This transcript features the Mayor, the City Administrator, various City Staff, and Councilmembers. Note: Some names in the raw transcript were phonetically transcribed (e.g., "Vaughn" for Vihrachoff, "Lund" for Pemble, "Fulch" for Haus, and "Fox/Brox" for Beck). These have been corrected to match the official list provided. [0:00] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Meeting to order if we'd please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge... [0:15] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: ...under allegiance indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Welcome everyone. Let the role reflect that Councilmember Leifeld is absent. We do have a quorum. Councilmembers, are there any corrections to the minutes from the regular meeting of July 5th? Okay. And comments from the audience at this time: if there's anyone that would like to wish to speak to the Council, you may step forward, state your name, and address. If there's anyone on Zoom that would like to speak to the Council at this time, again, use the raised hand feature and we will bring you into the meeting. [1:00] **Peter Lex**: And welcome. Good evening, your honor and distinguished council people. My name is Peter Lex, I'm the president of the East Hastings Improvement Association. It's working, Mary... your honor, it's working. Um, we'd like to commend Chris Jenkins for—we've had immediate—I've had meetings with him concerning the park, the renovation of the Eastside Park and the residents. We've had numerous meetings over the years and it's one thing we learned, I just told Mr. Hinzman I came in and I said the people below the tracks, the cow towers, believe in the word patience because we've been on this program for three years. But we're very proud people so we didn't want to make any waves; we're just going to—we want smooth sailing from this point forward. [1:46] **Peter Lex**: And at last last week's meeting of the people from Cow Town, in getting the redraw, I went and I met with Chris at his office. We talked about what the people—what the residents wanted, okay? And he brought that back and then I would tell you that we are in 98, almost 99 percent of, you know, agreement with the city. The thing is, we took out—when you look at the plan—the Eastsiders, we didn't want the path to going along the lake. And if by eliminating that path—I mean, they had to put benches or pads in for benches—and we extended the sidewalk from where it ends on the east side all the way down to the warming house so it's ADA approved. [2:33] **Peter Lex**: Um, the only question we have is it—because if we saved you that blacktop path, which was almost three-quarters of a block long, we're thinking that maybe we could revise the plan just one more time a little bit more and we'll go from a half-court to a full-court basketball court. Other than that, we're in agreement. Okay, thank you for your time. [3:00] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Anyone else wish to speak to the Council at this time? And no one on Zoom. Councilmembers, are there any council items to be considered? And Council, I would accept a motion to approve the consent agenda. [3:15] **Councilmember Mya Beck**: So moved. [3:17] **Councilmember Dave Pemble**: Second. [3:19] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Discussion, Council? Okay. All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. For this item, we will have an introduction by the City Administrator Dan Wietecha, and it is about the Lake Isabel Park budget amendment and award contract. Welcome, Dan. [3:50] **Dan Wietecha**: Thank you. Let me figure out—usually I'm at the dais, so a little puzzling with the using a mouse here. Um, as Mr. Lex indicated, Lake Isabel Park has been in various degrees of discussion for a couple of years. As you may recall, see if I can even get the dates right, in 2020 we budgeted a little over $200,000 in '21 for the park. We also submitted to the Department of Natural Resources for a grant which was expected to pay 50 percent of it. It was capped at eligibility at $250,000 based off of the cost estimates at the time. The DNR approved $240,000. [4:52] **Dan Wietecha**: But what we ran into is when the project was put to bid, it came in with a construction estimate about $140,000 higher than what we were anticipating—so about $640,000 instead of that $500,000 figure. We went back to ISG, the consultant that we had worked with on designing the redevelopment of the park. They had facilitated a number of neighborhood meetings for input on what sort of improvements would be beneficial to the neighborhood. They are also familiar with the DNR process, knew what sort of improvements would be competitive in the DNR's view with the grant applications. Made some minor modifications to the plan, got those modifications approved by the DNR—which is important because we had their grant dollars approved—put it back out to bid in June this year. Unfortunately, the numbers came back better, but still over budget. [5:38] **Dan Wietecha**: So what we're at tonight is a package of three things: One, say the price isn't going to get better by continuing to go back and tweak it. There might be some minor modifications that could have some improvements, but essentially this is about as good as the pricing is going to get. The other part to recognize is the approved DNR grant will has a time limit of June 30th next year. So if we continue trying to go back and get better pricing, we have the risk at losing those grant dollars. [6:25] **Dan Wietecha**: So really the recommendation is let's go forward with the project. Let's award—accept the design of the project, award the contract that was bid by—forgetting the name of the company—Minnesota Dirt Works. And essentially two budget amendments: one carrying forward that $225,000 from the '21 to the '22 budget, and then also an additional $172,000 and change up and above beyond that. A little over $100,000 for the increased bids in the cost, a little over $50,000 as a 10 percent contingency—until you get into the project, you don't know what you're running into—and I think it was about $12,000 rounding out the project management and design work with ISG. Bidding it and going back re-bidding it had some cost overruns. [7:12] **Dan Wietecha**: So it's an expensive project. It's more than we were anticipating when we went into the DNR grant application a year, year and a half ago, or more than we were expecting when bidding it. But still a good project. We'll on a side note mention, in conversations with the neighbors in this area, they've asked about making some changes to the trail down towards the lake. It's something we can discuss but, one, it would need an approval because it's different than what we bid; it would need an agreement from the contractor saying we're willing to make that change order—potentially a reduction in taking that trail piece out, potentially an add back in if we looked at adding it into the basketball court. But we need that contractor's approval and question on the pricing, and we need the DNR's approval because it's not what we submitted to them in the grant application. [8:45] **Dan Wietecha**: They might say when we looked at the park as a whole, part of it was that trail down to the lake, and they disagree with taking that out. They might say if you want the $240,000 grant, this is what was approved. So it's conversations we can have beyond the recommendation tonight. But tonight essentially is the acknowledged plans, the design to the park, and the two budget amendments that carry forward from '21 to '22, as well as the increased amount—$172,000 on top—and awarding that contract to Minnesota Dirt Works. With that, I'll certainly take any questions. Thank you. [9:32] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Dan. Councilmember