I think you got to turn your mic on. Okay. All right. We'll call the meeting to order and have a roll call vote. Jeff Chisak, I am here. Jan Lambert here.
Uh El Debell not here. Mary Cop is here. Uh we'll have approval of the agenda by a voice vote. What is your pleasure? Uh Lambert vote to approve. I'll make a motion to approve.
I'll second it then. Okay. Motion by uh uh Chox, second by Lambert to approve the agenda. Any discussion? All in favor? I opposed. A motion carried. New business. Review
consultant presentation. make recommendation for a 2026 transit operation. And uh Mike, are you doing that one or Yes, I can I can start it. All right. So, thank you, Madam President. Uh so, the state of Minnesota hired a
consultant to review our transit operation and is providing a recommendation for the 2026 operation. The state of Minnesota as cons consultants are here. actually they're online and are going to be going through their PowerPoint and recommendation and
will be here to answer any questions that you may have. And with that, uh Tammy, are you online or the concern? Yes, I am here and but Jill will be Jill will be presenting.
Okay, thank you. And then Max, can you There it is. Okay, you're you're up. All righty. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yes. I think so.
Okay. So, you have the presentation up so you can see it and I'll be able to let you know next slide. Is that okay? Sure, that'll be fine. Okay. Wonderful. Um, thank you so much again for for having us here. My name is Jill Cahoun and I work for a consulting
firm called AECOM. Um, under a contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Office of Transit and Active Transportation. Um, we are subconsultant to DRB uh consulting. Um, if you could please advance to the next slide, I'll
walk through our agenda for today. Uh, so we plan to um give you a a bit of background and a study overview. uh talk through current trends across the state of Minnesota. Um give uh definitions of some different scenarios that we looked
at in evaluating different operating uh options um for Brighter Crow Ring Transit. Um we also um conducted a qualitative and a financial assessment. Uh we'll walk through uh the methodology and the results of both of those
analyses and then we'll present a a recommendation for your consideration moving forward. I'm joined um by by Tammy from DRB consulting. Uh Crystal from old from AECOM and uh Tina uh is also here from uh from MIDOT. Uh so I'll
be here to answer any questions um you may have as we walk through. Thank you. taken taken away. Okay. Wonderful. Uh so um uh to give you a little bit of background um we are and
I had it up on my screen too. So it's distracting me. I'm going to I'm I'm turning it off. Uh so uh our study uh was set out to um to develop as I mentioned a qualitative and a quantitative uh analysis to look at the
actual um uh type of effort and um uh both from a from a qualitative standpoint and a financial uh standpoint what it would take um to consider different paths moving forward for Brainer Crow Ring Transit. Uh so with
the goals in mind of providing the best customer service um possible maintaining the fleet to a good um a state of good repair and then also operating in a financially efficient um manner. So as mentioned this study was funded uh by
MINDOT and went through a four-step process and the slides moving moving forward will will be um numbered uh to show you each step in the process. So first we defined different possible scenarios um for consideration. Uh then
we looked at uh what it would actually take from a liability from a manpower uh from a um a pros and cons um approach to uh each of these options. Um then we conducted a financial analysis. So there
could be actual numbers uh to compare between the different scenarios. uh and then we combined the qualitative analysis results and the financial analysis results together into a recommendation. So we'll walk through each of those four steps in the process
here with you today. Next slide, please. Chairman, yes, please. Are you uh able to take questions while you're doing this? Sure. Okay. I I just wanted to make sure that we don't have to wait till the end to do
questions. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, no problem. Okay. Any questions so far? I guess I'll stop there and ask. Um, yeah, I got a question if I could. Go ahead. Um, uh,
your team, correct, from MIDOT. You work for MDOT. Um, how many of these have you done for other municipalities or counties before? Tina, you want to jump in there? I see your Is it there now? Is it working? Yeah, I
know the video's going in and out and so I guess our system doesn't quite work well with WebEx. Um so this is really um the first so we are contracting with DRB
and then they are subcontracting with AECOM and so um but this is like the first of this kind of study that we've requested so far and the thing is is the system has to request a project
and and you're what's BRB or what is that DRB? It's uh a contractor for for Mindot. Um not for Mindot, but who we contract with. They put in a bid for the
consultant project. Okay. I just kind of wanted to find out a little background, I guess. So, but uh that that's fine. But they're not they're not mind employees, so Okay. Thank you. Yeah, that's all I have.
