To the flag of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible. >> Uh no Mr. Mayor >> second >> discussion >> no presentations >> anything on here acknowledgements um anybody here for public comment u consent agenda you get a motion to approve If I could make one note, um we did get the signed amendment from um approval of the amendment for the audit engagement agreement with creative planning yesterday. So >> motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? I >> no public hearings, general business. See none to reports >> admin. So, under administration tonight, um I'll be giving a presentation and seeking feedback and direction from the city council related to the city's continued participation in the scale and sort in insurance consortium project. So, the purpose tonight is to update the council on where we are in that process and then to seek feedback and direction from the council on our continued participation. So why are we talking about health insurance? Well, health insurance that we provide to our employees is part of our employee compensation. It's a key element in recruitment and retention of employees. The city has prided itself on having a a very competitive health insurance compensation plan that we provide our employees over time. We've had feedback from employees that have come from other organizations. um employees that have been attempted to be recruited by other organizations and employees that have gone to other organizations and the consistent feedback that we have received is that we are very competitive in that particular area. But there's a budget impact to that. The total cost for employing uh providing health uh insurance to our employees and I should note that this includes dental insurance. We weren't able to pull the two numbers apart easily for this total number um because of the way that it's packaged for us, but dental is a very small portion of it. But currently in the 2026 budget um $465,000 is what we pay um total both the employer employee share to provide health insurance to our employees. Um 7 that is 7.3% of our operating budget across all funds. So take out capital and other non-operating expenses, but from an operating expense, we're a people organization and the cost of employing those people make up a huge portion of it. So providing health insurance to our employees makes up 7.3 of that operating budget. That's why we're talking about it. The reality is the same situation exists for our other peer organizations and health insurance costs are something that everybody has um had to deal with um for the last several years. So if we look at our trends with regards to our per employee cost to provide health insurance as an organization, you'll note that there are a couple periods of stability that we have seen as an organization in the last 12 years. uh between 2014 and 2018. We had a period of relatively strong stability and we had another period between 2019 and 2022. You'll notice there was a big jump in 2018 and I'm not here to talk national or state healthc care policy or debate it, but that jump was related to policy changes related to the Affordable Healthcare Act. Um also um does anybody can anybody tell me what happened in 2022? Um we were coming out of COVID and that's when you started to see market adjustments um in the insurance agent industry related to COVID. Uh you also saw a huge increase in claims because of COVID before deferred or delayed uh treatments, appointments, etc. Um, we're also aware of the huge labor shortage which resulted in increased labor costs within the in health insurance or the health industry and we also saw an increase in prescription. So there was a number of factors. The reality is that those factors aren't going away anytime soon and that trend is not likely to change anytime in the near future. Regardless of those uh areas of stability, the trend for health insurance has gone up. In the last 10 years, the cost of providing health insurance per employee um has almost doubled. So, as I indicated, everybody's seeing the same issues. So in late 2023, the scale service delivery committee began exploring the option of establishing a pool or consortium of scale member organizations for um health insurance. The interested entities included Scott County including the CDA who is under their plan um all the cities in Scott County and the Prior Lake Spring Lake watershed district. The intent of establishing a consortium or pool would be that you would improve your financial stability. You would have more consistent renewals. So basically, you're shaving the peaks and kind of leveling out the valleys and your renewal costs. You would have improved predictability with your larger participant population. You would have transparency. We'll talk a little bit more about it, but right now we're fully insured. So we go to the grocery store, look at what's on the shelf, and we buy one of the products. And we the number is the number where if you are a consortium pool you have more control and you can see behind you're you're behind the curtain yourself. You see what's going on with that can make adjustments accordingly. You'd have more time for renewal planning. As you guys know we have like less than a month from the time that we get our renewal number till we're renewing. That does not give you a lot of time to pivot or make changes based on what those numbers are. Um, and when you're in a larger consortium, you're getting those numbers much, much earlier in the year before your renewal period so that you can make choices about changes that you might need to make, etc. You'd have no more age rating for smaller groups. We are a small group and as a result, a lot of our pricing is based on age. Um, and when you move to the larger group, it's based on claim history, more weighted that direction. And so, it's a little bit more controllable. and while maintaining