We're ready. Okay. It is Monday, July 7th, 6:45 p.m. at the city hall second floor conference room. We'll call to order the city of Briner Personnel and Finance Committee. We'll start with introductions. Kelly Beavens, city council ward.
Sean Strong, technology director. Nick Bro, city administrator. Connie Hillman, finance director. Tim Spyer, dispatch. Chris Schubert, HR director, and Gabe Johnson, chair of the committee. We have six items and 45
minutes to take care of them. The first item is to approve the renewal of a contract with CLC for the peg channel operations. Sean? Yep. So, tonight's pretty straightforward. We've uh hit the three-year mark on reviving the cable channel. So, it's been three years. This
is the original length of the contract. So, we're suggesting that we renew it for another three years and see where that gets us. Uh this doesn't really uh the wording of the contract didn't change a whole heck of a lot. Um, we added the public utility commission and the HA meetings to the meetings that
they would cover. Um, we removed the cable advisory committee uh wording in there and we added a $150 deduction for meetings that they're not able to staff, meaning city staff would have to staff them, which is just a way of uh foreseeing that there will be days that
he's either sick or on vacation or whatever. got to cover instead of this past year where we had to like reverse engineer all the fees to try to figure out what the bill for not covering meetings. But other than that, it's just another three years of the same. So the recommended action is Oh, sorry. Recommended action is to
approve the three-year contract CLC. I'll second. Any questions, Kelly? None. All in favor say I. I. Opposed see sign. That motion carries. Next up is to consider a request from the employee wellness committee.
Well, Sean, is Sean gonna be upstairs or you handle that both times? Um, so I guess he won't need to be upstairs. We'll just handle it. And there are no samples. That's right. That's why we when the senior center comes to do their presentation, they bring donuts. Sorry.
Yes. Uh the employee wellness committee is requesting the city operations close for 2 hours from 11:30 to 1:30 on October 2nd to conduct our annual employee appreciation event at the public works uh building. Um we asked for this 2-hour closure last year. It
seemed to work better than what we had for an hour and a half the year before that. So recommended action is to close city offices again from 11:30 to 1:30 on October 2nd for the employee appreciation event at the public works building. I do have a question, Mr. Chair. Uh, but
I am supporting this, but my question is in the past, or at least in the recent past, we had a large group of employees choose not to show. Did they get an hour and a half paid off? No. Okay. So, just want to make sure that's clear that if you choose not to come,
this is paid if you come. Correct. But if you don't come, you're expected to work. Okay. I move motion to approve. Second. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. That motion carries. Next up is a revised MOU allowing IBW
employees to work at the hydro facility. Chris, so after we had the contract settlement with United Steel Workers earlier this year, the IBW union did not agree to theou allowing those IDW employees to work at the hydro facility. Specifically, they were concerned
regarding the rate of pay noted in thatou. Additional discussions took place and we included included a revised in the packet. The IBW union had agreed to. Um also since then the United Steel Workers has agreed to it as well. They gave me a
signed copy of it today. Uh the recommended motion is to approve the attached revised allowing IBW employees to work at the hydro facility through December 31st of 2027. I move to approve.
Second. All in favor say I. I same sign. Chris, can you can you mention this upstairs or Gabe if you're Chris's explanation isn't needed that the IDW is the public utilities unit, not the administrator.