Okay, you can proceed if you would, please. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. All righty. So, um, for a little bit of background and for a little bit of context, um, for rural transit across, uh, greater Minnesota, um, so there are,
um, 27 rural, uh, transit agencies across greater Minnesota. most um so 25 out of 27 of the rural transit agencies across Minnesota do directly operate service. In other words, they don't
contract out with a vendor um to operate their services. So um city of Brainard and uh Winona are the only ones that contract services out. Um that is different from um from the urban systems
uh across the state. Um some of the agencies, the transit agencies across greater Minnesota are part of the city, county or local government like um like city of um of of Brainer like Brainer
Crow Ring Transit and some are um sit as part of a a parent company or a social or human service agency. So there's some variety across uh greater Minnesota with where transit uh sits within the community. Um looking nationwide um 85%
of rural uh transit systems are directly operated uh which is as I mentioned before different um when you look at the urban systems like um duth Rochester that type of size of system nationwide um about 50% of the urban systems are
directly operated so more urban systems contract out for services than than rural um also uh state law does dictate a minimum minimum local share in operating transit services of of 15%. Um there it and that does uh is
legislatively uh mandated and does change over time. So from 2024 to 25 uh the agencies are granted a temporary reduction to a 5% uh local share. Uh and then for 20 26 to 2027
um the agencies were granted a temporary reduction to a 10% local share. Um but it the the uh in under normal conditions that local share percentage would be 15%. Any next slide please.
And you said that's per statute the 15%. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All righty. So um in looking at um the possible options for operating transit service in the Brainer Crow Ring Crowing
County area, we looked at four different potential scenarios. Uh right now the services are uh contracted out to a vendor. Uh so the first option would be uh the same um um method as is currently
used, which is continuing to contract the service out. Um it wouldn't have to be the same contractor, but there would be a request for proposals for service operations. Um and a contractor uh would be selected through the normal process
for operating the service. That's scenario one. Uh scenario two uh could be that the uh city of Brainer directly operates uh the transit service and the city would then absorb all of the responsibilities and bring drivers and
dispatch in house. um and then transit would become a a a department um of the city. So that's a what we call directly operating uh service. So that's scenario number two. Um scenario number three uh would be to have the county um directly
operate the service and in that case Crowing County uh would absorb the responsibilities and bring drivers and dispatchers in house and then transit would become a county department. And then our fourth scenario is that um
contractors are utilized for some uh parts of operating the service but not all. So dispatch and maintenance could be brought in house uh while uh operators would continue to be contracted out. Uh so these are the
different options um and different scenarios that we looked at as part of this analysis. Any questions on that? Well, if I may, uh, under your city directly operates, you show the cost of
administration as, uh, $112,445. And I'm suggesting that u that is a figure that might be uh a beginning figure, but it will certainly increase. Will it increase greater than a
contractor cost would increase? That's an unknown, but I think that is a somewhat flawed scenario. The city is sort of in control of what it will decide is administration.
They can make it look good or they can make it look bad. That doesn't mean that it's accurate. I mean, anytime the city does something, there's more than the direct cost. We might have a Mike's oversight cost, but
there would be the administrator would have a a piece of it. Uh, probably there would be other city personnel. So, I really question how accurate that is. Could I speak up on that? I think
there's confusion. Personnel the first line item. So these go along with our state line item categories administration which is a category 1100 that is like legal costs um audit costs
staff development office supplies. If you're referring to the cost for staff that is under personnel and so that's a different line. That's the top line item. So the 112,000 for admin does
not that's not staff time but again that's a guesstimate it it is according to um what your budgets have come in as year after year. Okay. Thank you. And where it currently is. Yes.
Any other questions? Oh yeah. that you can continue. All right. Thank you. Okay. So, we looked at the four different scenarios and again one was continuing contracting
the service out, two was directly operated by the city of Brainard, three was the county operation and and four is a hybrid approach. So um we conducted a qualitative analysis looking at seven
different criteria uh which are listed on the right hand side of the screen here and those are complexity liability control staffing requirements uncertainty as you mentioned there is of course uncertainty into the future uh
customer service and maintenance and vehicle state of good repair. Um so for each of these categories, we looked at each of the uh scenarios and um applied a a scoring factor between 1 and five
with a maximum a maximum score of 35. Um, and really we were looking to see here um, comparing the different scenarios if there were any that were just um, far and away um, much either
more complex, harder to implement, see if any could be um, determined to be somewhat infeasible and remove it from uh, from consideration. So we were learn that's what we're uh really trying to um accomplish uh through this uh through
this development of qualitative analysis and then moving forward with uh with the remaining scenarios and digging in deeper into what the actual implications would be uh for moving through each uh looking at each different scenario. So
if you wouldn't mind going to the next slide please. Um the results are shown here for each of the scenarios and um the again with a maximum score of of 35.