the benefit of plan design. So the idea is if you go to the consortium you would be able to maintain because you get to dictate or ask the market to provide certain plans. So you have a lot more control over your plan design. So let's talk a little bit about uh pools trust coalitions. All of those terms are somewhat interchangeable. Um the idea is that you have a collection of employers who are getting together to basically share the risk by provide creating a larger pool in a collaborative fashion. Um when we use terminology when I talk about members I'm talking about any organization that is participating in the um group and when I talk about participants or or insured that would be the individuals um that work the employee. So that's what it is. So who generally or where when is it successful? Well you have members people that are generally a similar profile. So other municipal governments, county government, other local governments that are in our general area. When you're working together, you want to know that you have a working relationship and there's a level of trust and understanding. So generally in these groups, the um member organizations are tied together for reasons other than purchasing healthcare. Within the scale organization, we have a great deal of history of working together. You have a common compensation and benefit philosophy. You have a collaborative working environment. um you have a willingness to challenge one another to improve as a group. So you can have uncomfortable conversations and the world doesn't come to an end and then you have a willingness to share risk. The whole idea of the pool and that increased pool size is that you're sharing the risk. So this year Kate's organization had a number of had a greater than average number of claims as part of the pool. I'm participating. I'm going to have to share some of that cost and risk. The next year it might be my organization. But the idea is that when you increase the size of the pool, you start shaving off all those peaks. It's the difference of dropping a rock into a five gallallon bucket versus dropping it into a lake is essenti how much are the ripples or the consequences. So as we talked about and we already talked about what the potential um benefits are as to why you would consider it. So this chart is intended to illustrate the changes. So for example, you see the red line. This would be if you were for example us. We are operating individually. We're a fully ins, you know, uh fully insured. And this would be the trend over time. Each of those co-op groups represent a point in time where they may have stepped into a larger pool situation. And what studies have shown is that it controls costs over time. Now, one of the things I have to emphasize is typically it's not a huge outofthe-date savings and it's not going to be a huge savings every year. The difference is that you're getting an incremental saving over what you might have otherwise paid that and the benefit of that compounds over time. So, for example, if you're paying a half a percent less for your health care costs for your organization, but it's a half a percent on average over 10 years, that's a 5% difference. If it's a percent on average over that time, it's a 10% difference. So, it's a cumulative impact over time. That's that's part of the benefit aside from the other ones that we've already mentioned. Any questions on that? So, how do you get those savings? So if you look at this chart and you go all the way to the left, you have fully insured. That's where we are. So we go to the market, we identify a product, we purchase it. Bundled into that whole cost is the relative risk that the insurer is assuming related to you as a small pool. And with our risk history, small things can have big impacts on our insurance. Um, it also includes all of the overhead costs that they have behind the curtain to be able to administer and provide it to you. And then there's also the profit margin in there as well. Right. When you go to self-funded, this would be an individual organization like Scott County. Um, your costs are your claims. So, you have to have a pool of money that you are collecting or have on hand to be able to pay out claims. Now, you also have those catastrophic claims, the really big ones. Somebody has cancer, somebody has um premature birth, um uh any number of of major claims that might come across um your your group buy insured stop-loss insurance. So basically, you buy insurance that'll cover everything over what you're going to cover out of your own pocket. Does that make sense? But there's a cost to buying that insurance. Then you have the administration. So you have to have people in our case be consultants like a Gallagher or an NFP like we use that would administer the program and then you have professional services people like your actuarials and your legal counsel and all those people that are necessary to run your self-insured program. The idea is when you're doing it yourself, you're going to be a little more efficient. You're not going to have dividends you have to pay out to people. You can actually invest them back into yourself and you're going to save a little bit. When you do a consortium, you're just increasing the scale. Again, now you just don't have one organization. You now have several organizations. And the reality is that that poolled monies, I don't have to put away enough for us. I need to put away enough that we can cover our claims across the board. And that greater pooling, just like in our own budgeting as a city, when you have those reserves, it gives you greater flexibility. The bigger the organization, you maybe don't need to have the same reserves. So as a result between the group um you can cover more of your claims and you can buy less insured stop-loss insurance relative to scale. You also have economies of scale with your administration