Right. All right. I'll clarify that. Okay. Uh I've got an update regarding the Minnesota paid family medical leave and counelor benefits. Earlier this year, we the council authorized a request for proposals process to obtain
plan design proposals and pricing holds for a private plan to administrator to administer Brainer's paid family and medical leave. Our broker integrity benefits conducted the RFP on our behalf and also for 132 other clients um
throughout the city and excuse me throughout the state of Minnesota. Integrity analysis of the proposals are attached. It is a comparison um also to the state administered plan. We had five companies that responded to the RFP with MetLife submitting the most favorable
proposal at a payroll premium rate of 79% compared to the state's rate of 888%. If the if Brainard elects to go this route, it is estimated that the city of Brainard and the Brainard HR will save
approximately $13,000 in premium. Um, MetLife's proposal also included a rate guarantee for either one of one or two years depending upon the city utilizing some of Metife's other insurance products. We are doing um RFPs for some
of those proposals at this point. We have already received a short-term disability proposal and I should note short-term disability is fully paid by the employee, not the employer at all. and that our STD plan, the short-term disability plan, will have to do um
change quite a bit. We already approved you, Sean. I do, too. Gotcha. Um it'll have to change in 2026 because of paid family medical leave. With that said, staff is recommending that we um and integrity benefits, our
broker is recommending to accept MET lice proposals for both the paid family medical leave and for short-term disability effective January 1st, 2026. No questions. And then I move to approve. Second, is that $13,000 in annual
savings projected? Yes. And it's about 12,000 for the city and 11,000 for the H. It is based on first quarter 2025 wages. So it actually probably more than that. Now when do we This is effective January
1st, 2026. So we're we're really only saving off a budget a budgeted amount. Correct. So we can't go buy a new air conditioner for the police department. It's a reduced budget generator. It was a generator. If they've got a generator, we don't hear
that. That was the deal. that we'd need 10 years of savings to pay for a generator bill. I mean, Bill is on the line from Integrity Benefits. Questions for him actually. You think so? I hope so. It's all right. Okay. I don't know if Bill is there or not. Hi, Bill. Thanks for being here. We
don't have any questions. Hi. Thank you. Thanks for having me. All in favor say I. I. Post. Same sign. That motion carries. Next up is authorized request for proposals for long-term disability insurance.
So, according to state law, political subdivisions must request or do a a request for proposal process at least every 5 years and when we have group insurance benefits and it is now time to complete our RF RFP for our long-term disability insurance as it has been 5
years since our last process. So um integrity benefits has also suggested that we propose an alternative plan design to the carriers that changes our LT benefit elimination period. It currently is 6 months and there um the alternate would be for three-month plan
and that is because of the duration of the new paid family medical leave benefit that starts again in January 1st. Um, integrity benefits has informed us that this will be the standard LTB elimination period in Minnesota as of 2026. So that claimants don't have an
extended period of time for their income loss as they transition from paid family medical leave to LTD. If the city decides decides to choose that option, the proposed plan change should be negotiated with unions and we can negotiate that at a future date. We
don't have to do that right away in 2026. So, the recommended action is to authorize staff at Integrity Benefits to conduct an RFP process for our long-term disability insurance based on our current policy and what the alternate plan design is proposed.
I have no questions and I move to approve. Second. All in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Item number six, discussion regarding roles and responsibilities of the city council and public utilities commission. Nick,
thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh at on the June 16th city council meeting, uh council directed staff to solicit input from both the council and the commission regarding any ambiguities, any uh lack
of clarity, if any, between um the role of the city council and the role of the public utility commission. We sent out that email. We received five responses, three council members and two commissioners. So included in this packet are all the emails from those five individuals are included in the
packet. Also chapter five of the charter is included in the packet and also the org chart is included in the packet. So in the recommended action motion staff put together in addition to the five letter the five emails and the comments with those we put together some um
potential questions that need clarification. So this is really I have presenters as as myself and Chris Schubert. I expect those to largely be a a council driven conversation, but we will certainly answer questions, whatever you guys have. What staff is
looking for out of this is if council has any direction for staff regarding any of the five comments from the emails, any of our questions and the recommendations and actions and motions um to provide that to staff and it might be where council provides our recommendation to staff and just