Um and you can see that the uh score for um scenario three was was quite a bit lower uh than the other which was the county operation. um that is um we then eliminated because of high complexity, liability, uncertainty and then loss of
city uh control of the of the service. Um so you can see that um scenario one in contracting the services out received a score of of 16. um scenario two a score of 23 um which would be the city
um operating the services and scenario 4 um which was a hybrid approach receiving a score of of 21. Um so we did remove um scenario three from from further analysis uh in order to be able to focus
in more on those with the um uh with the uh most level of feasibility. So pause here and see if folks have any any questions anyone. Okay, you can continue.
All righty. Thank you very much. So moving forward, um the next step was to conduct a financial analysis on the remaining three scenarios. Um as as noted the line items are are based on um
um mindot guidelines on the line items for budgeting and financial analysis and tracking. Uh so the analysis uh conducted was based on on peers uh peer systems across the um the state of Minnesota and in other rural areas
historical trends for Brainer Crowing uh county uh Brainard Crow wing transit um statewide and national best practices as well as industry trends. Um so you can see um we did break it out by line item
for comparison purposes. Uh in scenario uh one continuing to contract service out um you can see that there would be no additional staff um hired in that scenario would have um an estimated um
uh cost of 1.67 million. Um for um scenario two with the city directly operating service uh there um would be uh additional 15 staff um to be hired and a cost of 1.65
uh million dollars to operate. Um, and the hybrid scenario uh would would um look at additional three staff to be hired um by the city. And that would be a total of $1.71 uh million dollars to operate. Um the
savings between continuing to contract out the services and the city directly operating the services would be um relating to the contractor oversight fees and revenue, better vehicle um maintenance. Um and um and so those
together the savings from those are greater than the additional uh personnel costs as noted in that uh first line item. Um, so scenario two would be the most cost-effective um to operate. I'll pause here and and ask if folks have any
questions on this. May I? Yes, please. Um, so just give me the number for one and two, the total dollars for keep it the way it is. Contractors, third party contract, and for the city to do it, what's the number dollar
amount? Number one. Number one. And two. Yeah. And the city doing it. Yeah. Number one is 1,672,127. Okay. And number two is 1,654 54234.
1,6454 234 1,654,000. Thank you. That's all I needed. Thank you. Would not those figures to some degree though be they are guesstimates that's
uh they are okay they are based on um on historical trends um from the costs and um the costs from Brainard Crow Ring Transit uh peer peer analysis from other agencies across greater Minnesota
industry uh industry standards um and uh and best practices. What did you include in the cost of administration? So administration um I believe Tina that's the that's a question for you there. Yeah. Are you Mary? Are you actually
referring to personnel staffing? Well, I'm almost 100% certain that if the city of Brainer were to take it inhouse, a portion of administration would also be assigned to the city
administrator. So, I'm really question if your figure is accurate. That would be under personnel. And I think I don't know Jill if you can touch on like are you maybe the number how the
positions that are included in the personnel category. So really the bottom line is it's kind of a guesstimate. Well, it would be based on um similars size transit systems that operate here
in Minnesota and what Brainer um their current costs and what it would typically cost to run a s a size system um for the city of Brainard um and the number of personnel that would be needed. So, and I don't know if if
you're looking at the number, this would include drivers, dispatchers, and then also a percentage time. um for accounting Mike's time and so forth. That's all in the personnel category.
Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, if I could. Uh on that same note, um when you look at the dollar amount associated with the third party contractor keeping it and then the taking it inhouse um
currently our contract the increase there is an increase year-over-year for that. I mean that's staff maybe that's we we start at a total amount and there's an increase every year of what is like 3% if I'm not mistaken. I
believe it's 5%. 5%. Okay. So, and of course um and of course that adjust adjusted with our local share that that will increase as well based on that cost. Is that not
is that a correct way of putting that or am I am I just maybe I'm kind of speaking out of school there? So, what I'm getting at is when you establish that price or that dollar amount of expense That's not fixed. That that's going to trend to
go up just as everything else does, right? That's correct. Yes. Okay. So, your third party your third party contractor is also if if there's a new contract will likely see that increase as well as with any other operator no matter how we
do it. Correct. Uh generally, yes, you're you're correct. And this these numbers do already increase include the increase for 2026. Um but you're right. Of course, um costs for everything are going up.
All right. Thank you. That's all I have. You may go on. Okay. Uh so um moving forward um and looking at the um operating costs and revenue
trends for Brainer Growing um Transit. Um we have a chart here showing how uh the operating costs have trended over time. Um so uh there was a 6% reduction
from 2023 to 2024 and uh that is was resulting from a decrease in um service um operated. Um then for uh between 2024 and then the 2025
uh budgeted year there was an increase of 13.9 um%. Um the there was no change in hours of service, but the costs um are from one additional um transit specialist
position and um due to the condition of the vehicles, an additional uh $50,000 associated with with maintenance costs. Um for 2026, um the budget uh shows um
an increase of 4.6% 6% and assumes the same um service levels as the previous year again the same level of service. Um and we can see here the from 2025 uh budget we are showing a pie chart that
shows uh 10% of the um of the sources of revenue uh come from fairbox and ad revenue and the remaining 90% uh come from state and fun federal uh funding and zero uh coming from local funding.