Vihrachoff. [9:34] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Thank your honor. Um, thank you. Can you confirm in the packet that $172,000 extra is coming from park dedication fees or a portion of it? [9:45] **Dan Wietecha**: Yeah, good point, Councilmember. It would be coming from park dedication fees which we, as the Council, agreed it's no longer Ward 1, 2, 3, 4—they're kind of—we're not using only Ward 1 park dedication fees for this park at this point. The thought is it would be using Ward 1 fees, but there's been discussion which I expect to come through the budget process to combine the four wards into a single pot. The single pot totals around a million dollars right now. [10:20] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: I'll just share, your honor, I support this park 100 percent. But I think I support merging these park dedication fees from wards to one. This community, this park is the community's—the community park, not just Ward 1, not just Cow Town. And we went through a lot of changes, a lot of pain to get to where we're at today to make this park amazing for everybody. So I get what Mr. Lex is talking about. I don't want to jeopardize any DNR grant—we can still have those discussions, all of staff do that—but I support this going forward and I think I wouldn't change a whole lot. [11:07] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: We need to make a big push to get the community down this park because it is a beautiful setting. Lake Isabel is kind of a hidden gem that not many people know about and we got to do our due diligence to say this park got all redone. We just came out of a budget meeting; it was talking about to redo a whole park, you can see it just keeps escalating in costs. This might not be so acceptable as we go forward fixing parks—it's just too expensive, we can't keep up with the price, rising cost. So I'm going to support this. I'll listen to my colleagues, but I support both of those amendments in the budget here. Thank you. [11:50] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Councilmember Vihrachoff. Councilmember Pemble. [11:52] **Councilmember Dave Pemble**: Thank you, your honor. Um, just help me out with the map. Where's the trail that's being proposed? Because I see the dock and I see other trails that don't go to the lake, so I'm just trying to understand that. [12:01] **Dan Wietecha**: Um, yes, please come on up, help me out. You can assist if you want... the trailer... someone from the neighborhood. [12:05] **Peter Lex**: We can't see it there, though, I'm sorry. (Uses mouse on screen). The trail that we wanted to take out was the one that went along the lake here. So we took that one out here, right here. The trail that went down along the lake right here, we asked him to take that one out. [12:35] **Councilmember Dave Pemble**: So it's already out, huh? [12:37] **Peter Lex**: It was in the original conception, the plan that came like four months ago. And then when I met with Chris Jenkins after meeting with the people from Eastside Hastings, we said you want to take that out of there. There's no need to have two paths going through that park when you've got a sidewalk there and a sidewalk there, you've got a path coming in there. So we want to take that—this is the one we told Chris Jenkins we want to take out. And we still get the ADA from off that sidewalk down to that warming house. [13:10] **Councilmember Dave Pemble**: So Pete, for clarification, there's no trail there now? [13:12] **Peter Lex**: There is no trail there now. And they want to add it. On the original drawing, they had it on there. We do not want that trail there. Okay? Just for clarification. Thank you. [13:28] **Councilmember Dave Pemble**: Okay. Does that answer—not fully. I mean, we're getting there. So, the revised bid that we got does or does not include that work? [13:35] **Dan Wietecha**: Having that path... the revised bid should probably have—not that path should be off that bid? Okay, I think... I'm not sure. I was never told any numbers other than I believe the revised bid does include some trail going down towards the lake. [14:15] **Peter Lex**: Okay, I'm just trying to understand cost, right? Are we—but removing that would need a change order from the contract and would also then—and I understand that, and that's a layer of complexity, but I just want to understand: are we also talking about an additional X thousand dollars or are we just horse-trading money, you know, this for that? So Chris said he had to resubmit the plan to the DNR and he also had to plan back to the state of Minnesota for ADA requirements. He said but by taking that trail out of there and eliminating those benches that are on the original plan... there are three benches along there, like looking back into the park rather than at the lake. And you can't see the lake anyway because of the trees. So we said take it out. [14:55] **Peter Lex**: And we told them the sidewalk on the east side goes down, said we can put a concrete wash down a sidewalk from where the pole is there at the alley, take it down. They have the ADA accessibility into the warming house and then we modified some of this along here, make it all a hardscape—whatever, concrete—so that this here, it all ties together off the path off Second Street and go down all the way down here towards the lake where you come into the lake. And then they're going to change the parking lot over here to ADA—they're going to lower it so that they can walk up the path rather than up the steps. [15:35] **Councilmember Dave Pemble**: Okay. Thank you. Yes, one more question? No, not for... no, you're good. Thank you. [15:45] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Pete. You've done your job, you're good. Um, so how does this work then? Um, do we—can we go back and resubmit and get a new bid? Do we approve? Is it possible to approve a condition as long as it doesn't increase the cost? [15:55] **Dan Wietecha**: The recommendation is: don't mess with this trail. The recommendation is: approve the plan, approve the bid by Minnesota Dirt Works, approve the budget carryover and the additional budget amendment, and then in the background, staff will inquire with the contractor and DNR if these changes can be made. And if so, we'll bring a change order to a future Council meeting. Is that right? Okay. All right, thank you. [16:30] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: Thank you, your honor. Um, I just wanted to—I'm sorry, Dan, it's not for you, it's for Pete. Um, I would like to hear why it is that the residents wanted to have that path removed along what would have been like a kind of like an overlook area. I thought it looked lovely on the plan and I think the lake is gorgeous and I thought it would have been a swell spot to sit and sip a beverage or something. And so I'm just perplexed. [16:45] **Peter Lex**: This is as you look at the outlaying outline of the park all the way around—it's not even a half a block big, okay? So in the inception, the sidewalk that runs along Second Street right there, then they said they wanted—you have to have ADA approval if we put a path here. So what we said is rather than have people—you can't see into the lake because of the trees, and you can't cut the trees down because there's what's holding the park in there right now, the Lolly Road. And they had the benches on the drawing—this is down here—facing into the park and not looking at the lake. So the residents said: "What good does it do to put a path over there? You're not going to sit and you're going to look north instead of south into the lake." [17:28] **Peter Lex**: Take those benches and put them along the sidewalk up here, but they're talking about that basketball court because these benches are donated by the residents or whoever wants to make a donation to the city. So we'd take the