maintain the status quo. Um, but this is just a time for discussion and to give staff direction if council so chooses. Okay. There were a number of items and plus some. I didn't get mine in writing. I have a couple that are not in writing,
but I may add. How do you want to tackle this, Kelly? Um, you know, I can I can only highlight what I said. I I I mean it it appears the only part of the charter that I
found unclear was where the city shall employ all necessary help to the commission and that seemed a little subjective or open-ended. So if the if the commission decides
that they need $1,000 each in gold bars, that seems unreasonable to me. If the city or the commission decides they need 17 public utilities directors, they cannot function without that seems that
that line seemed a little subjective. Now, has it ever been an issue since in 23 years? Not to my knowledge, there's never been a argument between the public utilities commission and the city council re regarding that line. All
necessary help. I mean, so is it, in other words, it might be fixing something that's not broken. The only other thing I I had on there was referring to Mr. Evans resignation. There was an awful lot of accusations and it seems to be a little bit unclear
to me at least as to where the city is going with integration of of further integration of any of the public utilities departments because it appears Mr. Evans was concerned or had concerns regarding that and maybe if if he was
unclear and it appears he was. I noted many different instances in his resignation letter and we as a council have not done anything but to but to not
allow staff to even speak of it. We should probably clarify where we're going with that. Are we done with integration? That would clarify things with the annex as well as hiring a new public director. You wouldn't want to hire another public
utilities director with all the I don't know if anything in Mr. Evans letter is factual and it was his letter. He got to write whatever he wanted. Now, I didn't I I don't know if anybody nobody redlined it or or said yes, this did
happen. This didn't happen. I talked to him about one thing which you're aware of but it was something that I to my knowledge was no longer an issue and I'd be glad to speak of it. Jeff Chzik was in the room as well as was dialing up.
But my point is is if we're going to move forward with hiring a public utilities director, I feel nothing in the charter is in need of immediate repair outside of the one thing that I mentioned. Mhm.
And and of course, if we're going to hire a director, then there's then there's a lot of stuff we should probably clarify. Something else that has come up is, you know, there was some talk about combining, as you're well aware, you know, our lift stations and our force mains are run by BPU. Gravity is
run by the city side and there was some talk about integrating those two functions, which I would certainly support. You know, would that require a charter change? Yes. Last time we were changing the charter, I tried combining them. Okay.
There's no appetite for it. So that's something that for the council to consider as well. Um and but I mean the staff and that's exactly my point. Staff was given direction via motion a month or so ago to cease and desist all
chat about integration for like a year. So we are going to abide by that unless council tells us. So that according to that we probably shouldn't hire a public utilities director for a year until we until we square that away. or if we do, we certainly need to do something according
to Mr. Evans's letter, something different than we did when we hired him. His letter is very clear and I highlighted what he claimed. And I apologize. I I have no way of knowing whether his claims were accurate or
truthful. I I'm not meaning to not meaning to put him on the stand. He's long gone. But but I forbid to do it again. And you were part of the hiring thing. Oh, I was not. I was part of union negotiations dealing with that stuff. Karen Terry was part of the hiring
thing. Karen Terry was part of the hiring. So I would I would I have always and I will continue to recommend that um we do move forward and hire a director. I think that's I I think that's the best way to go. I think it would be advised to
continue with a three-headed leadership team over there. I just don't think that's the best way to run the organization. That's my opinion. Well, and if it's going to be a year until we discuss integration again, you're probably right. But but according to Mr. Evans, we need to do something
different. And I agree with you on that. And what I I didn't submit in writing, but I verbally shared with Chris and Nick a number of times is the two things that stick out to me from that resignation letter. Whether you want to say it's all phony or all real, it doesn't matter.
Two things that stick out to me as a policy maker is he accused us of lying to him in the hiring process. Yes. How are we going to fix our communications? What are we going to say? What are we going to do better as a city? I'm sure you guys all did everything
perfect and nothing could be improved. But I also challenge you to consider that maybe something could have been done better and he wouldn't have felt so hurt. And then two, the answer in two boxes. it needs to end that people think
there's two bosses to our employees. We have the organizational chart here. You will see that you have the city council and the commissions and everything goes to the city administrator. Every single employee in the city of Brainard is under the city administrator or one of its department heads. Okay.