Any questions? Okay. Righty. So, um looking at um scenario two uh which is the city operating the service as compared to the 2026 budget
which again was a 4.6% increase from 2025. Um there is a savings of about um $48,000, about a 3% uh difference between um the 2026 budget and scenario two. Um and
that savings could be spent on on one-time um transition costs. Um but it should be noted as always that because of the legislatively mandated uh 10% local match for 2026
um MINDOT will fund up to 90% of the actual operating costs which is about 1.5 million um or um or or actuals um um depending on which is less um because of
the uh 10% local match requirement. So, if I may, please. So, as you said, the um next year's 2026 contract uh cost is going up uh what is it? 4.6 you said something. Is that
correct? That's the the the um amount of money u the the revenue uh from uh from the um operating grant through Minda, right? So that's increasing like r 4.6
roughly percent. And you're suggesting that if the city had this in house, they would only see about a 3% increase from this year to next. Uh no, the savings would be about a 3% savings.
Okay. So, okay, let me just get this in my head here. Um but right now when the third party contractor is operating this bus, they are revenue taking in uh dollar figure. Uh what's that estimated to be next year though? Because
currently it's 1, what' you say it was earlier? 1.7 million or 1.67. So next year it'll be what for the contractor. Yeah. Yeah. If you went back to your number you gave
me earlier, what was it what the cost to do it in-house and what the third currently the third party contractor is receiving? Yes. So the difference between scenario one which is continuing to contract is 1.67 million. Okay. And directly operate
1.65. So but but now if we did this in house that 1 let's just say 1.67 six, seven million, even though you said it would be a little less than that if I'm not mistaken. If the city did, that's paying
employees working for the city of Brainard then and and taking care of the bus service. That's the money coming from the state and federal government, the grant money. And I just want to make sure we all understand, and myself included, that that money is now paying drivers, dispatchers, and other
administrative staff to do their job to keep the bus running, maintained, and all those things. So that that's how we're looking at this, right? That's correct. Okay. So when things go up, they go up. It's a third party contractor. We're paying more as was built into the
contract when we agreed to it two years ago, right? Okay, that's all I have. Anything further? No, not me. No, I'm okay. Okay. All righty.
Uh then our uh final slide then um brings the two pieces together um with the qualitative analysis and the financial analysis. Going back to the goals of um maximizing control, reducing
liability, uh reducing uncertainty and risk, providing the best customer service, and maintaining vehicles uh to a state of good repair and operating in a costefficient manner. Um we looked at each of the remaining scenarios
um one, two, and four. Um and in each case um there's um a preferred scenario in order to um reach uh to meet each of these goals for maximizing control. That's scenario two or in-house
operations. Uh for reducing liability that is is contracting out some of the services which would be scenarios one or four. Um then for both reducing risk and providing um the best uh possible customer service that um the scenario
with the with the best likelihood for success there would be um scenario two which is in-house operations um for maintenance and state of good repair. um in-house maintenance which is um scenarios two or four uh would would
um have the greatest likelihood of success there and the most costefficient based on the financial analysis we just walked through uh would be to bring um would be scenario two or to bring um the operations in house. Uh so as you see scenario two uh is the most frequent
uhly cited um um uh goal reaching uh scenario here in the qualitative analysis as it was in the financial analysis. So the recommendation um is scenario two bringing the bringing the service in house. So love to answer any
other questions or um thoughts you'd like to walk through. Well, I I still don't understand how you arrived at the vehicle cost if the s city directly operates and I really don't understand
how you arrived at the personnel or the administrative costs. Those have to be guesstimates on your part. I'm guessing that the 206,000 you're attributing to vehicle operation by the city um you are
not considering all of the maintenance work and such that would be done in house. So um the fur the maintenance uh in in house um the difference um uh here um
does uh include uh bringing in uh a more substantial preventative um uh maintenance uh inhouse to to city standards. Um and it's also um vehicle also includes uh maintenance and fuel.
Madam President, can I? Yes, please. And on scenario one, these are actual budget figures from our finance. And so these are actual. And regarding scenario two, Crystal, correct me if I'm wrong. The regarding the vehicles, was the what
was the insurance that we pay the third party versus if we did inhouse? I don't want to quote it wrong on exactly what we're reimbursing the contractor. somewhere around 80,000. If we were to bring it in house, it would be somewhere more around 30,000. So
there was a large savings there if we were to bring insurance back in house again. Madam Chair, go ahead. Um and so when you talk about maintenance, um and we have I assume I I
I say that cautiously that you've then established that the current number of employees we have available to do maintenance on our current fleet of um vehicles would be able to take on the additional buses. That's also figured
in. Is that correct? Yes. Go ahead. I'm asking consult yes that is part of the scenario and one of the graphs that is not here is just all the different scenarios for the
staffing we have uh a model where it's like 049% of for HR to handle the hiring of all these uh individuals um x% for finance department and Mary to answer your
question Nick as a city administrator is not a factor in this scenario. He never was and he's not moving forward even though he does touch a little bit of of transit. Um but those figures are not reflective in here.
