All right. It is 700 PM on Monday, August 4th. This is the City of Brainard personnel and finance committee meeting. We'll call it to order and start with introductions. Kelly >> Kelly Beths, Brainer, City Council, Ward Two. >> Chris Schubert, HR Director.
>> Adam Olsson, Northwest Partners. >> Connie Hilman, finance director. >> Mlin, Brainer Fire Department. >> Joey E Fire Department. >> Kevin Stunick Large. Tim Holmes fire department strong technology director
>> John Davis police department dispatch >> popular meeting tonight Johnson chair of the committee we have five items the first of which is the uh fire department relief association annual report. Go ahead Joe. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um so we're just
submitting our uh schedules for the SC 25 um this uh upcoming year. We are looking for an increase to our annual benefit level. Um rather a bigger increase than we've taken in years past.
Um and in part of that is due to last year we were up against a $15,000 state cap. So we did not increase beyond that last year. On the 23rd of May this year, the governor signed an omnibus uh
pension bill on it moved that cap to $20,000 per year of service. Our fund allows us to maintain 107% funding with a $419,000 surplus and allows us to raise our cap to that 16750.
So your request tonight is to approve the uh report and the authorized and sign the annual reports and increase the level of benefit to 16750 per year. >> I so move >> second. Any questions or discussion?
All in favor say I. >> Same sign. That motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. I don't think we'll need you upstairs. >> Awesome. Thanks. >> Yeah. Thanks, guys. >> Bye. >> Okay. Okay, next up we have a sale of a retired police squad. Chief Davis.
>> Yeah, looking to sell retired police vehicle squad 432. This is our the second to the last owned vehicle our department has. This one is being replaced with a lease vehicle through Enterprise Fleet Management and um
looking also to use Enterprise Fleet Management as we have before to facilitate the sale of this vehicle. So recommended motion before you is to authorize the sale of retired police squad 432 utilizing enterprise fleet management.
>> So move second. >> Any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> That motion carries. Thank you, Chief. >> Thank you. >> Next up is uh 2026 health insurance proposals. Chris, >> so good evening committee. I'd like to
introduce Adam Olsson. He is our health insurance broker from our first partner. If you want to give a little information about what we talked about, please. >> Great. Thank you. Uh met with uh the insurance committee uh this past week. Uh back in June, Chris, myself, Britney,
a few others. We met to do the annual midyear review, take a look at claim utilization in relation to premium funding. uh happy to report that our claims utilization uh just general claim activity aggregately is down compared to the prior year. Uh we're running in a
territory on the the most completed 12 months of claims somewhere between 75 to 80% which typically bodess well for uh forthcoming renewals. So we feel at this time we are a desirable or a marketable risk to the insurance the entire
insurance health insurance marketplace I should say. So, uh, was discussed at insurance committee to seek bids this year. Northwest Partners, my team, we will facilitate that lift, package those requests for proposals. Take a look at
the Minnesota Healthcare Consortium, the public employee insurance program, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Health Partners, Medicica, United Healthcare. Uh, I think that covers it. So, we we also discussed taking a look at fully insured proposals and self-funded proposals. uh we don't
stand before the group tonight saying self-funded is necessarily the way to go but we thought it might be educational as we continue to grow and move year and year out. So um couple things to note. If we were well
by uh for formally announcing marketing uh we do need to notify source wall the better health collective. By doing so we do forfeit our rate cap for 2026. That is a 15% rate cap. They also apply some scorecard credits which gives us a
little bit of a discount. I know the city has some other insurance offerings, some cash and lube programs for folks that don't take the insurance. So, uh, as Chris and I have talked about, we don't necessarily score so well in the scorecard. But, um, another thing to consider the, uh,
wellness grant dollars that actually are provided by Sourcewell and the better health collective, if we were to move away from that program, we would need to solve for some other means of providing those wellness and financing dollars. Um at this point we feel that given our
current loss ratio we are again a desirable marketable risk to the insurance marketplace. We do not feel that the source wealth better health collective will come out anywhere near the rate cap. In fact we're probably trending somewhere
I don't have a crystal ball but I would say probably mid to high single digits I would think at at worst at least from the preliminary renewal of that source. Better Health Collective will present the city. We feel by finding competitive bids, we can use that as leverage and
negotiation uh to hopefully get in and land in a best and final place. So little recap from our recent discussions. So staff has recommended action or possible options could be either to authorize North Authorized partners and
staff to conduct the RFP for our 2026 health insurance policy or to just plan to accept the 2026 health insurance renewal from the Better Health Collective when we received towards the end of August. It's actually August 21st. We need to notify them. We have to
