilities director is no longer really relevant to that position because it doesn't just span utilities
anymore. It spans the functions of public works, which is streets and utilities. And I think that's the delineation factor. If we were just to move sanitary sewer over and and not change my current job description to
include streets, then public utilities director would continue to make sense because it's just utility infrastructure related. But with the changes in this job description, the street elements now fall under my purview. While I'm reporting to the commission on utilities, I'm going to be reporting to
the city council on street projects. And so I think that's the delineation factor. >> Mr. Chz may follow up and I again I don't have a real issue with the changes in titles and I'm asking this question not so much for myself but for anyone
and everyone who might be listening so they understand what's going on here. And I think Paul's answer and and and yours comments uh President OD and Nick it makes sense. it it I don't see any anything it helps I think anybody understand what we're really trying to
do here. So if there's any confusion that's why I asked the question. So thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Chzac. Thank you Mr. Sandy. Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah I've got a couple questions kind of related to the public service department.
>> One second. Let the record show that Mr. Jagger's here. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> Thank you Mr. President. I I see we under the streets foreman we still have the sewer lead under the public services director. So
that wouldn't be under the purview or management of the public works director. Is that correct? Anybody? Yeah. >> Britney or Paul? >> Yes. Thank you. um at this time due to
we have union negotiations coming up and other other issues. So we're just holding off at this time but I think the intent is in the future. >> Okay. And then follow-up question another one for you Britney under the same vein because seeing the
sewer lead not being under the public works director doesn't seem very smart but we have we have to negotiate with our bargaining units. Have we considered the maintenance positions and and combining those into just maintenance
one two three instead of maintenance one two three and parks maintenance as a separate position like would now be the time and I know we have to negotiate with unions and but would now be the time to make that managerial decision for our organizational chart
>> so positions need to be negotiated so we we can plan for that in the future But we still have to negotiate it. >> So I mean if that's the intent of the >> managerilarily just declare that we don't have parks maintenance positions.
We now have maintenance one, two, and three. >> No, not until it's negotiated. >> We have to negotiate that. Okay. Yeah. I I don't understand the laws on it. That's why I'm asking. And then uh just a nod of the head, but Paul, Trent, Charlie, we're all well, we're all okay
with these proposed changes. We're all on board with it. Yeah. Okay. I would to make changes that uh our employees wouldn't like. So, don't get worried parks maintenance guys. I was just asking efficiency question. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Anybody else
have questions for staff? >> Chai. >> Yeah. Um so, we have a um another bargaining unit that includes Mr. Um, uh, Trent, is this going to affect
anything there? I do believe Trent is in. >> We do have Trent here. He was nodding that he's okay with with these changes. Mr. Broyals, >> I think um, I will just say that the position that we are proposing, the electric director, that would be a non-union management position. And
that's well known with everybody within the organization. That would be a non-union management position. So Charlie would just be lonesome in his union and >> be the lonesome dove. But Danny's not >> Oh business. >> Anything else, Mr. Trezac?
>> Um, but that so that that doesn't interfere with anything regarding their union. Um, that's what I'm asking primarily. I mean, um, is it's illegal. >> Either either Britney or or Joe, do you want to chime in on this? >> No, it won't. It's a new position that
would be applied for that's not in the bargaining unit. Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody else? No more questions? If there's no more questions for staff, we're uh Mr. Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. Can somebody remind me again, what is our obligation for transit? Are we
obligated to have a transit department? >> Okay, Mr. >> Sandy, >> those are head shakes, but >> say no. >> Someone say the words. >> No, we are appreciate that. >> You're not obligated to have trans. >> Just a question. Okay. Well, >> okay. To expand on that, I just
It's a thorn. It's I shouldn't say a thorn. It is a It is a point of consideration as to whether or not that is a department that the city wants to continue to run. I've said that before. um it is something that costs money and
it costs resources and in this instance in my eyes it's almost creating its own separate department then because without that those maintenance positions just fall under public works which is where I think they should belong with it we've now got an entire another section with
an entire another director so just a continued conversation I continue to ask whether or not we are obligated to continue to have that those are conversations that people have had in the community and are conversations we should at least be having when we're talking about this organization type
stuff. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Chzach, >> um I I have to kind of go back here and ask maybe I'll just make a statement. Transit doesn't cost money. It gets money from the state to operate. It pays
portions of salaries to currently are in a public works director even though we don't have one. It pays the salary of our entire salary of our transit coordinator. Um, have we missed uh maybe
Connie Hillman, have we levied ever for transit that you're aware of? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> And do the transit dollars we receive from the state pay for portions of Tony
Gage's salary? uh I believe somebody else in administration also the public works director's salary and I think um it would have been the engineer prior to that is that correct? >> Correct. We allocate certain percentage of their salaries to the transit department.