May I? Yes, please. So when you say five 49% of HR, that's 49% of the budget for the transit grant dollars going to H. So you got to you got to define that for me,
right? But 49% to HR is money paid to the HR coordinator. Correct. Correct. Actually, I'm going to re the Tammy or Jill, can you speak of that? Sure. Yes. So, um there are um uh there
are several um um activities that would need to be happen uh that would need to happen in in HR uh and admin to bring um to bring staff um in uh in house um and to support support transit. So um so 0.5
uh what we mean there of a position is full-time equivalent. So basically half of a person's salary um is would be then uh covered through the transit grant uh in order to be able to support uh the transit program.
So you're saying that nearly half the salary for the HR coordinator or or that position would be covered through the transit grant. The money that's correct. Yeah. Okay. So if they earn 150,000
then that roughly $75,000 would pay the city employee in HR from the transit grant. That's what you're saying. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. How it's done internally to the city is up to the
city. Uh but uh yes, that um that level of support is incorporated and allowable under the transit grant. Thank you. Just to clarify, it's not the director, it's the HR assistant. And four or 49 39% of that their salary is
covered. You just said 49 or 39. Which one is it? 39. Sorry. 39. Where did 39 come from? I trans I I'm not sure. No problem. So, it's 39% of the Okay. Thank you.
No, just so I know that's because our the assistant is a lower paid person, right? Okay. Yes. Thank you. I don't have any more. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Do you want to continue? Our presentation is is concluded. Uh so
we'd be happy to answer any other questions you have or um talk through anything you'd like to talk through. If it were taken inhouse, and this is probably more for Mike, um, where would the city anticipate storing the vehicles in the same location that they currently
are at the NP center? We currently pay the contractor X number of dollars to store them there and they would continue to be stored there until we can find a new location. Okay. And also, I just, Madam Chair, at some point in time, we have the HR director here, Chris is here. I I'm I'm not sure
if she would like to speak or not, but if she could have an opportunity to speak, um that would be good. Madam Chair, yes. I got to maybe ask the consultants or whoever I think the consultants, if you're there, um is there any uh grant money available that would uh help with
the transition the city would have to go through to change from the third party contract design we have to an in-house design? Yeah. Hi Joe, this is Tina with Mindot. Um yes, it's called a transition grant.
So these would be state funds um one time um to look at the transition cost to going inhouse. So the transition costs um could include um some additional staff time that could
be uh the upfront cost kind of the one time of hiring the drivers dispatchers. Um, so that could be HR's time, that kind of thing. That could um fall under a transition grant. Um, since that would kind of be more of a heavy front end
kind of cost. Uh, any marketing um that might be needed. Anything with that transition time. So, and typically it's not a lot of money. The most I've seen is maybe a couple hundred thousand. And this is
just like I said, the transitioning and like in one-time funds. Would that be for like uh employee interview when you have staff interview employees even though they're currently working for the third party contract? Pardon me. Yep. Okay. Yeah, that could that could be employee
time for hiring. All of that could be in the transition grant. Yep. If I could, Madam Chair, please continue. Um, and then as far as the housing of the employees, uh, essentially a new department, is there
any type of money available to, um, renovate or take over office space, say at the annex next door if the city uh, is able to get that? Is that something that could be uh, a can that can is there any aid available or financial aid
for that? Yeah, we have our facility grants And so that's a variety that's either a mix of state or federal funds. Um there's also state bond funds if we know about projects ahead of time and we're
able to put in for bond funds. As you know um government agencies are eligible for bond funding. So though we could look at that we do look four years ahead when we're looking at facility projects. So, um the sooner you know something for
a facility, the the more you would like to it ends the current for um the next uh funding cycle ends on September 30th next week for facility projects. Um so you'd be looking at the next year for the next cycle. And the thing is this
can change because um you have facility projects that either are on hold or they find they they can't continue with it and so they do um take them out of the cycle. So so you know even though it
might look four years out that can change. Okay. Uh could I Yeah, go ahead. So I guess this would be for you Tina uh if you could. Um maybe maybe I don't know but so when we look at these transit systems I don't know how many you are uh involved with but would it be
a fair statement to make that there's I'll just say it this way directly. Is there any transit system public transit system you're aware of in the state of Minnesota that operates at a municipal or county level that doesn't receive some large form of state and federal
funding? I'm not aware of any that don't operate without state and federal funds. So, it's safe to say that virtually every rural transit is reliant on the dollars we get from the state and federal government to operate. Correct. Okay.