start this process now if we're going to get our everything ready for open enrollment. That's where we're coming to now instead of waiting until after we get that actual. >> So those are the two options. It sounds like Adam is recommending we go with option one. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> I would make that motion then. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. That motion carries. >> Okay. Next up, uh, purchase discuss the purchase of perform and next
request software. So, staff is seeking council direction on purchasing or budgeting for two new software programs. The two programs are perform which is a an employee performance tracking software and next request which is um to track and respond
to data requests. Um, in the agenda item, we discussed our current process and what perform would do for us. Um, we're hoping staff would like to be able to purchase the software in 2025 so that it would be set up and used in 2026 for
the 2025 reviews. Um, the cost estimate to start on September 1, for example, is a onetime cost of about $4,600 and the annual license fee of $10,400. The estimate for the 2025 budget would
be about $4,864. The next request um give gave a little information that the city has received over 1,600 data requests in 2024 and about 939 to date in 2025. Um staff assumes that it's likely that
the data request will continue to grow in number and complexity in the upcoming years. The current process is very labor intensive. It's manual tracking deadlines to respond recordkeeping and this particular challenge when a request is across multiple departments. Next
request would track the request communications and document proof of compliance. Um and all data requests would be received through a portal and information could be redacted through the software rather than having to redact it and then scan it in before it can be sent out.
There's a onetime fee of about $1,500 and an annual cost of $10,800 or $10,788 for year one. Another consideration for the 2026 budget is that the city did lose the $20,000 funding from
Sourceville to pay for the police um management software. Um staff was told last year that the grant would be an annual option for funding the software. their attorneys reviewed it and said no that we could not be used for an annual expenditure like the software subscription.
So the recommended action motion is to discuss of perform and next request software and consider authorization to purchase perform in 2025 to be able to use and the 2026 for 2025 reviews and consider authorization to budget for f
for both softwares in 2026. >> Any questions? >> I have one Mr. Chair. If we buy it in 2025 and it's a 2026 budgetary item, it really isn't. We budget for it for 2025. >> Correct.
>> Right. And we're going to So any discussion we have this fall will be too late because we're buying it in 2025. We're right. >> So that's why it would be about just under $5,000
unbudgeted expense in 2025. Repeat that one more time. >> It would be about a $5,000 expense in 2025 that was >> we're paying for the last part of the year >> or for the first part of the term. >> Gotcha. Okay. All right. >> So, we be budgeting for
>> this is our chance to talk about it. >> Yes. >> Okay. And and then second thing, if I may, Mr. Chair, I can certainly see the data practices that we just recently were challenged on that and lost. So, I I can see that. I I'm I'm not a 100%
certain that the that the other one >> perform >> performance evaluation one since sometimes that's a problem with our staff to fill those out no matter how we do it. So why pay more money? In other words, why pay more money if we're not going to do it?
>> That that would be my initial thought. And I'm not trying to be derogatory, but it does seem like we have a difficult time getting staff to fill those out. And I'm talking staff across the board. I know. >> So Kelly, if I can respond to it was an issue in years past. It was not last
year completed that it is required in our employee policy manual and employees do not complete or submit a performance review form with their supervisor looking at it. It is a disciplinary issue at that point. >> Good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> And as explained in the agenda request, our current process is quite, you know, labor intensive now. Everything has to be printed out for it to be signed and then it's scanned in to be filed where this would be an automatic. It would eliminate that one step that takes a lot of HR's time. >> Right.
>> Right. But the lawsuit we lost wasn't because we didn't have a piece of software. It's because we didn't respond to the data request. Just ignored it that you can't do that. >> It fell through the cracks. >> Yes. Right. >> It fell through the cracks. We'll call
it that. So, I don't know why I'm hesitant to spend $11,000 a year because we don't know how to hit send on emails. I don't think Next request is going to do that for you. I just don't think it is. And then I
don't I I question the $15,000. I don't know what direction we're going with HR over the next year or two, but this seems like a big commitment to get into. When I met with Nick and Connie and Chris on Wednesday, I brought up how much software do we subscribe to? citywide. How much software do we
subscribe to? And are we using it at all? And do some departments subscribe to something that other departments could benefit from that we don't need to buy new software. It maybe doesn't affect these two purchases, which I'm already against, but it just be
interesting to see what software subscriptions we have and if they're even being utilized. >> And I imagine you would know if they're being utilized. Right. Correct. We can provide that if you want. >> I absolutely do.