three benches off down here along the lake and we'd put them up along the basketball lane there. We would still have hardscape for ADA, we eliminate that path down there because you've got one, two, and you would have had three accesses into that park. You don't need that many; the park isn't that big. [18:00] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: Yeah, no, thank you, Pete. I didn't know that they were intending to have the benches actually face into the green space rather than looking out over the lake. I had made the assumption that they were going to thin those trees a little bit and then have it as an overlook. [18:15] **Peter Lex**: And in talking with Chris again, we talked about that and he said we can cut what's dead out of there. But the thing is, you can't take anything live because that's a sand hill there and until you get up about a quarter of the way into the park—when you get to the top of the hill, then you're in solid rock. But that whole slope down to the lake is all sand and they need the trees to keep the land, they park there. [18:45] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: Okay, right. Okay, now I'm understanding and that does make sense. Thank you. [18:50] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Okay, thank you, Pete. Any other—sure, you may come up. Um, if their point is—please state your name and your address. [19:05] **Tanta Horning**: Tanta Horning, 1319 East Third Street in Cow Town. So if the whole point of that walking path is to have a view of the lake... I was just down at the lake a week ago this past Sunday and we have that dock. I mean, that's absolutely beautiful. If you walk down there you can get a really nice view of the lake. And you know, and then there's that thing—I don't know if it's supposed to be connected to the dock, it just is kind of floating out there—but and then there is a little bit of a beach area so you can stand on there and just kind of look. [19:51] **Tanta Horning**: I don't know, that's what when we were looking at the plans, that path down there and this being how short it was... a lot of people questioned, you know, is it really a necessity being that they do have the dock where you can walk down that little boardwalkway and view the lake? Okay, thank you. [20:15] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Thank you. Councilmember Haus, your latest... I'm sorry. No additional discussion? Then I accept a motion to approve the Lake Isabel redevelopment project, accept the bid from Minnesota Dirt Works, and approve carrying forward the budget amendment. [20:39] **Councilmember Dave Pemble**: So moved. [20:41] **Councilmember Mya Beck**: Second. [20:43] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Additional discussion, Council? [20:50] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: Your honor, just a point of clarification: Are we voting on the plan as drawn or as bid? [20:59] **Dan Wietecha**: No, we're voting on a plan with the trail, the staff recommendation. [21:10] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: As another point of clarification, your honor, that's really confusing. So why is this rendering in the packet then? If I guess I'm confused as to what it is that we're voting on completely because it's... I don't know. The state of Minnesota can be difficult to work with, but generally, and it takes—it seems like a long time—but generally, you know, they'll make modifications to a plan. And I don't think that little—I mean after you understand better what it is that that little trail would achieve, it seems to me that it doesn't make a lot of sense. [22:00] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: When we saw the original depictions, I had thought that it was an overlook looking over the lake and that there was going to be a vantage point for people to actually see the lake. And if the intention isn't for it to look over the lake so people can enjoy the lake, then that doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense to me. And so it's a neighborhood park, and if that's what the consensus of the East Side Neighborhood Association is, is to remove that small area... I mean, after that they've seen the depictions and they've had further conversation because they know that area the best, I think that it makes sense to listen to the residents and do what they're asking rather than to ignore it. So thank you. [22:55] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Councilmember Pemble would like to clarify his motion. [23:00] **Councilmember Dave Pemble**: Yeah, I'll provide a little clarification. Here's what I heard: I heard move forward, don't mess with this right now so we can keep the ball rolling. In the background, staff well understands the situation; they will go investigate whether it's possible to remove the sidewalk and/or add the additional half-court. They'll check that with the DNR and with the contractor, and if there's any change orders that need to be had, that'll come to us. But if I make a motion—which I didn't—to approve a full court, no sidewalk, without knowing if that's okay with the DNR and the contractor, then we might be in a tougher situation later. So my motion was to approve the plan, maybe not as drawn, but as bid—which included the sidewalk and half-court at this point in time—and everything else is the same with the understanding that staff would do that legwork afterwards. So that's my motion. I think Councilmember Beck seconded. [24:02] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: That, your honor... I just want to make sure that that's what Dan understands as well because I support what you just said, Dave, and that's what I would hope for. But what I had heard Dan say is that the staff recommendation was to keep the pathway in the plan and not ask for the change with the DNR. And so that's what I had heard as a staff recommendation, so I could have been incorrect. Please clarify. [24:35] **Dan Wietecha**: I think Councilmember Pemble was more articulate than I was. Staff's recommendation at this immediate point in time—7:28 on Monday, July 18th—is approving the project as designed and as bid so we can get that under contract and keep the ball rolling. Separately, five minutes after the meeting—well, actually next week when we're fully staffed—we will talk with the DNR and the contractor about the feasibility of removing that trail and/or adding to the basketball court. And if those are doable, we would bring a change order to City Council at a future date. Perfect. All right, thank you. [25:30] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Okay, the motion is on the table with a second. All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you, Dan. Let's see—and we also have tonight under Administration the Comp and Class Study, which Dan will continue from the dais. [26:10] **Dan Wietecha**: Thank you, Mayor and Council. This has had a long discussion going back a year or a little over a year, noting that it's been a long time since we've done a formal compensation classification study. We discussed it at Committee and at City Council. I had budgetary approvals to hire a consultant as well as budgetary approval for a sort of a placeholder amount towards implementation of the plan. Early in the year 2022, we hired Abdo Solutions through a competitive bidding process. We hired Abdo Solutions as a consultant to work with on this and have had a number of meetings with them at the staff level over the last few months to get to where we are tonight with a report. [27:21] **Dan Wietecha**: But essentially, it looks at a few things: wanting to make sure that our job descriptions are up to date; make sure that the job descriptions accurately reflect into where the responsibilities of the jobs are reflected in their wage rates; wanting to make sure that our wages are