--------- is uh safety and public works committee meeting 700 p.m. Brainer city council chambers and just two items on our agenda. Um initially we had three. I think we're sounds like we're pulling one. Um but going forward here the first item on our agenda will be to approve
change order number one for improvement 2113 and uh public works director Habigor. >> Yes. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh this one here um we are looking sorry
I need to make sure I'm on the right uh this is beach >> should be 150 I believe >> right perfect thank you for >> brainer beach paving >> right so uh attached to this change order request is to replace the intended
subcontractor on this beach uh oak ridge uh reconstruction project based on the guidance from MDOT Anderson Brothers is not eligible to perform the subcontractor on This project staff has requested another proposal from landware for another suitable acceptable
replacement contractor. The attached change order for the proposal from Landware shows a request unit price adjustment of $6.75 per ton and with an estimated about $18,000. Again, I want to emphasize the aspect
that the price per ton is $6.75. It's an estimated amount that that's what they'll need is 18,000 and staff is recommending approval of this change order amount and this is the first change order for Beach Oakidge. And with that I can take any questions.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Habigor. Any questions, comments? I've got one. I'm hearing none. Then I'll >> Oh, I thought you had one. >> Oh, yeah. Go ahead. I can >> um we're just Is the price per ton Okay. Okay,
>> that sounds like it's just the difference in price for the material. Is there who who's applying the material? It will be that subcontractor >> Anderson Brothers >> Landware >> Landware is they've uh received another
proposal from another company and we it's not on it's actually knife river sorry and knife river is going to be per uh performing that >> so there'll be the asphalt >> correct >> okay so right now they land had hired
Anderson brothers to do that and they're no longer okay >> that's that's all I Thank you. >> Yep. >> So with that, as you said, Anderson Brother is is ineligible, you know, lander had
contract with them or or what have you? And do we have any liability there? Do we have to do we have an agreement with them >> that we would have to terminate then in order to then bring this one on or are we free and clear at this point? >> We're free and clear. So before they
when Landware will submit a formal bid, they'll get all their subs in line and then after they get all their subs, you know, pricing, then they'll submit a formal bid to us. And one of their subcontractors was Anderson Brothers. And we're like, hey, can't use Anderson
Brothers anymore. This is a state job, and they'll have to go out and and that's why they got Knife River to submit a proposal. But they're handling that on their end and then we just simply have to approve the new >> Right. Okay. >> Correct. >> All right.
Thank you. And then so with that, if there's any other questions or a motion and Thank you, Jeff. >> Second a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Hearing hearing none, we'll take it to a vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion
carried. >> All right. Thank you. Moving on. So then, oh, >> yep. >> Did you want to say we were dropping that one or just Wait, >> that could be after this next one. >> We'll move on to our second item then number two to approve
uh trunk highway 371B, Willow Street Roundabout uh change order number two or improvement project 2313. Mr. Havor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attached to this change order request is the attended subcontractor for the 371 roundabout
project. From guidance from MDOT, Anderson Brothers again is not eligible. Landwear is submitted another proposal for this uh contract for the asphalt uh as uh improvements. And you will notice
on this one here, it's a much different uh per ton. It's like $21 uh per ton. And that is just due to the differences in the quantity and it um the pricing we are sort of we are sort of locked into this land you
know landware using this and we are sort of locked into using landware. They have to get a sub and they you know it's hard for us to have any power in the sense of you know how did you get to that number and criticize their uh bidding process
for this. Um, so that's why you may already have a question on why was one $7, this one $21, but it's based on the actual uh tonnage, the number of tonnage for that. This one here is we are estimated at $29,000. Um, but again, we
will make sure that the price per ton will not exceed that dollar there, that $21.32. And you'll notice also on here, I want to try to be a little proactive. You'll notice that this is the second change order. Um you have not seen the first
change order because we are still processing that one. It was submitted about before the um before this one. But this one we were able to complete before we completed the the first change order.
So you will be seeing the next the first change order in the next council meeting. But uh this one here we're able to complete the complete process that the first one we're just again uh going through that formal process for that.
>> The second one was it was submitted second but the processing was quicker than the first. >> Right. Correct. All right. >> So again this price here is $21.32 per ton. Estimated amount is 29,000 and we are recommending approval of the
second change order. And with that I can take any questions. >> Okay. Yeah, different project, virtually same situation. Questions, comments? >> Um, I guess as long as um we're still I I don't want to I guess lose my
opportunity to ask this question. It's kind of based on Landware and your report, Mike. Um there's some um scheduling issues with uh landware on right and 10th. Um >> correct. and they are involved in this project and in the uh beach street.
Um is that why they're because there was no real explanation why there's uh scheduling problems with the uh these two projects are right on schedule. They're um moving forward very well as you can when if you drive by there you can see the progress of that. It's
really going well right in 10th Street. Uh we met with the president of the council. We met with Tad uh earlier this uh this morning regarding specific uh how we are going to move forward with the right intent street project. Um that
one is a another uh aspect altogether. But >> so do either of these two projects have anything to do with the delay on right and 10th >> formally? No. Informally I think they just bid off too much. >> Okay.