and economies of scale with your professional services. Those incremental benefits because of the economy of scale is where you get that savings overall. Does that make sense? Any questions on that? Okay. So in order to determine whether or not this seems to make sense, um scale uh retain the services of Gallagher. Gallagher is a national um benefits firm. Um they represent a number of organizations in the area of pools, trusts, and coalitions. They have 60 plus entities that they work with, which represents 3,000 members and over half a million employees within those. Um and they have a fairly deep specialized bench which works specifically in this area. across a number of sectors. Should also be mentioned that Gallagher's is also the benefits administrator for um I would say half of the scale entities that we were talking about. So there's a degree of existing relationship and trust that exists. So what was the feas purpose of the feasibility study? It was to compare cost. Basically, you're you're creating a model which tries to predict the difference of what you would pay if you were still individual or status quo versus going into the consortium. Um, I do have to indicate or explain that with this model, it's a model, right? They're putting in assumptions based on their knowledge of how the industry works and it's a comparative analysis. It's not predictive to what the actual costs are going to be, but it's basically saying it's better to You're going to see this if you go this way and you're going to see this if it goes this way and it's more order of magnitude than a specific number. Does that make sense? So the initial study was completed in 2024. Uh and it found that a consortium would benefit the overall group. The assumed group that would be participating was Scott County including the CDA, the cities and the watershed district. One of the um challenges with that is that individual impact. So what would be the specific impact? They could take everybody and put them into the big bucket, but when it came down to trying to determine what the impact would be to the smaller entities, the small groups, um, as determined by the insurance industry, that information wasn't available because we're a small group. The information isn't available in the same way. And so that claim information could not be obtained the same way. And so they had to they couldn't come to us where they might go to Scott County and say this would be the specific impact to you for Jordan you know New Prague um Belplain ourselves they wouldn't be able to do the same. However following the logic past history experiences with others everybody agreed that yes there does seem to be an overall benefit. We should continue to poke at this a little bit more. One of the things we needed to start working on was looking at governance. I'll talk more about that. But how would it be run and is everybody okay with how that would work? And then parallel to and as part of that we needed to do research with um the state um we needed to retain legal counsel to start working on it etc. One of the other things that quickly became apparent as we were talking through the process is as we're talking about this in 2024, the question was when would we be able to initiate this? And the original target goal was January 1st of 2026. However, when people got into the nitty-gritty of their renewal timelines, the practical issues of setting up the organization, going out for open enrollment, um RFPs, etc. of that to retain vendors, contracts, and the fact that like for instance, um, Scott County, they're already self-insured. They have to jump through some extra hoops to be able to make the shift, it became apparent that a realistic implementation target was actually January 1st of 2027. So, as we came into um later 2025 and early 2026, um the decision was made that we needed to update the study. Um couple of things. One, it had been a while since we've done the study. Everybody wanted to take a look at it, take a look at update updated numbers so they could have discussions on more current numbers. two, Gallaghers had access to a tool that would allow them to assemble enough information that while they couldn't get exact claims information, they would be able to get enough to approximate it and be able to provide a more accurate indication of what would happen with the smaller entities such as ourselves. So they did update it and what they found was that um they ran a couple different scenarios with different options of composition including Carver and Dakota counties because as we continue to talk about this Carver and Dakota counties became aware of it and they're like you know what we might want to get in on that and of course the issue one of the benefits of consortiums is the larger the pool conceptually the better it works for everybody participating. So they were added in some of the scenarios. Um in every option that was presented, Elconu market fared better as part of the consortium. So I'll go through the various options but I have to provide some explanations as we go. So option one was the scale feasibility which is basically the original group all the cities in Scott County, Scott County and the watershed district. Now when we look at that it demonstrated that there was an overall benefit um for the group. However, everybody of course cares about that's great but what would it look like for me and again this is just the first year and this is going to be based on our recent history. This may change over time. There's still regardless of how it happens to us what happens to us in this year projected for 2027. There's also is there a benefit to the consortium because it's incremental over time. Well, with that um their model predicted uh or for purposes of comparison identified a 9.2% increase if we continue to operate individually. Now granted, this is not a specific