consistent within the city; wanting to make sure that our wages are competitive in the broader market, looking at comparable cities in the area. And essentially, at the end of the day, Leah Davis will in a minute here present an overview of the plan. But the plan really is setting up—here's the data, here's the market, and some preliminary how our existing staffing fits into the market. [28:30] **Dan Wietecha**: But I would recommend that the City Council refer this to the Administration Committee of Council to discuss: How do we implement this? Do we just take it as is? Are there areas that we make adjustments to? For example, if there are, as you'll see in a minute, eight steps proposed—this position might start at step one and over time could progress eight steps. Is that too many? Do we shorten it to, say, six steps and in doing so try to be more competitive on that starting wage? Is the potential total cost of implementation just too much to budget in a single year, and we look at needing to phase it in over a couple of years? How to do that? So those are the types of things that would recommend that we refer to Administration Committee and bring it back in the next couple of meetings—I'd say by mid-August. But with that, I can take a question, though I'd really like to hand it off to Leah Davis from Abdo Solutions to give the overview. Encourage you to ask questions of her as well as of me. And the recommendation is to refer to Administration Committee, please. Thank you. [29:37] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Dan. Welcome, Leah. [29:39] **Leah Davis**: Your honor, Councilmembers, thank you for having me here tonight. And again, what I'm hoping to kind of do is give you a high-level overview of the work we've been doing with your leadership team at the City of Hastings to go through the position classification and compensation studies. So again, my name is Leah Davis. I'm a partner at Abdo. We are a regional CPA firm where at least 30 percent of our clients are in the public sector. My team works primarily on HR and payroll-related consulting, and so we spend at least a third of our time focused specifically with government employers and cities like the City of Hastings, as well as county and school districts. [30:24] **Leah Davis**: So what we'll kind of cover tonight or what I'll go over with you is just a general project overview. Sometimes with these projects, understanding the *why* is really important before we start digging into the *what* and some of the findings and recommendations. I'll give you a little bit of information on myself and the team members that were involved in this project. I want to make sure we talk about what your underlying goals and some of the assumptions that were used in both the recommendations and the findings, and some of those things that will carry forward if you were to recommend this to your Administrative Committee—the things they'll be considering and thinking about as they finalize the plan. We're going to talk a little bit about what the analysis process and methodology is. [31:12] **Leah Davis**: The reality is that anything related to compensation can be a little heartburn-causing for a lot of different stakeholders, right? And so understanding, or at least getting a little bit of background on how the data was pulled together and analyzed, and what the numbers mean and what they don't mean, can be kind of important. And then we'll just give you sort of a highlight of the findings and the compensation plan that's being proposed. And then there'll be some time for questions if you have any for me. [31:50] **Leah Davis**: As we look at the compensation project overview, this is a lot of information but you'll get it and you can kind of dig in. But I think Dan did a really good job of talking high-level about all of the parts that are encompassed in a classification and compensation study. The city started with a full-blown comprehensive update to job descriptions. That was a really important component of the study—that we had a really accurate depiction of each position and the related duties, responsibilities, and requirements for each of those positions, because those really are the foundation for a well-run compensation study. That was a huge undertaking and we supported the city with that, but that was done primarily by city leadership and they really invested a lot of time and energy into that. We did perform a high-level ADA and FLSA exempt/non-exempt classification review just to make sure, from a compliance perspective, that all those updated descriptions were consistent and in line with regulatory guidance. [32:43] **Leah Davis**: The next piece then was to take all of those job descriptions and apply a scoring methodology. In every city, every position must be assigned a numeric score. And sort of the way you do the math is a little different depending on which provider you use and which methodology you use. Our team uses the Hay methodology; it's a calculation developed by the state of Minnesota. We've been using it for almost 15 years. And as with any scoring methodology, it's really intended to place a numeric value on the knowledge, skills, experience, and the overall impact that individual position has on the organization. The level of independence they have, the complexity of problems that position is required to solve, as well as taking into consideration budgetary impact. When an individual in that role is tasked with making a decision, what is the scope of impact, both from a budgetary and overall organizational perspective? [33:29] **Leah Davis**: And so what ends up happening then is you have all of the positions and they sort of rank themselves hierarchically from lowest to highest in terms of scoring. And then all of those scores really make sense within the context of your own organization. I always say it's really important to note that your Police Chief may have a very different score from Northfield's Police Chief, and that's okay because as long as that score makes sense within *your* organization, there's not an apples-to-apples comparison from one city to the next. They may do the math differently as well, right, depending on the different methodologies used. We were really involved in that. We conducted that scoring independently. We brought that back to the leadership team just to get feedback, right? The independent perspective from our team is very, very important throughout the study including with the scoring, but we did have discussions with city leadership about: "Did we miss anything? Does something seem off?" So they were really involved in that process to make sure we got that right from the beginning. [35:01] **Leah Davis**: Once we finished the scoring, then we go out to the market. The City of Hastings actually has a very specific ordinance that states who you compare yourselves to when it comes to compensation, and so we relied heavily on that. It's in the report. Kelly sent that over, but so it's specific in terms—we're looking at comparables related to proximity to the metro, population, organizations that have similar utilities and other functions within the city. And so we really got sort of buy-in based on the city ordinance and leadership in that regard on who our comparables are. And then we went out and conducted a full compensation analysis. The sources we used for the analysis included the League of Minnesota Cities 2022 Salary Survey as well as a tool that we subscribe to called the Economic Research Institute database. [35:46] **Leah Davis**: There were a couple positions where we utilized data from that database for positions that we weren't able to find quite enough comparables for from the League. We also did a direct solicited survey for some cities that you'd identified as important comparables but that had not participated in the League study. And