>> Kind of kind of looks like they maybe uh stretched themselves a little thin maybe. Correct. They're also on the Country Manor project. >> On the what one? >> Country Manor. >> Okay, that's what >> a lot of projects, a lot of irons in the fire and staff's going to be reaching out and having some conversations. Well,
I guess we'll take it from there. So, >> any other You had a hand up. >> Yeah, just real quickly. So, is uh will Mr. Dean be here tonight? So, this my question is probably more geared to him than than you might. >> No, he will not be. These are the only
two he did. Uh I I have text him while we were communicating here and uh it's just that this the small quantity regarding the roundabout uh beach and and uh the beach project is a much larger projects and that's why we're we're seeing a little bit difference in
the pricing. One is also a federal dollar and uh uh the other one is is just state dollars. Um so the roundabout is the federal and the beach is just state. So >> so okay. So the I'm I just want to talk
through just the basic premise of my question and I'm I'm not expecting an answer necessarily, but >> I'm I'm hoping that somebody can shed just a little light on the on on the construction of the language of these contracts that we take on with a vendor like Landwear. Right? So we we have a we
have a project, we have a scope of work and then landw wearer turns in a number that says we will provide this scope of work for this price and they win the bid based on that scope of work or based on that price. For instance, >> if one of their subcontractors defaults
for whatever reason, whether it be by state mandate or they go out of business or whatever, >> right? To me, that is that is an issue that should be taken up between Landwe and Anderson versus just passing the gap that was
created by the exit of a subcontractor onto the city of Brainard. My guess is is that there is some version of language in the contract that I just don't know that I was going to ask about that then enables somebody like Landweir
to to escape that risk. Um, so unless you happen to know an answer to that, which I I highly I mean I don't know that answer. I I feel like it might be a question for Joe and how our contracts are worded, but to me this
seems like the absolute best case scenario for Landwear and honestly also the best case scenario for Anderson and the absolute worst case scenario for us. We're getting hit with a a change order that is being passed fully onto us and both of the parties
that provided the number are walking away from it. >> Correct. >> The only other difference that I can indicate is that Knife River the them to mobilize here. They're out of St. Cloud Little Falls area. You know, Anderson Brothers as you know is right local.
That is the other difference. But no, this is that's a good question and I'll relay that to to Jesse and we can >> and it's more of a question not necessarily on the specifics of this but how our contracts >> aren't preventing or protecting us in this scenario. >> That's all
>> good comment or question. >> I um if since we have time I I like Kevin's thought on that because um >> can we do is this pertaining to this or do you want to vote on this and then have >> Oh yeah, I think >> this is part of the discussion. I'll move to approve this.
>> All right. Thank you. Motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Motion and a second. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Sorry. >> Thank you. Oppose. Same sign. And of course, motion carried. >> So, we have nothing else. I just wanted to kind of weigh in what Kevin said.
Bet. Um it seems to make sense that um kind of like if you're doing work on your home and you hired a general and the framers come in and you got roofers and you got electricians and you got plumbers and you got flooring and you got siding and then one of those guys, whoever is the sub can't do the
job and now they got to go out. Your general's got to go out and get somebody else, >> right? >> Um who should that be on is what Kevin's saying, right? >> That's correct. Should that be the should that be the homeowner that hired the general to get all these people, which we are in this case, the the
homeowner in this particular instance? >> Um, so again, I think that goes back to the wording and I think maybe if we review that, maybe Joe could weigh in on that. Maybe you'd have a quick answer for us, too. So, would you mind asking that when we get to the >> Me? Yeah,
>> I Yeah, I'd be happy to ask that. And I in in really I think we're on the right track here because the compensation that we pay a general contractor a big part of that is the risk that they take on by managing subs and vendors and unit pricing and futures and all of those
types. That is that's the domain of being a general contractor. So I'm just curious how our contract language didn't protect us here and and might be something we want to look at, but I'll be happy to ask. >> Okay. And then to to your point, um, it
when you do a at home comparison, I I I don't know how that homeowner would say, "Oh, you got to pay 15% more for this new subcontractor, and you're going to pass that along to me. You have a contract here with me." >> Correct. >> That says this much. >> Correct. Yeah. So, I mean, we have we
have a I think there's always that acceptable percentage that you agree to over under whatever it might be. >> Correct. Is this meet that or exceed that I guess is the other question maybe >> and part of that mechanism is so that you don't have somebody turn in a bid which is actually the low bid and then
just a couple months down the road say oh well we had a couple subs Fritz out our new number is this. So uh that that's the entire premise of a competitive bidding scenario is that you're fixing the price on a known scope of work. >> Well if Mr. chairman here would make sure that uh we have that opportunity
maybe after this uh item comes up on the Okay, mention that we have a question. >> You bet. I think it's a worthy conversation to kind of examine going forward. But >> thanks for that, Kevin. It's a good idea. >> Agreed. Yeah. So just to wrap things up for us here then we do have a third item
on our agenda which we're sounds like we're going to pull but the solar agreement uh with Rotary approval uh between city of Brainard and Wolf Track Energy. Mr. Habigor, do you want to >> Yes. >> the latest on this one? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, in further
communication with Wolf Track, I've uh noticed that their um their bond was only for partial of the project. Contact them. They wanted an adjustment on their cost and I was like, "Well, this contract's already signed or it's uh
being it's on the agenda tonight and if you'd like to start the process all over, but we would we would require a full bond for the project, not partial." And so they have requested to pull the contract and they are going to be submitting a new dollar amount. And then
we'll have to decide is that going to be with BPU, Rotary is going to be paying that, who will be paying that, and that will be outlined in the new contract. >> Okay. >> Um, real quick on that, Mike, do you expect that to be following the uh utility commission meeting coming back to us?