prediction. They can't control what the market's going to do, but if you're going to do apples to apples for inputs into the model, this is what it was spitting out for comparison purposes. And when you look at us, there are a couple elements. One, again, don't look at the specific number. We're looking at comparative differences. They're predicting in the consortium instead of the 9.2, relatively speaking, it would be maybe 3%. So a third in under this scenario, which means that you'd be looking at a 6.2% savings. So in any scenario, what this does is say, is it going to be exactly? No. But given the difference, it provides a higher degree of confidence that it would be better than us continuing to operate individually. So knowing this, I'm just going to go through the other options. If we look at the excluding Carver and Dakota, well, Carver and Dakota were in the first one. That was the big group. So this is what the just the scale group here. It's 4.7 relative difference. Um although it does indicate that the overall group might not benefit because some of the individuals because of how they play out in the smaller group might not do quite as well. Um if you look at the excluding Dakota but including Carver um it's 6.9 and the overall group does very well. And if you get to excluding Scott County um you get to 7.8% overall and a 6.6 for us. And then just because there's a possibility that Scott County might not participate and some of the cities might participate, they ran a an opt a scenario there. We still do really well, but the overall group does a little better. One of the things that you might have noticed if you're doing quick math in your head is that the small groups and the smaller the group do the small groups do really well joining the consortium. So if you think about that would seem be appropriate, right? We're going from this size to a pool this size. When you're dealing with the large organizations, they're already this big. So, the relative benefit or change is is less. So, where are we at with the various um various participants? Um I can tell you right now that uh Savage and New Prague have indicated that they would probably not be moving forward at this time. They have not finalized those discussions, but the current situation, their current renewal numbers for this year, next year are really good. Doesn't make sense for them to make a make a move at this time. Jordan has indicated that they at a staff level, they're very strongly interested. Um, Bellplane is neutral at this point would be my best guess. Um, they're still have they're at the same point we are where they're having some discussions about it. Prior Lake has indicated a strong interest. Shakape would have done it last year if they absolutely could, but their timelines didn't line up with everybody else. Scott County, as far as I can tell, are kind of on the fence. They are self-insured already. They have a system that they've developed over years that they like and has served them very well. And they're and with the consortium, even with us, you're having to take your fingers off the steering wheel a little bit. You have to give up a certain level of control. And so, they will need to evaluate it. They have yet to have full board discussions on this and determine where they're at. Um I we know that there is an interest um how much is uh not determined at this point. There is some interest by Carver and Dakota counties to participate. Um but for counties to make that move, it's a little more complicated. So even if they were interested, there's a question of whether or not they would be able to come on board in 2027. So there's more work to do after and I'll talk about next steps after everybody decides where they're at. So that's the financial piece. On the governance piece, which is just as important, um there's work that's been done and still work that needs to be done. One of the questions that has come up is prop proportionality of influence. Basically, how much control? How many votes do you have on the board without having full control? This came up obviously with our scale group because you have the individual cities and we work well together. But the reality is Scott County basically has half the member half the participants that would come into the pool and as a result if I was them two I'd say well you know what I should probably have more than one vote but I recognize it's a group I shouldn't have more than 50% of the votes. And so there's been some discussion about that. And now as you're talking about possible interest of participation by Carver County and Dakota County who we don't work with as much um and don't have the same relationship um there's also this question of how much control should a large entity have versus the small entity. So they have a seat at the table but um balancing the two. So some of the discussions which haven't been finalized um is this discussion of one vote each versus multi- vote consideration for counties or other disproportionately large member. One is the single county example member would receive um number of votes proportional to their participants compared to the larger group not to exceed 40% of the votes for any member and each member receives at least one vote. Um multi-county example been discussed hasn't been finalized. Um each member receives number of votes proportional to participants not to exceed 30% of the votes for any member. Each member receives at least one vote. Um working through the language because the idea is to create language that's set and it's expandable because you know uh hey uh you know who knows let's say we have a lot of employees two decades down the road. What if Shocki continues to grow and they start to develop a similar number of employees to what the county does? It's kind of being fair both ways. That's still under discussion. Um, seeking formal determination by Minnesota