there were a couple county data points that we'll show you that we used for a couple different Public Works positions that we wanted to get better comparables for. We pull all that information together. So you have your scores, you have your compensation data, and using that and some of the underlying compensation philosophy within the city, we pull together a proposed step and grade table that helps pull all of your positions—which currently have fairly independent ranges—into a unified step and grade plan. [36:33] **Leah Davis**: Another important component of the study is to make sure that whatever plan you adopt moving forward, it puts you in a good position from a Minnesota pay equity compliance perspective. That's an every-three-year reporting requirement with the state of Minnesota. It takes into consideration both the scores assigned to each position as well as the minimum and maximum pay, and what it's really seeking to do is ensure that predominantly male-dominated positions are being paid equitably to female positions if scores are similar, if that makes any sense. And having a more structured step and grade table assists with that as you move forward rather than having specific positions have specific ranges sort of independent of one another. [38:05] **Leah Davis**: Dan talked a little bit about why it's necessary to do a study right now. Particularly, you're seeking to attract and retain talent and it is uniquely difficult right now. As we go into these studies, it's just important that we recognize that for continuity within the city and to make sure you can stay competitive in the labor market, it's important that you understand where the market is. The second is that you've historically aimed to place yourself competitively with the market. And so again, knowing where the market is gives you the flexibility to say: "Now that we know where that point is, where is the average? Where would we like to place ourselves relative to that point?" That formalized structure is important both for internal fairness but also from a compliance perspective with Minnesota pay equity. [38:52] **Leah Davis**: And that also—we talked a little bit about this at our initial meeting with department leadership—that it was very, very important that all of the contributions of every individual within the organization were recognized. Making sure that those were being considered and factored in into both the scoring and the compensation model. Really critical to understand as well: While we included all of your positions that are represented by the five unions within the city, those compensation—all of that compensation needs to be negotiated separately. So those positions have been scored, the job descriptions have been updated, the market data has been compiled, but any recommendations that our team pulled together related to a step and grade table, a proposed compensation model—those union-represented positions are not included because they need to be negotiated independently. So keeping that in mind. Any questions so far? [40:15] **Leah Davis**: All right. Process and methodology: when we talk about the comparables that we used, again, League of Minnesota Cities, and that second bullet point there has your verbatim existing resolution that we made sure to align the comparables with as we went out to match jobs. We identified those comparable cities but we also then take the time to match the jobs to make sure those are a good fit. And so, using those newly developed job descriptions and the data we have available from the survey resources, matching those up as best we could. And when we're talking about the market data, we're talking about an average at the minimum pay and an average at the maximum pay. So we're not just saying: "This is the average pay for a position." We're looking at that average range for each position and comparing it to your current pay range for each position. Here's a list of the comparable municipalities that we had at least one data point from. Important to note, Mower County for example—we only have one data point that we used from Mower County, I believe it was related to a heavy equipment operator because we struggled to find that specific position in some different cities. Most of these organizations we used multiple comparable data points, but there are a few—South Metro Fire Department for example—we were looking specifically at your firefighter paramedic positions. So we didn't use other positions for those. Any questions on that? [41:35] **Leah Davis**: Okay. Key findings: where did we land? Your minimum on average—minimum pay on average for all positions was just slightly below the market minimum at 0.64 percent below the market. Really, really important to note though, and I have this both for your minimum and maximum: it is just an average. So individual positions can vary widely, and there are different reasons why that might be. But on average, minimum starting pay across the organization was relatively close to market. Current pay maximums on average were slightly lower at about 5.42 percent below the market average maximum pay for all positions. And again, that's an average of all the positions. [42:35] **Leah Davis**: Important to note: when there's a variation, one of the things that can be sort of a reflex when we look at market data is to assume that it's telling us we need to do something. And really, when you're looking at the data, there could be legitimate reasons for variation. Sometimes the jobs aren't a good match, and maybe we just don't know—we don't get a job description from every other organization; we get a one-sentence sort of description of the position and the title. So you do your best to match, but in some organizations you may have a really unique position with different duties and responsibilities, and it may differ from the market in pay for one reason or another. And that may be correct as long as you've done that sort of intentionally and you understand why it varies, right? The new Community Service Officer and Senior Building Permit Technicians were scored, job descriptions have been finalized and they're included in the study. So those positions are not filled, but you now have the market data to know where you could place them when you go to do that. [43:27] **Leah Davis**: And then it's also important to note that all the data that we used in the study was 2022 data. And so as you move into 2023, you'll want to make sure that you're considering a COLA, because that market will move on you. The table we've proposed today would be a 2022 table, and so be considering COLAs just as you would any other normal year as you roll that table forward. [44:00] **Leah Davis**: All right, so this is just a visual—we won't get into this—but this is sort of what that step and grade table looks like from a mechanics perspective. It's eight steps from the start step to the top step. There are 20 grade levels. Those grade levels are organized and grouped by point value. So you can see on the far left, each position has been assigned a point value in that scoring exercise. And so per position, you can align the point with the respective grade—the point value of the position with the respective grade—and then you can see kind of where each position would align. It's a 3.25 percent increase from step to step and a 7.85 percent increase from grade to grade. So if an individual is on Step 1, Grade 5 and they move to Step 1, Grade 6, that's a 7.85 percent increase. Range within grade is just over 21 percent from the start step to the top step. [45:10] **Leah Davis**: Okay, here's what everyone wants to know: so what if approved as is? Now, again, we're not seeking—you're not seeking approval tonight. The recommendation is to take this information and some of the recommendations, move it to the Administrative Committee, and let