>> Correct. First, it'll go to the commission, get them their approval, park board approval, and then city council approval. >> Very good. Uh, Councilman, >> just real quickly, I I may have missed it in a meeting or or somewhere, but uh was there any off the top of your head,
do you know roughly what the uh what the solar array was going to produced for uh for value each year or how much electricity were was this array going to make for us? >> Yeah. No, I don't. I just noticed that 38 years we will finally have a benefit.
>> 38 years benefit and it's a 10 10 year warranty on the equipment. Good to know. Thank you. That's all funny that was discussed at the utility commission meeting. >> Jeff, you might on the contract. >> It's more of a process, but being that this is on the agenda, do we need a a motion to table this or take any action
or just >> I I think we'll just uh pull it at the beginning of the meeting. >> Okay. >> Okay. Can make it then >> the agenda. All righty. >> All right. That brings our uh committee meeting to the close to a close at 7:16.
We're adjourned. Part: 2
Call to order. Brainard City Council. It is Tuesday, September 2nd, 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers. Tony, please call the roll. Johnson here. Stunn. Jagger. Yes. Ericson here. Bevans here. Chzach, yes. OD here. Bad
here. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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. Just let the record show that Kevin there. Tony, let the record know that Dunick has arrived. Next, we have approval of the agenda to jail. Move to approve. Second.
Motion by Chzach, second by Jagger. Was there a We're going to leave it. Leave it. Okay. And any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. We have an agenda. Next, we have the consent calendar. This
is a notice of public that all matters listed are considered routine by the council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless good cause is shown prior to the time the council votes on the motion to be adopted by roll call. Move to approve.
Second. Motion by Bevon. Second by Stunic. Any discussion? Tony. Johnson. Yes. Stunn. Yes. Jagger. Yes. Erikson. Yes. Beans. Yes. Chzok. Yes. OD. Yes.
Moving on to number six. This is a public forum. This is time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the council. Time limits may be imposed. So, if there's anybody that wants to address the council on something not on the agenda, please come forward now.
And if you're online, you would like to address the council, press star three. Say again, if there's anybody who would like to address the council, please come forward now. And we will close the public forum at 7:33.
Next, we're moving on number seven. This is council committee reports. First up, we have uh personnel and finance committee chairman Gabe Johnson. Thank you, Mr. President. We have six items on our agenda tonight. The first of which is to accept 2026 long-term
disability and ancillary benefits proposals. The motion is to accept the long-term disability insurance proposal from Madison National and to accept Metife dental accident critical illness and hospital plan. And
I so move second motion by Johnson, second by Stunic Johnson. Uh overall, it looks like this will save us and the HA a combined $1,676 a year. So that's nice. Thank you. Any more discussion?
Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Again, same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Next up is a change order on the library project. And the motion is to uh approve the
change order for an additional $1,650.50 making the complete HVAC change order request totaling 838550. And ISO move. Second. Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Chairman Johnson. Yeah, if you remember last year we increased the the uh library levy by 2% but we also in
addition to that put $400,000 into our budget to put a new HVAC and some exterior work on the library. Didn't have to. Just did it for the library. And they had this one change order here that they wanted to fix that they had an HVAC system with some humidity problems.
They have two furnaces. They weren't communicating properly. This change order should tie the two systems together and solve their humidity problem over at the airport. So HVAC recommended it and we're we're hoping everybody supports the library here. Thank you. Any more discussion?
Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. Okay. Next up is a resolution. Mike. Okay. I'll try to remember that. Yep. And the motion is to adopt the
attached resolution relating to finance transferring certain funds to and from bond funds and ISO move. Second motion by Johnson, second by Stunic Johnson. So we have a couple bond funds that are closed out. One is 12,889 in the plus
and one is 2871 in the negative. So it's a net positive balance of $10,027. And this resolution just transfers it from the individual bond fund accounts into the fund 400 which is just our syncing general debt fund.
Thank you. More discussion on that resolution. Seeing none, Tony, please call the role. Johnson, yes. Stunn, yes. Jagger, yes. Ericson, yes. Beans, yes. Chzuk, yes. OD,
yes. That is carried. Chairman Johnson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. this room. We had some discussion downstairs and we This is the HA 2026 levy request. We weren't quite sure what to do. The former liaison had a lot of opinions
about about the HA levy in years past, but we have a new liaison this year. So, we were kind of hoping Kevin Joerger could make a motion and guide us through why this is the correct choice for us to make for the HR this year if H this year if Kevin's willing. I certainly uh certainly would like to.