Department of Commerce. So, the way things are set up currently, um, the initial understanding is each entity gets one vote. If you want to provide for a little bit of that proportionalism within the voter group, we're checking with the state to see whether or not that's permitted. There's been early indications that would be basically we would be able to do that if it's set up that way in our establishing documents. Um the Department of Commerce, my understanding point, has not been really great about completely responding on this and they're pestering them right now to try and get a final answer. Um the session is wrapping up. So if we find out that no, they kind of reverse early indications and come back and say, "Nope, you're going to have to change statute to make that happen." and we're kind of stuck for another year and we're probably looking at a 2028 implementation. Um it's my read based on the discussions with the people who've been actively engaged in that portion um that it's likely we just need to get we need to get the letter that says it's okay. The piece that does require statutory changes under current statute Prior Lake um Spring Lake Wershed District can't participate even though it would seem to make common sense. that's currently being worked on in the current legislative session. So, next steps, we're here at this point. Um, we've been presented with the most updated feasibility study results and each of the organizations being asked to go through the information they have to date and basically decide on go or no go. I use the analogy of this is a trip. We're on a bus. Are we going to get is each entity going to get off at this stop or are they going to ride the bus to the next stop? Um the next step uh to take us to the next stop would bas would be two parts. Uh one um we would need to finalize the governance documents and have consensus. Uh everybody would u be agreeable to those. I think we're close but that would need it still needs some work. The other part would be we're actually going to go out to the market. So with the people who are still on the bus put together go an RFP basically go out to the market and get formal proposals for the insurance. Um we would also get formal proposals for all of those other elements attorney legal all that kind of stuff would get all squared away. So we'd have that and then we would finalize the financials for the model and then you get to the next stop and that's the final go no-go. You're either going to be on the bus till the end of the trip or you're getting off. Um, and then if you're on the bus, then we would need to get going. Here's the reality. If it's January 1st start date, these are going to come in fairly rapid succession starting in June, and you guys are going to have to make some quick decisions. Another item of note is if we decide to continue forward, we would need to have formal discussions with our largest union. We only have one. Uh, statute requires that we consent with them. The reality is our employees are aware that we're looking at it. they have, you know, knowledge of this and I've had multiple discussions with the business rep for um the 49ers. They're aware that we're looking at this as well. So, to move forward, what level of commitment is there really? Well, one, uh, there would be a an expectation that your participation into the next part is basically, um, a strong likelihood that you're going to join the consortium unless something really unexpected comes out of the actual RFP results. Um, the reason for that is once the bids are provided, this is my understanding, if you have a percentage in number of participants over a certain amount, those bids become invalid and they have to rebid it. And that takes a lot of time and a lot of effort. And if enough people pull, you could essentially tank it for this upcoming insurance cycle. So the reality for us staying interjoining isn't going to make that difference. But let's say if Shakape pulls or one of the larger entities that would be more more serious. But the general expectation is you're in unless something really unexpected comes up that everybody else would go, "Yep, I' I'd punch out at that point, too. The other part is if you're in, you sign the documents, you're in it. The current discussion is there's a minimum participation because there's setup stabilization costs, etc. You're in for five years. So when we get to the final go no-go, council's got to know that we're this is what we're doing for probably five four to six years um before you can um get out without penalty and approval from the rest of the group. Any questions on that? Okay. So, final question and what the uh direction we're seeking from the council is are we staying on the bus or not? Any questions? >> So, this decisionffect us. We would not know that until we actually went out and just like we wouldn't know what our renewals next year would be under our current situation either. >> So I think I talked about this at the last council meeting in an individual conversations with you. Um this is my opinion and I believe it would be reflected based on informal conversations I've had with other employees. This makes sense if it helps us control costs going forward and helps us maintain the level of benefits we currently provide. The reality is that the trend we are on is not sustainable perpetually and at some point something's got to give and we have a good package. It keeps us competitive. Our employees really really like it and want to keep it. So we need to do something so that we can continue to provide that longer. we're pushing that something's got to give point further out. And so based on the conversations that I've had with employees when we gave the presentation at our own benefits meeting I've had um just with our employees in the office, everybody seems to agree with that. And when it comes down to Kelly and