them work out some of the fine-tuning. If adopted, implementation—and again, we're just throwing out scenarios, they'll have a lot of flexibility—but just to give you a general estimate of cost if you were to adopt as of July 1, 2022, so a retroactive adoption to get everyone onto that table. There's sort of the adjustment of "we move into the house"—considered a new structure. Kelly and I were talking about this today: if you buy a house, first you have to move in and then everyone has to pick a room. So there's kind of two phases of adopting a plan like this. The first is to get everyone on the table; they move to the step closest to their current rate of pay within their respective assigned grade. And then there's a bit of a market position adjustment that can happen. So maybe someone is very senior and tenured, they're at their top step today, but if they move onto the table it places them somewhere in the mid-range of the table. There may be some market position adjustments where that person should be more towards the top of the range just due to seniority and experience. And so all of that taken into consideration, this would be an approximate cost—pretty darn close though. We looked at it individual by individual for 2022 just to give you a ballpark. [47:10] **Leah Davis**: Next steps: again, I'll take some questions, but really what we're talking about tonight is recommending that Council sort of just acknowledge receipt of the report, which you'll receive shortly after this meeting. Intentionally, I like to go through the presentation before you get the report in your hands because the data can mean something very different if we haven't had a chance to talk about it a little bit. And the goal would be for the Administrative Committee to come back with a final recommendation that you can consider and vote on by mid-August. There's a few recommendations for things for the Administrative Committee to consider—Dan kind of talked about those—so I'll take questions if anyone has any. Thank you. [47:50] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Thank you. And I'm glad it's going to Committee because I think there's going to be a few details to work out. But I went through this myself, and implementing is a different story than putting it in front of us, because I think that work's going to come on staff's part. One of the questions I'll have for the Committee to ask is: Do they have the bandwidth to put everybody in a house at one time? Because that's a whole lot of work on our staff to get that implemented. And then my next part is: Did anybody go down? That would be another question I'd be curious about. That happened at my committee—it froze a few people and that doesn't go very well when they're stuck. [48:30] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: But my question to you is: Should the Committee be looking at our ordinance that handcuffed you? Do you think as a company that we had this—are we unique having an ordinance? [48:40] **Leah Davis**: Candidly, it was actually very refreshing that you knew who you compared yourself to. There's a lot of organizations where it's sort of like, "Well, today we're going to compare ourselves to this group, and next month we're going to compare ourselves to this group." Or we compare ourselves from a budget perspective to this city, but when we talk about comp, we want to use this city. So I would actually say no, I think it provided some clarity. But we didn't go in limiting ourselves to those organizations either; we just knew that those were sort of our primary focus and that it was a priority that we sought out as much information from those locations as possible, but if we needed more data, we were working together to find reasonable comparables to make sure we got it. [49:25] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Because I don't know, was the ordinance only for salaries or was it for expenses and everything else? [49:30] **Dan Wietecha**: Your honor, members of the Council, this is actually in resolution form so if you chose to change it, it wouldn't be that difficult. It's not an ordinance. [49:35] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: And I just don't know if we use it for all projects, everything we compare to, or is it just for salaries that we can use that ordinance? [49:40] **Leah Davis**: It says "The City of Hastings employee compensation schedule will be based upon a comparison of cities with populations from 15,000 to 35,000 in the seven-county metro region and specifically include the cities of Cannon Falls, Cottage Grove, Northfield, and Red Wing." [50:15] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: And the last question I have is—I think times have changed and I noticed that we have one chart. Is that for union? How about part-timers? That was not discussed if I remember right at this one. You guys did not look at our part-time staff, but how about salary versus hourly? That would be another question I'll ask—is the salary mentality still there or is it gone? Because I have some salary employees that work for me but still operate as kind of an hourly, and I think that's important when we look into a chart because what's the expectation of a salary employee to work up and above an average, or should they all be hourly employees? So I'm not on a Committee, so I get to pass it off to the next crew to ask this question. But thank you for putting this all together. Appreciate it. [51:08] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: Thank you, your honor. Um, thank you for the presentation. I was wondering within the report—and I don't sit on the Administrative Committee, and so I am really interested in this conversation because I haven't been a part of the details to date. But um, in regards to the public safety-related job descriptions and such for the Fire Department and the Police Department: you know, throughout the state we're kind of at a crisis when it comes to being able to find enough individuals who are fully qualified to be able to take those positions, and it has become extremely competitive. And so I'm very interested in hearing more detail about those particular positions and how it is that we're going to address them. Because it no longer seems reasonable just to be shooting for average pay at the 50th percentile to be retaining those employees. We do not want to see them moving elsewhere to move up; we need to be really strategic about trying to keep them here within the city. And so I'm really concerned about that and I'd love to hear what it is that you found specifically in those professions. Thanks. [51:53] **Leah Davis**: Yes, definitely. So you are 100 percent accurate. Those have always been, you know, competitive positions, but I would say within the last couple years they've really moved away from the market differently than some of the other positions within the city. So in your situation, you have market data for each of those positions. And that's where you as an organization can decide—whether it's for the whole organization or for certain sort of "hot skill" positions (it's kind of a phrase in compensation circles right now)—but any of those sort of high-demand positions or hard-to-find positions, you have the flexibility now that you know where the market is at to place yourself intentionally where you think you need to be. [52:39] **Leah Davis**: Police, Fire—those are all going to be negotiated independently as you go into union negotiations, and so you can place different—and again, I'm not saying I recommend this necessarily, those are the things your Administrative Committee will need to talk through—but you'll be able to negotiate all of those groups independently. And now that you know where the market is at, you can decide: "Do we need to be in the upper quartile for starting pay and top-end pay in any of those