So, a public utility director answers to the city administrator and nobody else. Do you agree with that? That's Yes. People are confused by it. Like Nick Evans, Chris Chris Evans thought he had two bosses. Somebody was telling him somebody thinks that there's
Who was the second boss besides the city's administrator? I think the the commission is what I assumed. I don't know. I don't know either. The charter is very clear as to what the commission's job is. Right. The city council employs and sets all
terms and conditions of employment from the city council. But there seems to be confusion on it or there was Chris Evans seemed to be confused on it. That's my point. He thought he had multiple. If what you're saying is correct and Gabe is saying is correct and I
believe both of you I I see no confusion as to quote uh Darth Vader. There is no what does he say? Crying in baseball. No, there is no crying.
I think that's two different movies. Oh, is it? So there is no conflict. There is no conflict. Yeah. Something and Chris, you can jump in if you have some things to add. This is where we want to kind of carve up most of our time to talk about this. Um,
does the commission, and I'm not here to advocate for one position or other, but does the commission have a role in hiring? In other words, should they approve or disapprove job descriptions? Uh, should they approve or disapprove any hires for the director, for managers, for uh rank and file
employees, or do they have any personnel role to play at all in our hiring for the city? I think there is no role for the commission to play whatsoever in the personnel except for where a personnel policy manual has
stated that there would be a committee to do the interviewing process. And that's brings up another question. Is that committee purely advisory? Do they have any authority? In other words, if we put together me and Chris and some representatives from the council and some representatives from the commission
and form a committee to hire a director and that committee comes up with a recommendation, is that is that the recommendation? Is the recommendation ultimately lie with me and they just said our advisory that's not I don't think that's clear. Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris. Is that clear in the in
the employee policy manual? It says that a work group shall be formed. that we added that because the commission was worried they would have no say. They didn't want authority. They wanted to be in so they could give their input. So that's why we added that. So
it is the city administrator's sole discretion on who is hired as a department head. So in your opinion, the work group is purely advisory to the city administrator. I would say so. And I make the recommendation. Now, as a courtesy to put a public utilities member on that commissioner, I think is
a good idea. Onto that work group is a good idea. Absolutely. Just like we did with the job des the new job descriptions in the IT department. We did we did send that over to U. Didn't Didn't they look at that as well? No,
they didn't. Aaron did. Aaron did. Yeah. Right. As their IT supervisor. I think he did. You're right. Don't do that. Do this. Yeah. And I think that would be a courtesy. This is our current public utilities job
director's job description. I I don't see a it would be the council to change it. The council's prerogative to change it, but to let the public utilities commission look at it.
It's not changing to my knowledge. Unless it is, you haven't I haven't seen a proposal for a change to But if they're But so so in theory, they already have it, right? We're not changing it. So, but if they had a if they had a suggestion on
something to change, I would appreciate hearing it, but it doesn't mean I'm going to abide by it. But does that make sense? It's like when the park board those things. So anyway,
so if I can go back to item number one under the recommended uh motion or the action um we talked about control, operate and manage the utilities I have had the following utilities of the city and then it goes on to name pipes y
cords and plants doesn't name a single employee right I agree but people get confused and so there was comments that's why we're to clarify. Correct. And that's why there's a couple bullets underneath. And the one bullet
says, do they manage the personnel or does it simply mean the commission's oversight is to make the organization it make sure that it's running efficiently within budget and keeps an autonomy for setting rates? Is that what when someone asks me what is the commission's role
when they um control, operate and manage the utilities? Is there a statement that we can provide to them? And this was actually from Commissioner Madden. She gave us this direct information and we quoted her to make sure that we tried to clar clarify this
when I've been asked that question. I've compared it to the park board. The language in the charter is very very similar almost the exact same between the park board and the public utilities commission. The park board has control over all the parks. They set the
programming. They set the priorities. They set the capital budget. That's all in their wheelhouse. The council can ask them to change things. And we have budget authority just like we do over the commission. But but they control nobody. They can't tell the staff what
to be doing. They set the policies. They set the plans and then it's up to the city administrator and the public works director to see it happen to implement. And if at the public utilities commission, I see the same thing where the commission would make all operational decisions for the
utilities, not the human beings who work there, but the actual utilities, and then it would be up to Nick and the public utility director or the administrator and public utility director to make sure their will is implemented. I think several people will be happy to learn of that clarification. Thank you.