Um I will so what I would say is is that uh we had a fairly robust discussion at uh last HA meeting uh regarding this um a big driver in the numbers was as what many of our budgets are uh this year it's it's the human resource aspect of
this uh we unfortunately lost staff last year. We obviously don't know that that's a connection here, but we are always seeking as one of our primary initiatives uh and goals that was set forth that are that was set forth with our commission or with the HA is to
maintain a h a a a happy healthy staff uh and to keep the staff that we have. We feel that a big factor in that is being competitive to in the local arena uh for uh for the for jobs with those people. So that was a big big part of
our conversation regarding this um uh this year's budget ask and uh for that reason I think that uh uh the uh HR commission was unanimous in in pushing this forward and and uh certainly with a
lot of input from our director as well uh gained support uh from from the board. So and that's why we uh are pushing for this number to be approved uh this year. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Mr. Jagger. Any more discussion? Uh, can I ask based on what I heard
there, did you Okay. Yeah, please. Um, you said it was for HR um H. Okay. I thought I So, this is uh is this for the increased salary. Is that what you're speaking to? Well, I'm saying that was a a factor in
the uh in the budget request. Yeah, I didn't hear you specifically say that. So this is what the main factor for the budget request increases. I would say it's a contributing factor and perhaps uh Mr. Sharpier can weigh in on this as well. Um but uh that's
absolutely one of the drivers in uh in the budget request. Mr. Sharpier, please. Yes, thank you uh council. And to to that point, Councilman Chzach, certainly wage and benefit is something
that we continue to battle with uh as we look at our peer and our peer groups. The last two budget cycles, we've really been trying to um get back to a level playing ground with uh again some of our peer uh peers out there for our wage and
benefit. Uh we've seen significant increases the last couple of years as far as what our our discrepancy has been with the proposed budget uh and those increases will shrink what was a 16% roughly budget gap between pier down to
hopefully about 10%. Uh we're not doing this in one fell swoop. We are trying to be mindful from a staffing perspective and from a board perspective of of taking bites of that uh to get back to kind of peer level. Uh as Councilman Joerger stated, we have had some
turnover. Uh we've had some uh feedback from those that have left that uh were not able to take the position or for hiring andor reasons for leaving uh with other similarly situated uh jobs. uh was at the state of Minnesota and we know
we're not going to compete with the state of Minnesota but it was not close. So that is a driver. Certainly um you know all of the other ancillary costs that are continuing to go up those hit us as well. And so as our levy has
continued to stay level uh yeartoear we are seeing that we you know are are seeing a larger gap in our expenses that is also another reason for why we're requesting our full levy uh and projects. We know we want to continue to try to do housing projects within the
city. Uh that does take some funding and our board does work with a pretty small budget uh to try to get some housing u pushed through. Okay. May I Yes, Mr. So I heard Chairman Johnson um actually I think make ask Mr. Joerger to
make the motion to approve this. I I absolutely asked him to make a motion on the budget. Yes. On the Okay. And I didn't hear a motion, but um are are is there no motion coming out of committee? Then committee had no motion. We wanted to hear from Kevin. We didn't have a motion. That's clears it up. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Yes. Eric, just one question. The other income it looks like in in revenues dropped by $82,700. Yep. Pretty significant. Could you explain that one?
Yeah. So that line item particularly is for Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Uh we do rehab work through those through their program. That is a a reflection of eight projects that we had budgeted for this year down to six. And we base that off of our rehab director and what they
think uh realistically we can do. And so that is that reflection. You'll see that down in the expenditures as well. That did decrease as well uh in kind. Okay. Is that from now going forward? Is that looking? It's year to year. You know, we made a pretty significant jump this year in what we thought we could do. Uh, you
know, I think we're going to hit we've done two so far. We've got three in process. So, we're at five. We had budgeted eight. Uh, but on the revenue and the expenditure side, those really are almost a wash. So, the project amount while it does look significant
and I agree with that, on line item at at the end of the day doesn't move that budget. So that's where on the on expenditures where it's contract costs correct where that actually has gone down almost as much. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Beans, I I just looking at this um it's a 31% tax levy difference with a 12% in salaries. That seems a little
like a large difference. I know what I heard at the city's budget workshop on a 12% levy increase. I couldn't imagine how we'd probably still be here talking about a 31% increase. That seems a little high. The other thing that came
out of last year's budget discussion was, and we can't see this because we don't have a balance sheet, is how much cash does the H have? I mean, if they're levying to preserve capital cash, I would like to I would like to ask Eric if that's still the case. Are they we
still sitting on a lot of cash at the H? And maybe my recollection is wrong, but I'd like to know how much reserves, Mr. Sharper. Well, we have to we have to use our reserves to balance the budget as a city. So, you bet. So, historically, our reserves sit at 8 months uh especially on the
general fund due to funding timelines. So when we get our levy, we get that in typically in July. So kind of our board uh board recommendation is 8 to 10 months and we are sitting right at 8 months for that reserve.
What's the dollar amount? Is that like a h 100,000? I I don't have that off the top of my head. I'm sorry. Okay, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chzach. Um, I would move the table list to the 15th so we can get more information.
Okay. We have a motion by Chzach. Is there a second? I'll second it. Motion by Chzach. Second by Ericson. Any discussion? Just only discuss the date. What's that?
Can only discuss the date. Time and date. You can't discuss the issue. Okay, Mr. Chair, I'd suggest the uh 16th the 15th at 7:30. Thank you. Is that what you mentioned in your motion? 15. Yeah. City council meetings.