areas? Do we need to be there for the rest of the organization?" So those are all things you'll need to talk through. But you're 100 percent right. I'm seeing organizations who have police who are not represented by a union, so they would actually be able to be placed within the sort of primary step and grade table, and they're having to pull them out and range them separately because they cannot get compensation to align with where they'd be placed in a grade appropriately. They've sort of kicked themselves off the table. [54:16] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: So you are seeing other communities that are looking at those professions separately and having different pay structures for them? Am I understanding that correctly then? [54:25] **Leah Davis**: Well, you currently have a different pay structure because it's negotiated by their collective bargaining agreement completely separate from the rest of the organization anyway, so you've always had a different pay structure for them. But yes, I'm even seeing organizations that aren't forced to negotiate independently that are having to pull those out. Again, though, it is really important that you're paying attention to pay equity compliance as you go into those things too. Kelly and I have had conversations about as you go into negotiations: How are you going to do ongoing testing within the Minnesota pay equity system to make sure that we don't sort of—your Police and Fire are predominantly male positions, and if they're scored similarly to predominantly female positions and we're paying them significantly more than that similarly pointed female position, we need to be doing testing. A little of that is allowed, but those are surprises you're not going to want when you go into testing in 2023 again. So it's a delicate balance that you have to strike between how much you can pull them out and keeping the rest of the organization compliant. [55:40] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: Okay, thank you. And I guess I have a question for Dan. As we're moving forward, what are the plans for listening to those staff to get feedback? Because I know that there's obviously the various unions and they have their representation, and then I'm also concerned about those employees that don't fall under a union—the professionals that like the management team or others who are exempt that aren't in a union. You know, how is it that you're going to solicit feedback as we're moving forward so that everyone's feeling fully informed and listened to? [56:45] **Dan Wietecha**: I think there's a little bit of two different pieces there about being informed and being listened to. It's related, but two different pieces. One, although over the past five months or so that this has gone on, there's certainly been times that it's been quiet—we're waiting on survey data or something like that. But at particular milestones throughout the process on the front end, and even a newsletter that went out earlier today, we have given information and updates to all employees about where this is at, what's going on, how this would get used. So that giving information piece has certainly been there, and I hope that on the front end that just answers a lot of their questions. I'm sure it doesn't answer all of them, but I hope that being up front has been helpful. [57:57] **Dan Wietecha**: In terms of listening to them, it's tough to discuss that in terms of strictly hypotheticals. But if somebody were to say that they felt that their job description or the pointing with their job description was not accurate, I would want to know what or why that is and potentially if, "Hey, the pointing really seemed to miss something, didn't understand the job description," we would want to be able to go back and review that. But really, that feedback is something we should have had and I think did have back in March when we gave them: "Here's the job descriptions department, what updates need to be made? Are they current with what you're doing? Department heads, are we getting an accurate reflection from your staff?" [58:43] **Dan Wietecha**: So they indirectly or directly actually were part of designing the process on the front end. It's possible that something was missed, but I hope that it's already reflecting their piece. A different piece of the hypotheticals of what we might hear from them and respond to: If it's simply a matter of "I want a bigger raise" or "I didn't get the same raise as somebody else," well, we're looking at positions, not really looking at individuals. So the data behind that grid that Leah put up there is based off of the survey market data that we got from other communities similar to Hastings. And it might be something that somebody would want a larger raise than what the data or what the market reflects, but this is what we're seeing in the market for the specific responsibilities of this position. Really, this is what the data is showing us. We're looking at positions, not individuals. And we would want to hear somebody out and try to understand where they're coming from, but it isn't going to change the data or the market. [1:00:17] **Dan Wietecha**: So sure, it's tough on the hypothetical on "how would we respond to them" because any question might come up could vary. But we would certainly want to understand where they're coming from and see if there's something that is maybe being misunderstood in the report, or if potentially there was something wrong—you know, "We did not recognize the oversight position requires a particular license and somehow that didn't get carried forward into the pointing system." Correct an error like that, but really it's looking at the positions, not an individual. [1:01:04] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: I would just ask that you have consideration for doing listening sessions with the employees, including those who are non-union, and also having an appeal process once you get to the point where you're actually telling each individual person: "Okay, well this is how it affects you." Particularly, as Councilmember Vihrachoff had mentioned, for folks who may have the situation that arises where the point system says that they are being overly paid and they get frozen. Because that's not a particularly good situation for anyone to be in. And so I just think that the more that we can do to communicate and make it a two-way conversation so that everyone feels more comfortable that they're being listened to. You know, the devil is in the detail, and I think that once units begin to have the opportunity to look more specifically as to how it applies to them and their positions, that there may be cause for further conversation. And so I don't sit on the Administrative Committee and so I just wanted to say that right now. And I would hope that there would be discussion about again pulling out, as you had said, those hot skill items—not just public safety individuals but trade positions are really hot too. [1:02:40] **Leah Davis**: I will just add one comment too: that from the very beginning of the study, leadership made it extremely clear that department heads needed to be very, very involved in the process because they are the people that are going to be the first person that someone comes and has a question or a concern. And so we wanted to make sure that they felt very equipped and that they really understood and felt comfortable with both the process, the methodology, what the numbers mean, what they don't mean, where you can be flexible, and where you are sort of boxed in by compliance types of things. So they've been great and been involved throughout the study, so I think across all departments you have department heads who are well-educated in the study and what it means and, with a little help, will be good advocates for their employees. [1:03:30] **Dan