Um, the next one, Kelly kind of talked this already, to employ all necessary help. Mr. Chaz had um some comments in his where it said you know this council is required by the charter to hire every position or the number of staff is
recommended by the commission. Is that are we required to that is the council required to do that or is that per the budget? I'm just trying to understand how to respond to his question there.
Shall is a pretty strong word. But I I think there's ambiguity there now. If they bud Okay, if they let's make it more practical. They budget for three linemen or four
linemen and we can't we can't get applications. Is the Is the council in violation of the charter? Because it says shall and they've budgeted for four and we're not getting them four. Are we in violation
of the charter? Technically, yes, based on that. However, practically, no, cuz we can't get a person to my point being in in the case of delaying the public utilities director,
um, which the council has done. There's the PRA, there's the charter, which by the way, a violation of the charter is there's not there's not consequences. So, there's that. But the other the
other point is and I will contradict I will be contrary to our city administrator is I might suggest that the reason I supported the delay is because the council is not has not gone into enough detail on
integration per Mr. Evans letter. Now if we have if if the motion out there as you just stated it and you stated it different than I remember it was one year we can't even discuss it. So that
being staff can't discuss it that but the council couldn't do it. Mhm. So that being said, if if there's if that to me that leaves open-endedness as to what what we're doing with integration and I think
according to Mr. Evans that creates uncertainty at least in the hiring process. I would want if I read if I was an employee, if I was an applicant for that job and I read Mr. Evans letter, I'd
have some serious questions as to the direction the city's going with their public utilities. I'm just telling you that now I that might be too much detail for an applicant, but it seems that the city of Brandon is on everybody's radar when it
comes to hiring directors. So, I I just think it's uh it I believe you had advanced warning or notice of the that we go through some city administrators. I don't know that that's always a bad
thing, but but well, I think every this is just kind of a thought. I think every in every healthy organization, an employee that's coming new into an organization to me for sure within the first week, they should know exactly who
they work for, exactly what their job is, exactly who can task them, exactly who they can task. Um, all of those things should be known very, very, very early on. I'm not saying they that exists or doesn't exist here, but if there's improvements that we can make in that
area, I would be fully in favor of that. I think all employees u perform better with certainty and predictability and understanding what the rules of engagement are, what they can and can't do, where the lines are, and I just think people perform better in that environment.
Do we have a problem? I don't know. The council can decide that, but I don't know that we do either, actually. I only know what Mr. Trains wrote, you know, and so I I I I don't, but it would be a 20 minute
workshop probably or an hour workshop to determine whether we're going to go any further with any kind of integration. You just mentioned force mains and lift stations and that sort of stuff.
And at one point, one of the advantages I saw in integration is everything underground under one roof. That seemed to make sense to me. But if we're not going to integrate anything, then that's not going to happen. Of course, it could go the other
way, right? We could take all of the gravity stuff and move it out to public utilities. That was something Mr. Chzach just mentioned. And we'll have to explore if there's any any implications with the bargaining units. and we'll our attorneys are looking into that if we do make some of
these changes particularly with the waste with the sewer. Um we'll have to just see if what the implications are with the bargaining units. Yeah, we know there is one with IBW because they they don't want their they don't want anybody else working their unions positions.