Thank you. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. I. That motion carries. Six to one. Uh Chairman Johnson. Okay. Next up is the library levy
request and the motion out of committee. It was a split motion, but I'll make it anyway. The motion is to set the 2026 levy at $155,840 in ISO move. Second.
Motion by Johnson, second by Stunic. Chairman. So, it's an increase of $3,56. It's another 2% increase. It's not an unfair request, but I think it's an
offensive request after they took out radio ads against us last year. Last year, we increased their budget 2% and gave them an additional $400,000 on top of it and then they took out radio ads saying they've never received an increase in funding. I understand they
were trying to target the county and waste their money taking ads about the county, but whoever wrote the script didn't specify county. They said the library has not received an increase in funding. And if the library board and the friends of the library want to treat the city of Brainard like that and take
out radio ads against us, I don't think we should be increasing their budget. That's why that's the only reason I voted no. It's not a financially unreasonable request. Thank you. Discussion. Uh Mr. Beaven. And to quote Gabe not two minutes ago, we hope
everybody supports the library. I I I understand that that there was some Oh, am I not on Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that there there there was some concern over those radio
ads, but they were they really were targeted to the county. And um it's it's our library. They do a lot of good things. They have an increase with Kitigami that they have to somehow come up with as well as the same 12% in
payroll that we all are dealing with. So I think the 2% is more than fair. Thank you, Mr. Beans. Any more discussion on that? Mr. President, Mr. Chzn, um I I do agree with Mr. Johnson's
concerns. Um, did we ever learn what the actual cost of that advertising was for uh the uh point it was targeted at the county but did not specifically target the county. So it implied that we were not giving any increase.
We're getting some headshakes that we don't have that number. Don't have that. Okay. We could find that though, right? It's friend I think it was purchased by friends of the library which is a p private supporting nonprofit. So I don't think even could we could ask but I don't think it's a public data. Okay.
Thank you. All right. Any more discussion? My question would be what is our levy for the library compared to the county? Is this another one that we split like the airport? The county levies the bare minimum. We levy about 40% more than the bare
minimum. Sounds generous. Okay. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. I I
Tony, can we recount that? Johnson, no. Stunn. Yes. Jagger, yes. Erikson, yes. EB Evans, yes. Chzac, no. OD, no. That motion carries
or three. Chairman Johnson. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Our last item is direction on the pilot contribution from the uh utility department. And we had a little bit of discussion. We went over all of this data in the packet. We didn't end up
with a motion. We did ask staff to come back with some more information and to have uh Danny and the public utility provide us some more information just so we have even more robust data to look at before we make a decision. And we'll just visit this again in a couple of weeks. Okay.
So, no motion. No motion. Ask a question, Mr. President. Mr. Chz, go ahead. Um Um Nick, I want to thank you for sending that conversation I have with uh the finance manager, Danny from the public utilities, but there's also a I
don't know if you weren't included, a spreadsheet. Um could uh we make sure that gets sent out to the council between now and our next meeting uh that Danny provided. It shows the revenues and expenses and where the utilities is at. Um
um I think the concern that I see is where we're at in in in uh revenues and what we have for upcoming projects, capital projects that um if we as a council are going to get more money
through the utilities from the pilot, I'd be concerned about that based on the projection that we're seeing. And then also um can somebody explain to me the process of how this has to be approved? Can the council just say we want more
pilot or does the commission have to approve it? That's one of my questions that I hope we could answer now. Okay. Administrator Broyals wants to take a shot at that. Well, thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to just answer the first half. So, the the spreadsheet was an oversight on
my part. Yes, I will get that sent out to everybody. Okay. and and my understanding and I'm going to I'm going to take a stab at this and joke and slap my hand. If if if the council wants to take some action on the pilot, that can be done via resolution. It could be done via the
budget process. To my knowledge, it doesn't have to get approved by the commission. Uh the council has that authority, but there's a variety of ways that they could implement that via resolution, the budgeting process, etc. Is that Jody? Do you have anything to add? Sorry, it's not my call.
Yeah, go ahead, Joe. I'm sorry. I don't at this point. I'd have to look into it some more to see what the options are there. More direction. Go. Yes. We'll get that then through your It's probably a better idea to leave this for a future date anyway. Um, is
this Are we planning on two weeks? Two weeks. Okay. And more? Yeah. I have just one more thing regarding that spreadsheet. I don't think I hope the spreadsheet that it gets sent out and that Jeff has reviewed isn't something that's intending to
confuse people because we're not we're talking about the pilot program from the electrical revenues of the electrical enterprise fund. We're not talking about the water fund. We're not trying to take any pilot program from the water fund. We're not trying to take any pilot program from the wastewater treatment
facility. It's solely focused on the electric fund. So any datas that's sent out, if you're including water or waste water, you're just adding noise that makes no sense to even include. I hope it's not there. I haven't seen it. I don't know.
Thank you, Chairman. Anything else? Chairman Johnson. End of report. Second. All right. Thank you. Moving on to 7B. This is Safety and Public Works Committee. Chairman Tad Ericson. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. We've got three items on our agenda. The
first of which is to approve change order number one, approvement 2113 for Beach Oakidge reconstruction project. The motion coming out of committee is to approve change order number one in the amount of 18,981. And I so move second.
Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach, Chairman Ericson. Yeah. So, uh, based on guidance provided by MDOT, uh, Anderson Brothers is not eligible to perform as a subcontractor on the project. uh staff had reached out to uh Land Rear Construction, who's the
general contractor, and asked them to um find suitable and acceptable replacement. Um and they've done that. Um and that replacement and uh due to some additional changes and u mobilization, there is an additional um $6.75
per ton increase uh which is the resulting dollar amount that we're we're recommending approval for. Thank you, chairman. Any more discussion? I have a question. Mr. Johnson, you know how much that $18,000 represents as a percentage increase of
the the street project of just like doing the street of that one subcontractor line? No, I don't I don't have that. Perhaps staff might if the president would at all. There's another question that will be coming up to from Councilman Joerger and
so I'll add and we'll just form our response and we'll send it out to the council. With that, we'll add that uh question to our response, Councilman Johnson, and we'll answer that to the whole council. Yep. Thank you. But to your point, it's
probably more than a million-doll project, but how much was to this one subcontractor, right? Yeah. Okay. All right. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign.
That motion carries. Chairman Ericson. All right. Thank you. Our second item, uh, approve change order number two, improvement 2313 for trunk highway 371B, Willow Street roundabout project. Uh, motion coming out of committee is to approve change order number two in the amount of 29,123
and 12 cents. And I so move second. Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. Yeah, just a additional comment on this. So this is uh different project virtually same situation um due to Anderson Brothers uh not being eligible to perform as a subcontractor. Uh same
thing staff reached out to Landre and they provided a suitable replacement um unit price adjustment for this one is $21.32 per ton resulting in that dollar figure I mentioned 29,123 and 12 cents.
Thank you chairman. More discussion on that. My question for staff maybe is that the difference in the per ton increase is a totally different material or what is what is the big change there?
Yeah, if they could weigh in but maybe this one this one was due to the volume size of the project but please elaborate. Yes, that is the roundabout is just the roundabout beach is a much larger project but I'll add that to our our response. Okay, thank you.
Okay. All right. Any more discussion? Yeah, Mr. President, Mr. Chza, the the projects of course are the volume is more volume means you're going to get a better price and I think mobilization of has a lot to do with it.
So, as I think Tad indicated, but uh I just want to say one thing. I I think this is a really crappy deal um all around for uh a business like Anderson Brothers and everything that's happened. Um it's too bad. Um, we don't really
have a choice here. So, if anybody looks at what we're doing as being uh unfair, it's where hands are tied. So, agreed. Agreed. All right. Any other other discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. I. Again, same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. All right. The last Yeah, would you mind asking? Yeah, I I was going to do that. Uh we had um further discussion not gerine to
these two contracts but we had discussion in in committee about um perhaps reviewing our contracts to see if we can protect further protect ourselves against such a situation as this. Um it seems as though you know the the general contractor is is u getting
out of this situation with um really not an increase to cost to them. um as well as the subcontractor that burden as we just approved really falls on falls on the city. And so we had discussion about um you know it'd be nice to maybe review the language in our contract to see if
we could further protect the city and the taxpayers from these types of situations going forward. Was there other comments that you wanted to add to that or is that a fair summary of our Mr. Chzach or either of you? Yeah. Yeah, Mr. Mr. Ericson, I think that's well
that was exactly kind of my question here is uh Mr. Langle is that the city has a contract with a general contractor. If a subcontractor to that general defaults by whatever means it it seems to me that the general contractor
should be taking that to case with the sub not with the uh the contract owner which is us. So that was just I was just I just raised the question regarding the language within our contracts. Maybe it's there, maybe it isn't there. Uh perhaps Jesse knows that has something
to share on that, but it just seems odd to me. Uh and that was the reason for uh the inquiry uh to staff. So perhaps that's something we could look at. Yeah, we can sort of look at it. It's going to depend upon two things. the language of the contract and also this is a state project so it's going to
depend upon the statutory umbrella under which this contract is done and whether the rules under the mind's rules impact this as well understood thank you and then just our our last item then
y go ahead which um was the approval of agreement between the city and wolf track energy for rotary park uh solar project um No action coming out of committee on this one. Um staff had updated us that they talked with Wolf Track Energy about
their bond and they were not bonding the full amount. I guess I'd just ask that um they were going to, you know, get back with them and get some additional numbers on kind of revamping that. So, um I'd maybe if it's all right with you, Mr. President, call on staff to give a brief explanation of why we're
tableabling that one. Mr. Haggor, go ahead. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Or Mr. President. Yes, we are. They only bid the project for half bond and as construct, you want to bond the full dollar amount for the project and so they said that they would have to
readjust their numbers and I um indicated well the numbers are already pre-approved. It's on the agenda for tonight. If you would like to pull it, I can pull it and then you could resubmit your bid and it'd have to go back to the commission park board and then finally city council. Okay.
Thank you. Mr. Chair, do do we need a motion to direct U attorney Langel to look at the contract at the contracts or just to button this up or Okay. If you guys want to make a motion for it though, that's I just didn't know if we gave clear
direction to what we wanted on those. So, is that clear direction? I understood there was consensus. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Great. Any more discussion? All right. Uh Chairman Erikson, thank you. That' be the end of the report. Thank you. Moving on to number eight.