Wietecha**: Just a point of clarification, it wasn't a question I heard earlier, but about part-time employees: part-time regular employees were included in the study. It was the seasonal positions as well as the paid-on-call positions that were not, but general part-time employees were included in the study. [1:04:10] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Dan. I'd accept a motion to refer the compensation study to the Administrative Committee—Councilmembers Lund, Leifeld, and Fox—with a deadline for recommendation back to the City Council of August 15th. [1:04:30] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: So moved. [1:04:40] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Second. [1:04:42] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Additional new discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you all, thank you Leah. Tonight we have a Strategic Initiatives quarterly report and Council, there is no action on this; it's just necessarily discussion and feedback. And Dan, you may continue. [1:05:00] **Dan Wietecha**: Yeah, and no action and not even necessarily a whole lot to present outside what's in the memo and associated report. When the City Council adopted this back in September of last year, one of the emphasis was we want to make sure this is active and regularly reported, not a plan that just sits on the shelf, so to speak. So we have reported back quarterly; that's what this is. The two differences tonight are: prior quarterly reports we've simply put in the consent agenda—"here it is"—and could just as easily do that tonight, but wanted to make sure that it was relatively easy for Council to ask questions or make comments if you wished. [1:05:45] **Dan Wietecha**: The other piece that's a little bit different is I view the strategic initiatives as having three parts to it. One is the eight strategic initiatives themselves, and those have been the emphasis of the quarterly report saying here's the progress. Another section we've called the "future topics," and affectionately we've nicknamed it the "parking lot." These are things that are great ideas; they aren't quite the priority in terms of time or resources or budget right now, but we don't want to forget about them. And over time, there's even been some progress on parking lot items. The third part is recognizing that there are many other projects—significant in terms of staff time and budget—beyond the day-to-day operations. There was a list of 30 or 40 other projects that we expected to be going on in the coming year. We've not reported those previously, so I wanted to give a quick recognition that there are other activities across all our departments that have seen progress. It's not an action item tonight, it's our standard quarterly report. [1:08:45] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Dan. Any discussion, Council? If not, okay, we will continue and move on to number three under Administration, which is a second reading and adopt an ordinance for alcoholic beverages. Welcome Kelly Murtaugh, our Assistant City Administrator. [1:08:49] **Kelly Murtaugh**: Thank you, Mayor, Councilmembers. I am back before you reviewing the second reading of the amendment to city code regarding alcoholic beverages. This, as you may remember, is a reflection of the Omnibus Liquor Bill that was approved earlier this year. Just a couple of highlights: it allows small brewers to have additional off-sale options; it allows a municipality to issue on-sale liquor licenses for baseball teams competing within the Minnesota Baseball Association; and it also allows extended hours for those who may want to celebrate the Men's and Women's World Cup soccer tournaments. There's one adjustment to the fee—a new fee for those who do want to engage in the extended hours for soccer—but other than that, all existing fees cover any changes. With that, I would certainly welcome any questions. [1:10:15] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Kelly. Any discussion, Council? [1:10:24] **Councilmember Mya Beck**: As I mentioned at our last meeting, I will be abstaining for the reason that this is obviously in conflict with my business. But I can help answer any questions if that's appropriate. [1:10:45] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Sure, thank you Councilmember Beck. Okay, Council, I would accept a motion to approve the second reading and adoption of an ordinance for the City of Hastings, Minnesota, amending various provisions of Hastings City Code Chapter 111, 94.05, and Chapter 34 regarding alcoholic beverages. [1:11:00] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: So moved. [1:11:02] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: Second. [1:11:05] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Additional discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you, Kelly. Councilmembers, are there any announcements that you'd like to make? [1:11:09] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: Thank your honor. I just wanted to give a quick update. Something that I've been doing is I am currently chairing the League of Minnesota City's legislative policy group on improving service delivery. We had our first meeting on July 11th. The League of Minnesota Cities works with almost 850 cities throughout the state as members. They work collaboratively across four different policy groups. It was a really great conversation. One of the things that kind of snuck through at the end of the last legislative session was a bill that allowed some cannabis to be allowed—so we're seeing the sale of gummies. The League is going to be working on a task force to discuss the implications at the local level and how we could be regulating that a little bit better. [1:12:40] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: Other issues that came up: ambulance service costs, which is impacting our own fire department; workforce housing and broadband access; employee recruitment and retention; and tax issues including local government aid and possible formula changes. Our next meeting is the second week of August. If our Council has any topics that we're interested in or if we would like to participate in any of the sub-task forces, now is the time in the next month to be coming up with those considerations. [1:13:30] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Thanks, Councilmember Haus. I have a few other announcements: Tomorrow, July 19th, "Drawn to the River" is a live art presentation featuring Hastings history. Summer rec programs at Levee Park: Wednesday, July 20th, Story Time in the Park. Thursday, July 21st, Music in the Park with Nick Fox and the Metronomes. Tuesday, July 26th, Performance in the Park with Wild Goose Chase Cloggers. Thursday, July 28th, Music in the Park with Bok Choy. The Parks and Recreation and Police Departments are partnering with Hastings Prescott Area Arts Council for "Art Rec Art and Police" on Wednesday, July 27th at Sunny Acres Park. Makers Alleyway Market returns Thursday, July 21st and July 28th. National Night Out is Tuesday, August 2nd. [1:15:30] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: Upcoming meetings: July 19th, Heritage Preservation Commission; July 20th, Public Arts Task Force; July 21st, Public Safety Advisory Commission; July 25th, Planning Commission; August 1st, City Council. Also, I'd like to give a shout-out of thanks to the Hastings Area Chamber of Commerce, their Rivertown Day committee, and their board for putting on an exceptional community event this past weekend. Thank you to the Chamber for that leadership. Annex Council, I would accept a motion to adjourn. [1:16:15] **Councilmember Mya Beck**: So moved. [1:16:20] **Councilmember Angie Haus**: Second. [1:16:25] **Mayor Mary Fasbender**: No discussion? All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you all.