They I think it's right. Isn't that I did I state that correctly? Well, that's union philosophy in general. Unions have a problem of they want to protect their shops. Yes. Okay. I mean, I don't mean to beat a dead horse. I'm just saying if I was going to
hire somebody, I would want to know a little bit more about where we're going with some of that stuff. And I'm not necessarily advocating one way or the other, but we've part of what creates confusion, and you've used that term three or four
times, is discussing this stuff and never answering it. I think we should answer it. I think Gab's response to that part of the charter was spot on. Answered the question. Should be a period and it
should be a uni it should be this is now it's my opinion. It should be a unanimous vote of the council. I mean it makes sense with what the charter says there. There's nothing wrong with coming up with answers to other questions. So, and that was only the first one.
I understand. Now the second one is shall employ. Does it mean we're required to have every position? You know, Kelly brings up a good point. If they want, you know, they I don't think they would ever ask for something so ridiculous. But just hypothetically,
if they ask for a ridiculous number of employees in one function that is clearly not needed, are we still required to do that because the charter says shall? There's lots of reasons why we could fill a position. I I think we had a really tough time
when we took applications for an interim public utilities director just recently, which is why we didn't hire one. Well, I think there's two issues here. There's one, does the market, does the market support it? We might want to hire a widget maker and we just can't find a widget maker to save our lives. There's
nobody out there. The other question is is if the public utility I think this is where you might have been going with this Gabe. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think if the public utility says we need 15 linemen, does the council have any role
to say wait a minute? I'm not sure that you need 15. If it says that the the the council shall, do we does the council have any avenue to push back on that in that instance? I think the time to fix that is that budgeting. Hey guys,
you've budgeted for 15 linemen and you only need 13 and that's all we're going to approve. We're going to deny. That's the time to address that. But I think the attorney should get involved with reading that shall employ all necessary help
as necessary as it I think that's a pretty commanding word. And then it also states to properly perform its duties. So is necessary mean that just because they want it is it necessary to be able to perform their
duties? So to me there's a there's another part of that sentence as well. So it isn't just employee necess necessary help, it's to make sure they can perform their duties. So is that according to the commission? Is according to the council?
I get questions and so it's nice to have clarification for these types of things and I appreciate the discussion. I think it all goes through the council by the way in the end the council is responsible. So theor theoretically the
utilities has control over the operations. But regarding that part I regarding the the uh uh where am I reading here? The uh
performing its duties. Yeah. Performing its duties. I think that's controlled through the budget. Theoretically, we budgeted for a public utilities director. So, theoretically, outside of the fact that we have the questions that I
brought up and others as to whether and we have a past employee that said we did not functionally prepare him to do give him the parameters of his job properly.
Not saying that he's right or wrong. I'm just saying this is what he said. I would want as a council member to take a step back before we just fill the slot because the charter says we shall to clarify whether we are giving the
next public utility director the parameters of the job correctly ahead of time. Ahead of time. Yeah. It appear I'm not saying we did or didn't, but it appears at least one person thinks we did. It's worth looking at. Sure. But then the next part of that sentence says
the council shall approve all terms and conditions of employment. And I think that covers pretty much everything. Yeah. And I think that's the way it should be, not the public utilities commission. So when it says personnel for vacant
positions may be recommended by the commission to the council, I think that was a mistake in the charter. I don't think that should be there. I think when we made the charter change, one of the the main priorities was to get the
IBW public utilities crew under and in the city. So we didn't have two different bargaining units, two different pay structures, two different different everything that causes us to lose or fail pay equity and all that. So
the entire goal of the change was to put everything under one body and we chose the city council instead of putting the street guys and parks guys and police under the public utility commission. So they are all employed by the city.
So I don't think may recommend is I can see where that could add confusion because I don't think any commissioner of any commission in the city of Brainard should be pouring through people's resumes and digging through
people's employee policy manual files or doing investigations into our employees. That just seems setting us up for a lawsuit. That should be a total city council jurisdiction. So if we do amend the charter, I would say that's sentence out.