This is unfinished business 8A. We have a call for applicants. First up, we have the honorable mayor Bedau. Thank you, Council President OD. The following uh chair or excuse me, boards and commissions have seats available. The charter commission, two
terms expiring 2025, two terms expiring 2026. Library board, one term expiring 2027. Public Utilities Commission, one term expiring 2028. Transportation Advisory Committee. Two terms expiring in 2025, one term expiring 2026.
And as council president, I have one term that expires in 2027 for the planning commission and two terms for the water tower committee. Moving on to number nine. This is new business 9A. We have a consideration for
a variance request for the placement of a garden shed in the front yard at 722 Mississippi Drive. Is this James Cranic? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh Allan and Nancy Albertson have submitted a variance request for the construction of a 12T by 18 ft garden shed in the front
yard. Uh this property is located in the garden living zoning district and is a riparian lot located along the Mississippi River. Uh detached accessory structures are required to be placed behind the principal structure in the GL district. Uh the property owners are in the process of constructing a new single
family home on this lot along the Mississippi River. According to section 530.09, which is our shoreland zoning code u within the city code, structures are required to be placed 150 ft from the ordinary high water line of the Mississippi River. A principal structure is located approximately 150 ft from the
Mississippi River, which is consistent with most riparian lot construction. Location of the house and the Mississippi River do not allow for the placement of the accessory structure in the year in the rear yard. In this instance, uh the construction of this accessory structure will not alter the
essential character of the locality. As proposed, materials will be consistent with the primary structure. Um along with other properties along the Mississippi River in this area do not have rear yard accessory structures as depicted in the latest Crowing County um GIS imagery. With that, the planning commission unanimously recommended
approval of this variance request as proposed. And I can answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Cran. Does anybody have questions for staff? Mr. Jez, I apologize if it was in the information, but what is the significance of the name garden shed as opposed to a shed?
I think that was just placed in the applicant uh as as in the application. So, essentially an accessory structure or shed. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Any questions for staff? If not, looks
like the planning commission voted. Motion to approve the planning commission's recommendation. Second. Motion by Chzach, second by Joerger. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same
sign. That motion carries. All right. Moving on to 9B. This is another consideration for variance request to expand a nonconformity uh sideyard setback for a vertical addition at 7037th Street North. James Cranic, take it away.
Yes, thank you, Mr. President. So, Courtney and Joseph Douglas have submitted a variance request to expand on a nonconformity to allow for the construction of a vertical addition to their house to add a bedroom. Uh, the foundation uh of the home is currently 4T 10 in from the fence line. The TN1
district requires a 5ft minimum sideyard setback. Uh, the fence line is not official, but in the absence of property pins can be reasonably used to establish the fact that the property is located um or the house is located on the property. As this is a vertical edition, staff is not requiring a survey of the property,
but was requiring a variance in order to do the vertical addition. As proposed, the roof line is changing and a dormer is being added to the north side of the property. Those are uh depicted in the construction plans. Uh the proposed materials and design are consistent with the surrounding structures and will not
negatively impact the historic characteristics of the neighborhood. I will actually add a design element uh one of the design elements that we recently updated um in our zoning code. Uh there are no economic considerations with this variance request. With that, the planning commission unanimously
recommended approval of the variance request as proposed. And I can answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Cranic. And this does not include any expansion to the north. It's just vertical. Just vertical. Okay. Just want to be clear. Anybody have questions for staff?
Not. Then we're just looking for a motion to approve. Move to approve. Looks like we have a motion by Evans, second by Jagger. All right. Third by Johnson. Way off. How about everybody? Just
Yeah. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. All right. That is it for new business. Moving on to number 10. This is staff reports. Anything from Tony tonight?
Chief Holmes, thank you. Chief Davis, nothing yet. Max Hannon, Connie Helman. Yes. Um, we received information from our local insurance agent about our workers comp experience mod rate for 2026. And the preliminary estimate is
that it will be 75. When we looked at our budget, we had our experience mod at 0.9. So, this is a reduction of expenditures of about $54,000 or a.76% change to the levy of a decrease. So, I just thought I'd share that news.
Every bit counts. Thanks, Connie. Mr. Hagarst. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. The transit consultant has concluded their recommendation and we will be reviewing that with staff and then I'll be sending it out out and we'll be having a formal presentation with TAC and then to the
city council. Thank you. Thank you, James Cranic. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few items here. So, we do have a very busy EDA agenda coming up. Uh, a couple items to update the council on. Uh, one of the items, we'll be discussing provisions of a potential purchase and development agreement with the
dermatology clinic that's interested in the industrial park property. Uh secondly, the EDA will also be reviewing a child care incentive policy and that could potentially wave $450,000 in valuation of building permits as well as zoning fees, but not waving the sack and whack fees um like the central business
district incentive policy. Uh if recommended, this will come before city council for final approval. Thank you, James. Mr. Langel, nothing for me. Thank you. Chris Schubert, nothing to add. Eric Sharpenter, nothing further. Thank you, Administrator Broyals.