Correct. Yes. So in that case, if there was an say funding cuts, whatever it might be, from whatever government level, state or federal, it goes without saying there would have to be people that would wind up more than likely
losing their jobs, service cutbacks, all that would happen. You would, it would be a safe thing to count on, layoffs, that type of thing. Well, for our funding has been stable um for many years. We did receive um a
slight cut from the general fund um recently for two years. However, um we do our state funds, most of them come from the formula of the vehicle sales tax and a small amount of general funds.
Um and then we've had stable federal funding. No, I understand that. But if there were to be some sort of cuts, it would stand to reason that people would probably have to be laid off that work for the city of Brinard if the city were to take it in house if we couldn't
afford to operate based on the federal and that would be yeah and that would be an internal decision that um I can say that with our funding if there are any cuts our primary focus will be on operating
and so then we would first cut back funding for vehicle replacement facilities, large capital and and focus more on the operating to keep operations going for transit systems. Sure. And you want to maintain the same
level of service, but but gen I mean overall you we're relying on state and federal money. What I'm getting at is if there were a cut and it's all hypothetical. I understand that. I just want to make that clear that it's very possible that we could not employ the
same number of people especially if you had to cut back on service and that would I mean I I understand we don't like to talk about people losing jobs but it is a possibility right it's a possibility but those would also be internal decisions looking at your
budget looking at how to bring in maybe greater revenue and those type of things there's different factors with that but Yeah, that would all be internal then. Okay. Yep. Thank you. That's all I have for now. Thanks, Sam. Go ahead. Yes. I'm going to just touch back with
with Mike about um if we go inhouse, wouldn't Nick have some oversight for this department? Yes. Even now, Nick has some oversight. I brief him all the time on transit.
It's just uh for some reason the state you know does not touch his salary um doesn't touch the HR director's salary and so forth. We have multiple individuals that do touch it but uh we don't receive funding for those.
Oh okay. Thank you. Even though like my position uh I think I forget exact the dollar or the percentage that my position is funded by this this operation. I may spend a little bit more than that time you know working with
transit and making sure that it it is running accordingly to our standards. Okay. And madam chair go ahead. I'd like to um kind of follow up with what Jeff was talking about. Even if we did not go inhouse, if there was a cut
in our funding, it would also affect the third party contractor, would it not? Correct. Internally, we would have to have them lay people off, right? They were in house or with third party contractor. Correct. Someone would have to lay them off, whether it be the city or the or the third party contractor. Correct. So,
it was nice to hear that they would prioritize the operation as a highest priority and the facilities and so forth as a as a lower priority. The op just keeping the the operation moving forward is the number one priority. Okay. Thank you.
Yes. Go ahead, Jeff. Um, can somebody explain to me um you said you'd hire 15 new employees if it went in-house. That's your analysis. And those would be
dispatcher or dispatchers and drivers. And is there a would these all be full FTE? Every one of them? No. Do you know what the breakdown would be?
Crystal, do you have that chart? You know, and if I could just clarify, so the state, their recommendation is almost like a little pie chart, if you will, and at the very bottom, we had much dialogue back and forth. At the end, they just indicated, Mike, this is your
funding. You operate it as you see fit. So whether it's you could hire 20 people at $5 an hour or X number of people at, you know, an average salary. So that is a nice aspect is that we can run it as
we see fit for the city of Brainard. Okay. Can I then ask um Crystal's position right now is funded primarily through the grant dollars we get from the state. Is it is there a local share in that? Crystal
Crystal and your salary? Uh not technically. I'm technically 100% funded, but we still have that currently 5% local share responsibility when we go over a certain dollar amount if we do.
And that's covered through our fair collection. Correct. Okay. So then with the other staff, I I forget our new person's name. I'm sorry. Aaron. Aaron. Okay. Is Aaron here? Aaron is here. Hi, Aaron. Anyway,
um, and where where would Aaron and Crystal fit into this structure, if you will, in transit? How would that be laid out if it was in-house? What what's the So, Crystal would be the coordinator, Aaron, and another operator would
oversee the day-to-day operations of that. One individual would oversee the the the dispatcher and all the drivers. The other individual would oversee fleet management and you know vehicle maintenance and so forth and Crystal
would be over those two individuals. And there may be a part-time person in there too. It all depends on how we put that pie chart together. Um but that's how that would lay out is Crystal would be the coordinator. She would have two reports and then underneath that would
be the bus drivers and the the bus uh the dispatcher. Okay. I would think almost certainly if it was in house that all of the employees would be plugged into the city's personnel plan. Correct.