I giving you a recommendation, that would be our point. If we aren't, it appears that there's a financial benefit enough that we should stay on the bus at this point. But if we go out for RFPs and the market comes back and says, you know, we won't be able to support your current benefits package for whatever reason. Gallagher's told us that's highly unlikely, but when they're responding, they just said we're not going to support that specific type any differently than the normal market would. Um, and that's a possibility, however unlikely, then we would say we need to reconsider at at that point. Um, the other thing would be having a meaningful seat at the table. Um, this is a great idea. I think from the governance standpoint, when we're working with all of our partners in scale, we have great relationships. We all generally think alike on how we want to approach this stuff. There's a great deal of respect. You can have the difficult conversations without anybody getting excited. Um, if the ultimate version ends up that we don't have a meaningful seat at the table and it's going to be a minority vote with anybody, um, I would say we have to reconsider what the co what the value is of being able to have greater control over our own destiny. I'll be perfectly honest. Um, uh, I did have a mo momentary apprehension when I was told that Carver and Dakota counties come in. Um I don't know that those organizations have the same philosophy that we have. But the big thing is we don't work with them. We don't have relationships with them. We don't know how they would approach it. And the thing is they don't have one with us within scale. There's the possibility where I'm going to be considerate of your situation when I make decisions with those. The fear would be that when they make decisions, they're going to make decisions that are in the best interest of their organization and would leverage what they have to make sure that the outcome is best for them. Um, is that really absolutely true how it happened? I don't know. But that's also how you keep it in the minority. Um, so hypothetically, uh, if you had all of the cities in Scott County and you or plus Scott County plus carbon carbon, Dakota couldn't run the table even if they wanted to hypothetically. And those are the types of things that would be considered. The other part is over time as you work with them on the board, you will develop relationships and you'll develop an understanding um, over time. So I think while there is it's worth considering. I don't know that there's a reason to be apprehensive about it, if that makes sense. >> I think it's okay to stay on the bus. Um, as long as they do not change drastically what you guys are currently getting for care >> that if I was to say one thing for the employees, that would be the number one. >> If they change it drastically, then we're off the bus because >> Yeah. I mean, I think that's a basic assumption that I have. So, I think it's an absolute no-brainer. If a countyy's in one or multiple, I think it makes financial sense short and long term to maintain consistency. I mean, I think it's an absolute no-brainer. Uh because I don't see health insurance getting any easier over the next period of time either. So, we're going to need others alongside of us to navigate what could get really hard >> individually. So, >> one of the things to point out is that there's the possibility, as I mentioned, Scott County might not participate. So, one of the scenarios they ran was, okay, what if it's some smaller group? Technically, we have enough people to do it. You technically need a 100 people. Gallaghers is telling us that if it was just a handful of cities, even if you might have between three and 400 employees, the market might not be super jump up and down about it. Um, we would have to see at that time. You can always go to the market, you know, and find out. Um, we won't know until pro into May. The original deadline uh for when cities were asked to get back was miday. We're ahead of we're ahead of schedule. I wanted to make sure that you had plenty of time to entertain it and I wanted to make sure that the consultant was being aggressive in contacting people. So, I houndounded them to talk to us first. Um but I know that the county uh is have is going to be at the more of the tail end of the discussion in part because they want to have a full board there for the discussion and based on um when some absences they won't be having their discussion till late May early June. Um but they will be basically the final the final element. I understand from the other administrators they're all having their discussions here over the next 30 to 45 days. I saw one of the slides in one of the upper right corners said 9.2 increase parenthesis individual. Is that city or individual person? >> That would be the the city cost. >> My first concern is your guys is out of pocket. Well, first and foremost, it is >> it's proportional for families because under our current policy, we pay 100% for a single and we pay 85% for family. So, it's it is proportional. If you're um an employee that's current not family, it to some extent it doesn't make a difference for you. You're just caring that your level of benefit doesn't change. for those that have to pay a premium because their family, they're proportionately going to be impacted by it as well. >> And I just want to make sure that I'm understanding because again, in my brain, this is a no-brainer, but like I it doesn't I don't know if everybody sees it as a no-brainer, so I just want to make sure I'm not crazy, which I could be. Like we're going to see an increase anyway. I mean, we're going to see an increased cost and that's what we're predicting or they're predicting that it's going to be about a 9.2% increase over the period of time if we do nothing. And if we do not change, but if we do do something and the