Thank you, Mr. President, just want to give the council an update. Charter commission did meet on August 20th. They asked for another meeting within 30 days, so approximately September 20th. Basically, they asked staff to provide some suggested language for three
different areas of the charter. The first, which we talked about at length was chapter 5, section 4. The second was some suggested language on potentially combining the sanitary sewer. And the third was kind of while we're in there,
is there anything else you want us to look at? And they had one, it was really semantics, the one brief comment in chapter 2. So our city attorney is is going to be drafting up some language. We're anticipating getting that this week and then we will be getting another charter commission meeting scheduled
certainly within the 30-day window by September 28th, 29th. Question, Nick. Did anybody on the commission want to bring back the posi commentatus for the mayor? I sure hope so. Has not been discussed discussed. I'm
guess used to let the mayor raise a posy to go get the bad guys. Oh, I believe there was not brought up. I believe there was also a night I think that's a good rule. Discussion of a night's watch. So, I'd like to make sure that that that discussion happens as well, please. It also said you cannot race your horses
through the city as well. So, it was a little old. Only on the bridges. Okay. Anything else? All right. Chief Stunick, I have nothing. Jezac, um just maybe a question for Nick or any
staff. Um I under understand I hope I'm correct the Front Street Cafe is open again. Is that good news? Good news. They have been struggling and want to keep them keep them busy there and going. So I'm glad to hear that. And
uh once again that uh transit um dispatching system um I don't know if I can impress upon you guys enough it's really good. So it's uh something remarkable because for instance a bus driver told me he really likes it
because he's busy all the time. So what does that tell you? Tells me he wasn't working before. Yeah. Well wages back. All right. We're gonna go back to the mayor. I realize I I almost skipped over the honorable Mayor Berdau.
You know, I was going to say nothing to report, but I am going to report something. Actually, as a man who enjoys football, I just want to say congratulations to the Warrior football team on pulling off a fantastic victory uh the other night. I did notice
something though. Uh no booms. It has been a tradition in our area that when we score a touchdown, there is I don't care if there's actual fireworks, but I want to hear a boom. Dang it. And when we win, I want to hear a lot of booms. So, uh, I just let there be a
mayor's decree. And potentially, we'll have to make a proclamation demanding the booms that let me know when the Warriors win a football game. But congratulations to them. A fantastic victory. And a sophomore quarterback. something new in this area.
End of report. The money for the Mr. Mayor to the fireworks. Moving on to Mr. Bevans. Uh, thank you, Mr. President. As you heard from Nick, there's all kinds of stuff happening at the charter commission and I just want to emphasize the importance of we've got four
openings on the charter commission and so now's the time to jump on because when it rains it pours and we've got stuff happening. So, we need you now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beaven. Mr. Jagger. Uh, yes. Thank you. Just real quickly, a quick update on some happenings with the
airport. Myself, uh, Mr. Steve Barrows and Alderman Johnson met with the county today. And just to begin some conversation, uh, regarding the 50/50 split and and what that looks like moving forward with uh, county and and
Briner both being fairly represented and citizens both being uh, fairly levied for uh, for maintaining our our beautiful asset out there, the the Briner airport. So, um, we've got some work to do, uh, with some future future discussions, but, uh, I will say that
the the basic tenor in the room was very open and and healthy, and I think all both parties are looking for, uh, a nice resolution moving forward, as well as potentially looking at uh, rewriting some of the language in the ordinance that is vastly out ofd and is is our
controlling our current controlling document. Probably needs some touching up and I think we're going to be uh, taking a look at that. Perhaps Mr. Johnson wants to weigh in on that also as he was there. But uh I will just say good things happening and uh that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Jagger. Chairman Johnson.
Thank you. I'll uh do this for the mayor. He usually does. But it's first day of school everybody. Welcome back to school. Be safe getting to and from school. Drive safe around the schools. Uh yeah to follow up on uh Alderman Jagger's comments. It was a very
productive meeting with the county today and they are absolutely open to discussing the ordinance and moving forward and to making changes to it. We haven't identified exactly what that looks like, but we have identified that there's a willingness to talk about it
and communicate and that's that's a big first step. So, we're going to continue working on that. And then I did the math on those change orders. the uh first one, the Beach Street was an 8% increase and the roundabout was an 18% increase
by changing subcontractors. So, roads are getting more expensive by the minute. That's all I have. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. Chairman Ericson. Uh thank you very much. Looking forward to the upcoming planning commission meeting. I'm told we have got a full agenda
um and uh looking forward to that and then my other committee, the region five uh commission later in the month. Thank you. I wanted to repeat the first day of school news for everybody. I think everybody noticed the traffic if you were up today after a torrential
downpour. If you were bringing kids to school or just trying to get to work, it's it's noticeably different. Um hopefully we can get some of those roads back open and get rid of some of these detours soon as possible. Um but we'll have to deal with it for now. Uh but it's good to see those kids get back in
school. uh especially for those parents that are home all the time. Uh not myself, but my wife maybe. Um but I it was the first time that I saw the safe routes to school project at LOL and I think it turned out great. So and it was
working great too. So um good job everyone and we will see you two weeks. Looking for a motion to adjurnn. So move. Motion by Stunnick, second by Bevans. All those in favor say I. I. Again, same sign. We are journed.