When I read that, I think like if the count if the commission has an opening for a public utility director like they do, the may recommend would be like if they have an employee they've worked with for 20 years and they're like we really want this, they may recommend to
that person but not like dig through employee pol employee records and everything. Any private data should remain private to all of our commissioners? What does necessary help mean? Is the
charter is the council required by the charter to hire every position? We don't know. H if we if they budgeted for it and we approved it, it's necessary. They budgeted for three
IT people in 2025. Yes. There's two extra. Yes. Yeah. So they had they had Aaron, they budgeted for two more and we approved the budget. The hiring never took place and we reorganized and all that. So could they still go hire two more IT
people since it was approved in the budget? Who's paying for Who's paying for the two that we did hire? It's a split based on time. So, no, they got there, too. Yeah. But that goes back to all my other
questions regarding integration. I mean, theoretically, there is no split. It's all one group. If you argue in favor of integration, if you continue to look at separate
entities, then it's a split. See, I would look at from accounting perspective, it's a split. It's a split. Yep. Well, because you're just trying to aortion expenses, right? People get too worked up in the nerdery of accounting. The It's easy to make a debit and a credit for Danny and Connie.
We shouldn't get all worked up. I don't Yeah, any of that. The accountants could figure it out. They know what they're doing. I realize we're running short on time. We are. And I I don't know if we're going to solve this tonight. If we need a workshop cuz I mean, Kelly and I
aren't half done and we've been talking for a half hour. We've got Well, luckily only four other council members up there tonight since there's two people gone today. Might be an easy night. Well, yeah. The last couple we've talked a little bit about them is are we going to hire a public utilities director? If
so, when the last one is integration of the lift stations and forests and the gravities into one organization and then just kind of the last one was anything else that you guys would like to see from staff. Well, I think those last two go hand in
hand with preparing the new public utilities director to have the information necessary at hiring to succeed. If I was the incoming public utilities director, I would want crystal clear expectations on where my authority
begins, where it ends. Y who can task me, who I can task. That's that's an expectation that every employee should have in any organization. Otherwise, we're setting them up for failure in my opinion.
It appears from the letter that Mr. Evans might agree with you. Welcome back from Florida. Congratulations, you two. Yes. Thank you. Do you want to bring a motion upstairs for this, Kelly, or do you think we should try and do a workshop next week?
I think we should try and do a workshop to answer some of these questions and to clarify, but I think we could probably clarify a couple of the things the earlier ones as far but the necessary help required is probably a little bit more complex.
Was that your question, Dolly? What's the necessary health part? Yeah. Yeah. I think I think in past practice it's always been, you know, the the informed commission to say, you know, we need help in this department. We're running shy on that. So, it's it's we've
always left it to staff to kind of cycle through some of the applicants and then bring the recommendation to commission and then bring it to council. So with some of these changes and I can see that why it wouldn't even come to commission. If it's a if it's a budgetary item and
we've already approved it the year prior, it should just automatically come to council. HR I should say. Yeah. HR and department head through the process. I don't disagree with that. I don't Well, I don't disagree with that either. I think the may when we walked
in the the may have recommendation was for the public utilities director. I think it was that committee um by hiring the public utilities director. That was the the piece that we wanted to make sure. I think we Oh, that goes hand in hand with the employee policy manual
hiring committee. See that? Well, we've got two minutes here. Gy, you have a motion on this. I just suggest you bring an FYI with no motion to the committee and the mo but but I would recommend a motion of a workshop. Okay.
With public utilities. We'll get people's availabilities upstairs and make a motion then. I am not available next week. I don't know if you need me there or not, but I will be out of town from the 15th through the 20th. We'll just come with
you. Yeah, we'll take you got another grandbaby or something? No, not quite. They're going through a lot of schedule. No fun. So, you can make a video on Monday, July 28th. Okay. So, with no recommendation other
than a recap of our discussion and a set a meeting, workshop meeting. With that, we're adjourned.