>> And one thing we talked about that meeting as well, Gabe, correct me if I'm wrong. Um, you brought up the very same point with which I think is a valid point. Um, if if the committee and the full council decides to approve they obviously they can disapprove these, but if the council decides to approve these,
it's just proving us putting them in the in the budget. we can still take them out and then concurrently we can take an action item to get back to the council with what software we currently have and are we utilizing that to it to it its fullest capacity. I have another question, Nick. It it it
seems like that contradicts what I just said because if we approve this tonight as a council, not necessarily just here, we're buying it for the next >> but before the final budget is published. I mean, there is you guys could publish from the budget. Correct.
>> Perform. You're correct. We're asking to purchase in 2025, but you could say tomorrow. >> But you could say we're waiting on both. Put it in the budget. See what it happens. We just won't be able to use it for 2025 reviews, but it can be in 2026. Put it in the budget, see how it looks.
One of the items that we can cut if needed >> or if council decides. >> And that brings up where I was with this. Is there a timeliness in the next two weeks on this >> just to try to get the perform up and running if we're going to use it for the 2025 reviews?
>> There's about a three monthly way >> three monthly time in order to get it set up. My I'm I'm I'm I'm hesitant, Mr. Chair, just because of the the usage, the long-term commitment, and the necessity, particularly of the performance reviews reviews. That being
said, I can see I can read that there appears to be a benefit to staff on this. And in the four days since I've had my packet, I've struggled with this one. It doesn't mean I wouldn't vote in favor of it, but I would much like to
see what Sean comes back with on what we're what we've been purchasing and what we're using and what we're not using. I I would be I would be much more enthusiastic if I if I had a little more time to be convinced that this is
something we'll use and benefit from. It seems logical to me to cover our bases to see what we have and what we don't have and how we're using it before we go ahead and prove this. To me, I would like to wait two weeks and get see some more information from
our IT department and also to be able to digest the value in more than four days. So that that if if it's all right with you, Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd make that motion that we that we withhold this for two more weeks to get more information from
the IT department. >> I would second that. >> Okay. Uh I'll support that because it just puts it out for two weeks and I can still vote no in two weeks when people want to approve it. But I I going to be a no. I think >> we definitely shouldn't be implementing it in 25 since it wasn't budgeted. But
then if we do in 26, this should be similar to all other departments budgetary requests, not slipped in before we do the budget. So they get their way at HR and nobody else can everybody else has to go through the traditional process of putting in the requests to finance for the budget.
>> That was my first point. Although I I will I will have to then contradict a little bit because I I believe in staff. believe you would not be presenting this if it wasn't something you thought would have value. And I think we ask an awful lot of our staff. I I think we work a
lot. I think our staff works very hard and if there's things that can make the process easier and better that then we should at least look at it. >> So that that's why it's I don't want to vote no on it now for the reasons you
just mentioned. But by waiting two weeks, getting some information, we'll get more clarity which will help us make that decision. >> Yeah, exactly. Plus, it gave me a chance. I haven't sat down to talk to Connie. I haven't sat down and talk to Chris and just like like you have. So, >> I'd like to do that. >> Chief Davis, if you have anything to
add, you guys have the most data request. I mean, >> if I may, we got 15 minutes. >> I'll just be 12 minutes. >> I'll be frank. This next request software is something that I brought to a department head meeting and to Nick
and the reason I did was um the amount of data requests we're doing and they're so complex um and we have data requests for the police department is night and day difference than it was two years ago. It is the complexity and the the
amount of requests where it's pretty transparent. they're out to get us um and looking for a misstep and especially when it's involving multiple departments, emails from IT, human resources, us. And the reason I brought this forward was um I I think our
process is as good as it can get with a lot of the manual spreadsheets and this and that. But as I as I navigate through this and I spend a lot of time on this um I just keep coming back to um
there we're going to get caught on some errors here and we're going to be back into that position with a lawsuit and no intention on anyone to make these errors. They're they're so convoluted and so complex. It's just a matter of time until staff makes an error. It's just it's it's not possible not to. Um,
and I wish I could like sit down and really, um, show you the depth of some of these. Um, and I just had a legitimate concern that, um, you know, without this software that tracks it and really does it right and takes all those
safeguards and allows you not to make these errors and make these mistakes, um, that it's just a matter of time till we're presented with another issue. And I think another item that it would all come to one portal would be very helpful instead of some go to Tony, some go to John, some go to Chris, you know what I
mean? Like it would all just be you have a data request, it's all in one versus getting sent to different people. I think that would be very helpful >> for one request. The email threads that we get going amongst department and sharing and it gets so it's so challenging to keep track of. Um it
>> and 934 of the data requests that we've se re received this year are coming from or are the police department >> with this information. Now if we'd had this before we made the motion I'd said let's go for it.