feasibility study results are close to what this is, we will as a city see a decrease and then again under the assumption that the benefits don't change. So there won't be a negative impact to the employees that utilize this. So >> so we've offered as much as we can obtain within the mark because the market changes over time. They don't always offer the same packages, but we've offered a very similar package from a health insurance standpoint for a long time. And if you look at this chart, that's what has happened. Um, so the trend to your point, Josh, the cost is going up. The question is how well can we control that increase over time so that we can sustain that for as long as we as long as we can. >> Well, and I guess I would just continue to add, I mean, UKare that obviously is gone. Medicica and Blue Cross are going to be struggling over the next few years as they absorb all the UKare stuff. I mean, so this is only going to be more volatile over the next handful of years. So, the more we can do to put us in a position to try to control this, I think the better. Um, otherwise, we're going to probably see this big time uh over the next few years. And that's where New Craig, I mean, they I know we're dealing with some stuff over the last couple years, and maybe it sounds like they're flatlining a little bit and they've had to correct a little bit, but um again, I still I see this as an absolute no-brainer. I'm fine if I stay on the bus for now, but if it starts, you know, affecting you guys drastically, then I'm gonna be like, get out. >> And Tom, drive the drive the damn bus. >> I mean, forget about being on the bus. Drive it. Let's go. >> Um, as chair of service delivery committee, I've done a fair I've done some driving on this, but no, I I do have to give credit to the county. They have um you know they have full-time staff that works with this stuff. But um I would have to say not only some of their line staff, but also Danny Lens, their assistant county administrator, has kind of taken the lead on this and I think he's done a really good job on moving it forward. Um but really we're at the point where the rubber is going to hit the road when we go out for the proposals. And I think the biggest piece there is really going to be can we will we be allowed to have a package that is similar as possible to what we've got. If it's if it's drastically different I don't think you would have employee support for it. Um and it if it's going to be drastically different it's probably not going to be as rich. It will mean it's less expensive. We have a nice plan. There's a cost you know a proportional cost to it. Um but it is something that our employees have come to really appreciate. Um especially I think in recent years they understand the value of that. Um but that would be one part. The other part is the governance if that um and and that'll be brought back to you guys for a discussion about your comfort level. But if we if it gets to be too a particular block gets to be too heavy I would get more nervous. right now that does not be appear to be the case based on the discussions that have been held. So >> I mean I would just say too I mean if it's going to be a drastic difference to benefits for a larger pool like this I can only imagine that's an indicator that it's going to be likely a a significant change or cost if we want to maintain that level to the cities if we don't decide to move forward. So it might we might come back and it might be like holy crap. that's probably an indication it's going to be a holy crap in October when we get our individual ones if we don't decide to do something with this and then we have to make tough decisions too and not save any money in addition. So >> I'll be honest based on our history in the last few years if we got 9.2% I'd be happy within the budget you guys know it's been low to mid teens um the last few years. Um but I I I agree. I mean, this is this is something that might allow us to be able to mitigate that to some degree. This is indicating our first year in because we're going from here to here might be a bigger benefit than we'll see in subsequent years, but all the indicators are is that this would be a good move for us. So, okay, I think I have direction for now. Okay. Does that conclude your work? >> It does. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, did public works have anything to pass on? >> Uh, nope. Just that it's getting to be that time of year where um as things get warm, snow is melted, things are starting to grow that their uh demand in the field is starting to ramp up. um as it relates to work on uh private well issues, that also means that Corey and Derek are um their bandwidth is also starting to uh get reduced as well and they're doing their best. >> I know Corey's not here, but shout out to them. They blew out the fire hydrant on my street and my garbage can went all the way down to the end of the block and they went and grabbed it while I was sitting in my front office on a Zoom. So, it was really good to see and I appreciate it. You could tell Corey, I don't know who it was, but I saw him running after my trash can. I love it. That's awesome. >> Thank you. >> That's awesome. >> Chief, >> uh excited to announce that Officer Meisner is off of field training and on the schedule by himself and having a good time. Um happy to see that. Uh the kids at Eagle View love his mustache, by the way. >> Were they over there yesterday doing something with county >> or something? They had a drone. They had a drone. The sheriff's office had the drone out. >> Okay. >> Doing a for one of the classes there. >> Um we are ramping up for the public safety or for the safety camp at Eagle View on May 2nd. Uh we capped it at 60 kids. We are at 62 kids. Um so a little nervous. Um it's kind of a lot to plan and a lot going on. Um Jody with fire has just been awesome to to kind of