And that might very well mean a change in how they're identified and a all likelihood an increase in their salary. Correct. And that will probably fall on the city. Correct. And our
so we're not looking at a costless option. We're not taking it in-house is not a costless option. It's probably a costly option. I don't know why why we
don't just put it out for bids. It's worked well. Uh it's taken a lot of headaches away from the city. Um most of the third party operators have been reasonable. I think uh done quite a good
job. I honestly don't know why we're going this route. I mean, it looks to me to be blunt like kingdom building. Somebody wants to build their kingdom. They'll go to the council. They'll want more help. They'll justify it and they'll probably get it. At the end of
the day, whether the state puts in more money or it ends up with the city, it's the taxpayers. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. You all pay taxes, you know, and I'm pushing 93 years old. And believe it
or not, I still pay taxes. I'm still paying not just city taxes on my house and property, state taxes, federal taxes. You know, we've got to be looking for the very best for all of us, for the
citizens, not just service, which is important, but cost, which is important. And I'm going to sit here today and make you a bet. I want you to make note that if the city takes this in-house, within five years, our costs will have doubled.
And the city will, and Jeff Chisok, if he's sitting there, will be begging the council to put in a levy. I I'm I'm willing to bet that. So, I'm saying let's go out for bids. You know, we're going on and on to
justify taking it in house. You can you can dress it up uh all you want to and frills and a top coat, but in my opinion, it's still a pig. And I'm I'm I'm not in favor. I'm I'm just going to say it right out. I'd like to see us go
out for bids. The one thing I would compromise on is again um the city put in a bid as well. Put in a bid, but go out for bids. I think that's the only uh
coste effective thing to do. Madam chair, go ahead. I understand your point, but I've been on the transportation committee for a while and we seem to always have some issues with our third party contractor whether it's failure to follow the
contract which for its oversight is become falls on the city usually crystal um I think it's worthwhile looking at having in-house especially if we're looking at a cost of 50k for ma increased maintenance
if we had uh had it probably inhouse, we would probably have better care for our vehicles. We'd be able to track it a lot better. I I'm going to just say I I do think we should be looking at bringing
it in inhouse. I can't Oh, yeah. At 50k for extra maintenance cost in the for the 25 budget. That's a lot of money. And um and I know we have a an old fleet and we've been very good about keeping
this old fleet running. Um but if there's ways we can make it so it doesn't cost us arm and leg at the end. If I may, uh Jen, with all respect, once it's in house, it's too late. You're
stuck with it until you can go out again for some kind of a contract bid. Once it's in house, you're going to pay for it regardless of what it costs until the time you can go out again for a bid.
Anything from you, Jeff? Of course there is. I I think we should move on here with some kind of a decision. Okay. Does that mean you don't want me to talk? No, I want you to talk. Okay. And I think we should probably Well, I I got to say the u the u
analysis that's been done here I never been done before and I've I've I I've talked about this for I don't think I've done it specifically at transit, but I I've talked to staff over the years and if there's ever a way
to do a transition from what we've been doing for decades, there has to be an analysis. Okay. Um, I think this has been u, from what I can tell well thought out,
deliberated at length extensively and they're taking the these numbers are coming from our financial department uh, other
rural bus systems that are operated by the municipalities or the counties, the government entities. And the one thing that always comes to mind, change is always hard. It it never is easy. It's never easy to change from one
third party contract to another uh contractor to another. There's always that wonder, well, is this going to be better or worse? Is it going to cost more? Are we going to be more efficient? Is the service going to be better? Is it going to be worse? All these things come up. I I am confident that we'll have far
superior oversight of what goes on essentially minute by minute when and if we were to have an in-house operation that that that's not even a question. um when we have um staff that
uh have a have a stake in what goes on th this is because if if this doesn't work well there's people that work here that are going to say uh we may just get rid of this because I'm not doing a good job and they want to be efficient Mary I
don't think there's a single person that works at city hall that doesn't want to be efficient and work as best they can for the taxpayers and we always see, you know, the the union employee always gets labeled as all they want is more money. Well, you show me a place where that
doesn't happen. You show me a place in whatever business where people aren't looking to make more money. And it's it's it's a it's a tough nut to crack regardless of who whose uh business it is. If it's a private, if it's government, it's always people are
always when prices go up, people need more money to buy stuff. So that's how it works. Um to see this operation, do I see a flipping a switch and changing? No. There has to be more discussion. It can't just be, okay, we're going to
decide today, make a recommendation, and say, uh, yeah, let's do this tomorrow. So, but I would be willing at this point to say instead of just saying I I'm not going to bet five years down the road and say Jeff Chzach, if I'm still here, I'm going to ask the council for a levy
because I've never ever been in favor of levying to taxpayers for transit because it should be able to pay for itself based on the fairs we collect. Because once you start increasing service, you will garner more customers. You get more