>> I mean we got more information >> off for two weeks because I'd like to know more. As a matter of fact, Chief, you just brought up another question for the IT department. Not to necessarily ask tonight, but to answer in two weeks would be where's all this data,
all these emails and stuff through this single port hole coming? That seems dangerous to me coming from. Okay, so I make a data request. I want to know about some police procedure or an email that went out regarding a something that
and I've seen some of these. So, I understand this is a potential huge problem. But I would also say if I'm just sitting at home with nothing to do and I start pounding the city with data requests, how how much of the information how much
of the com how much of the information that's on the city's computers is going to be available to me if I ask the right question. And I'm being a little I'm not looking for an answer necessarily now, but if you think you can, I would be concerned that there would be some
vulnerability on single portal accessibility to all of our city data. >> So I think this doesn't do that. >> Well, let's see what he says. >> I was going to say the emails all backed up to one spot. We have millions of
emails. So things have to be the search engine has to be worded exactly right. And it takes roughly five days to run a search. You hit start and you watch the bar go by. Come back in five days and see what's done. If you did it wrong,
you start the search again. If it doesn't find anything like this last search was 26,000 emails since March 1st or something like that. Now I got to whittle that many emails down to actually answer the data request. And sometimes we have to send it off to an
attorney. Then I don't even know we're paying per hour. >> But all of these data requests are timely. Yes. >> Short. And they're short time. >> 10 days if you're the subject and >> reasonable amount of time, but they're not the data subject.
>> Okay. >> But that's still going to have to be done. We're still going to have to have people actually getting the documents, putting them together. This software is just like setting up a reminder in your inbox that hey you got to hit send on that email. >> It's also though you can redact things
through the software that right now we have to print out redact and then scan it back in. >> Okay. >> So you know >> I'm leaning more towards what what Chief Stumick said but I I will stick by since I'll stick by the motion. I don't think two weeks is the end of the world. I'd like to learn I'd like to learn more
about this. >> And this is exactly why we brought this to council is so that we didn't put it in the budget. It wasn't something that we were trying to get in. We wanted to have authority to put it in the budget from the council. >> Mhm. >> Understood. >> We appreciate that.
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> So, the motion is to bring this back with some more information in a couple weeks or to our next meeting. >> Yeah. >> All those in favor say I. >> I oppose. Same sign. That motion carries. >> Budget timeline, Connie.
>> It is 2026 preliminary levy needs to be set by September 30th. Um the preliminary levy is what's used to send out all the tax tax statements in November to all property owners. The final levy adopted in December can be lower but not higher than the preliminary levy. Um the council
president, chair, PNF, and city administrator will meet on August 14th. The park board will present the budget at the next council meeting and we'll have a bud potentially have a budget workshop on Monday, August 25th. Um have additional workshops or further
discussion about the budget and levy in September and set the preliminary levy at the regular council meeting on September 15th. So the discussion of the proposed timeline and to set a budget workshop for Monday, August 25th at 6 p.m. >> See what day of the week that is.
Monday. >> It's the last Monday in August. >> Last Monday in August. >> I shall move to it. >> Second. Yeah. >> Okay. All those in favor? I >> 8:26 or 25? >> 25. >> 25 at 6 PM. >> Yes.
>> There was a six in there somewhere. >> And anything else to come before us? Okay, we're adjourned.