help with that. So um see how that goes. And then um I don't know if you guys saw but we had our department Olympics the second annual and hopefully not last. Um guys had a lot of fun. It's it's a great opportunity for us to all be together which is actually pretty rare uh in a fun environment. And of course I was the goat. I got the the goat medal. So that was exciting. And Pastor Gordon got the toilet medal for dead last. I heard the chief picked events based on his strengths. >> Not quite, but I tried. >> That's all I've got. >> I I also heard that that when you're riding your bike in Minneapolis, you don't use the appropriate hand signals. >> I apparently don't because we were we were trying to kind of figure out what they are to teach the kids. And it's like, I don't know what is this thing and this thing. >> It's like doing the robot >> where I just go like So, I don't know. We'll figure that part out. >> I was just giving you grace. Sorry. We were talking about it last night >> or Tuesday night. >> All right. And the fire department passed anything by chance? Probably not. >> Um just uh we'll be coming back second meeting in May, first meeting in June with a request to increase the pension based on the terms under theou. So, Sir, >> I got a fun little story for you. Um, yesterday I was out enjoying the weather a little bit. I had my dog out for a walk. Got a German shorthair and uh we were walking along the path and we came up on like a storm water detention pond close to it. There a bunch of ducks around it and all of a sudden the ducks all started coming up out of the pond like going after him like biting on his legs and stuff and like wouldn't leave him alone. Wouldn't leave him alone. Eventually, we would walk back like this. Some some of them were actually following us home. And then, so got home. I was kind of sitting there. I said, "I just don't get it." Um, and then it dawned on me, he's uh purebred. >> Yeah. >> I like it when there's a little bit of a delay before it. >> That was very turn. Uh but other than that, yeah, nothing formal. So happy to answer any questions if you guys got anything. >> Community development. >> No, >> we don't really have any updates. Getting a lot of building permits, which Brandon probably knows more about than that >> than I do. >> Get them through the hopper. One at a time. >> Who we got? >> Brandon's doing a really good job. >> Thank you. We have 32 issued and like 11 or 12 more in process. >> It's awesome. >> Compared to the We had total last year. So definitely going to surpass that >> parks. >> Um you guys have the minutes. >> Okay. Uh CC. >> So we had a meeting on Tuesday and basically we went over fire rescue. Okay. First of all, sorry. Easter we had 235 um kiddos come through. Um I said I would get that number to you. And then we went over fire rescue days. We're right on track. Um start looking for our flyer. Jody has it just about done. We're just waiting to hear back from Gordon about the services on Sunday and then once we share it, if y'all can share it would be great. Other than that, nothing on CC. >> Miss Beth says there's a discrepancy on the on the web page. It says six o'clock start time. That's why she came in. >> Oh, can you check on that for us? >> I will. I didn't realize the CC I be honest. I didn't know that CC had a specific page. >> It does. She used it and that's why she was late. >> Okay. All right. >> So, is it >> I was just happy to see her like it is 5:30, right? It is 5:30. I said 5:30 third Tuesday of every month. >> Yeah. >> Did she might have found it on the It's possible it's on the calendar and not a specific page. So, >> we'll >> I was told to tell you >> we'll get that figured out. I'll >> fix it. >> Yeah, I wasn't worried about I was just happy to see her there. >> All right. Scale >> executive committee. Um we just had a meeting on Monday. Um, couple of things. Uh, we had a presentation by the city of Savage on what they're doing with emerald ashbor. Uh, they've done a couple of things that were kind of unique and interesting is they uh worked out um an agreement with a contractor after they did a vetting and bidding process where the contractor basically has a set price for taking down trees. And as part of that, the city has a situation where they will do special assessments for taking down the hazardous tree. So they will allow people to basically finance the cost of doing it through their property taxes. Um the other item that they um that that they did is they had also created a fund to help provide some assistance to property owners to I want to say $84,000 um with regards to dealing with some of the issues. and there was other discussions with what everybody else is doing. I would say that what we're doing is consistent with all the other cities in in the county. Uh other item that we talked about was the where everybody at was at with regards to the insurance consortium discussion within their organization. And then the last item was talking about the value and future of the service delivery um committee. um the uh everybody finds value of it. Um it's recognized that not everything on the agenda is beneficial to everybody, but everybody found value in the conversations, being in the know, and then developing the relationships that come with those uh discussions. And then ultimately that led into um a discussion of where we were with regards to our agenda because it tend in my experience over all these years it tends to be cyclical. You've got a lot of plates spinning and then you don't have a lot of plates spinning. And we had some really good discussions about potential value discussions and we actually probably filled up our next 12 months. So it was very productive that way. I haven't met since the last time. >> All right. >> Any discussion by council? Seeing none, >> motion to adjurnn. Any second? Second. All >> in favor? Be adjourned.