local match. You also then have uh you know more people riding. They hear it's a good operation. You have uh established a revenue stream in that regard. And if the state and federal money is there,
if that's if that's there, we're going to accept it and use it like every other rural uh transit system does, every urban transit system does. And so it's almost like I see this as an opportunity to try
and do a better job. And uh and this I got to tell you I don't this is off topic a bit but this new um routing or dispatching system once if we incorporate that with a uh
well-managed operation coming from city hall. I think we could um make this a essentially a u a service people would be absolutely proud of in this community. That's that's in Baxter, Brainer and surrounding. So that's just
my thoughts. I of course uh one out of seven people that decide this. So well, all I can say is the city continues to raise my taxes every year and the service really doesn't change. So I'm pretty sure that would be about
the same thing. What I would like to see happen, and I don't know if it's possible, if we could go out for bids and let the city bid along with anybody who might be interested, that would be an interesting thing to do. Put together
a set of relatively objective bid specs and let let the city bid, let Riker bid, let this company we've had bid, see what happens. I think that'd be interesting. Go ahead, Mike. I question if we could do that based on
where the re grant recipient and I don't know. And we'd have to be competitive. Uh, and who would analyze those? I don't know. Kind of. I'm just saying I think you could be impartial. I think it would be a very interesting thing to do. Go ahead, Mike. One thing to Councilman
Jezach's uh point is we were discussing Crystal brought up a great point that we would present a business model before it like councilman indicated it's not going to be a light switch. This is a process of of going down this road. Do we want to do this? And putting together a
business model would be showing essentially a bid process. what how we could do I've already met with uh the directors that would be involved with this decision HR finance and IT and uh they would be part of that business model that we would really capture all
the pros and cons the actual dollar amounts that would take to bring this inhouse and then we could present that at a later you know maybe next month I'm not sure I don't want to put a timeline on on Crystal and Aaron but uh but a business model would show true numbers
and how this would really act put forth from what the consultants indicated, you know, 0.1 here, 0 2 here, these positions. We would put that in a in a or chart and have actual positions and actual dollars to this uh model to bring
it in. Who would do something like that? I mean, what companies do that? Provide a actual like a a a business model. Yeah, Crystal and Aaron. I'm sure they are more than qualified and able to I don't
want to speak for them but it was was Crystal's idea and I think it's a great idea to put forth a business model and essentially Mary you're absolutely right this would be an RFP from the city hall staff putting forth to say this is how we could do it this is how we could
better service uh city of Brainard and and again nothing against uh blue sky and all that they're doing we're just looking out for efficiencies measures cost savings measures and so forth. I I I have great respect for Crystal,
but wouldn't she be a little bit biased in putting together anything like this? You know, it a little biased in favor of the city. I mean, really, it'd be good to see some comparisons. Once it's in the city, whatever happens,
all that ever happens is the council just raises the taxes and raises the taxes. I don't know. Have your taxes gone down this year? Mine neither. Is your service better? Mine neither. Okay, enough said.
So, if we were to um to get out of this meeting, would you look for direction from this transit to um ask that a business model be presented? Would that be to the council? Would it be to back to transit? What's
your thoughts on that? Yes, we would like a recommendation from the the TAC committee and we will bring that recommendation. This is already going to be on the uh October 6th uh city council agenda and we will be having the same presentation, same
recommendations uh keep it in house, changing nothing or do a business model and present at a later date to make a final decision moving forward for the 26 operation. Madam Chair, for for the that we can move on.
Um I would like to direct staff to um go ahead and do a business model um that'd be able to present it to TAC and city council. I would like to make that motion. The a motion by Jan. Is there a second?
I'll second it. Second by Jeff. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. Okay. Anything more you need from us, Mike, on this issue?
No, that is it. Thank you. Okay. Um, so we where do we go from here? Somebody kind of c this is we're putting together are we going to be meeting again then to review next month? Yes. Before the council or what? Well, we're going to be presenting the
same uh presentation to council. Okay. In October 6th and then we'll be having the same recommendation. Okay. And but you can be assured we're already starting with this. And I'd like to just ask uh Chris HR um if she would like to
add anything at this time. Okay. Please. I'm just here to learn. So I don't have anything to add. Okay. Thank you. Any anyone else? You know, it's been kind of a long and a kind of a contankerous meeting, but I
think it was some things that had to be brought out and talked about. So, thank you. And Jeff Oh, I thought you had your hand up to say something. Just moving his I'm sorry. I didn't I didn't notice anything that was container.
Okay. So, um there's no further business to come before us. Library board, Mary. And then I'll make a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Discussion. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carried. We are adjourned. Tuary.