>> Okay. And so that being said to say that it costs money where does it cost the city money to have a transit department? >> Mr. Mayor, >> I'll just clarify my statement. It costs money. I didn't say that it costs the city money. It does cost the city resources, but it does cost taxpayer
money to run that. And I don't know if you agree with this, but I agree with it that state dollars are still tax dollars and there are still dollars that are being spent on that department. Not saying that we should or should not have it, just saying that the discussion about that should probably be had at some point.
>> Thank you. Okay. I was hoping that we wouldn't get into a debate about transit tonight. So, hope hopefully we're done with that. Um but the the main changes here adding the public services director position or
renaming that uh renaming the public utilities to public works. Uh adding the electric department as separate from the rest of public works. Is is anybody totally against all this? I think I've
come to terms with it. Understand it? >> Is it up? I'm in favor. >> Excellent. Sunnik, are you ready to make a a motion to approve the attached or chart? >> Okay, I'd make a motion to move forward with the changes of the names and the chart.
>> Second motion by Stunnic, second by Bevans. Any discussion on that motion? >> Yes, Mr. President. >> Mr. Chzac, >> does that include going out for hiring of the uh internally? >> Those will come next. >> Okay, thank you. >> Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. I I against same sign. >> That motion carries. Next up, we're looking for uh approval of the attached job descriptions, points, and the wages as listed above. So, if you all had time to go through those new descriptions
move, Mr. Chairman, Mr. President. >> Motion by Chzach >> for all four >> for a second. Second. >> Second by Bevans. Any discussion on that motion, Mr. Johnson? I have one and it's a question I probably should have asked,
but have we run those points through legal counsel and it all makes sense and it's all defensible and Yes. >> Yeah. Yep. We we went over the whole agenda request of legal on Friday. >> Thank you.
>> As well as Tim Sullivan. >> Yeah. I'm supportive of the motion. Yep. >> All right. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Next, we're looking for authorization
for staff to begin the internal hiring process for the electric director position. >> So move. >> Second. >> Motion by Chzach. Second by Bevans. Discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. The last motion we're looking for is authorization for staff to begin the hiring process for public services director and deputy public works director/ city engineer positions.
>> So move second by Bevans, second by Stunic. Any discussion? Johnson >> question on the timeline like we're starting construction season here. When will we have a city engineer on board? >> Mr. Bro, >> if if the pay is good enough, I don't know.
>> We will get a requisition out there as soon as Britney can get one out there. So, we will we will we will move as fast as we can on this because I share your concern. >> On top of that, maybe we visit that um timeline on Monday at our official meeting because if we need to if the
timeline doesn't work out for our streets projects, we want to make sure it's smooth this year. So, maybe we talk about a consultant at that time. >> I think we should maybe add that to the agenda. We still got to finish last year's projects. Sure. Where >> we start this? >> Sure. We're catching up.
>> Mr. Sandy, >> I have been in some discussions with a couple of consultant engineers about being like a program manager for 10 to 15 hours a week just assisting staff um managing projects both consultant le and cityledd projects this next summer.
>> But we're in discussions. I plan to maybe have a proposal on the agenda um in first meeting of May. >> Okay, that'd be great. >> Thank you. Britney, did you have something to >> I just want to clarify that we're still posting as of tomorrow. >> Correct.
>> Is that the motion? >> That's the motion. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> More discussion. >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Again, same sign. >> Motion carries. That does it for business tonight. Just looking for a
motion to adjurnn. >> Move. >> Second. >> Motion by Stunnick, second by Johnson. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. Nobody. Okay, we're adjourned. >> Good job, guys. >> Yeah, that one.