Call this meeting to order. Start with the pledge. Alian flag of the United States of America to the stand. >> Uh any changes to this? agenda. >> Um, no, I do apologize for council. We've had a couple changes since the packet originally went out on Thursday. Um, as a council is already aware, um, the water tower sighting analysis and Elco main street improvement projects have been tenatively moved to the June first meeting in June and the professional services agreement with Ado Solutions was going to come off because we're running into some barriers with that but resulted yet this afternoon. So, it was put back on the agenda. Are there any questions about any of those items? >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. No presentations, proclamations, or acknowledgements. Public comment. Is anybody here for public comment? Anything that isn't on this agenda? Consent agenda. Is there anything in there anybody wants to pull out and have any questions about? I get a motion to approve the consent agenda. So >> all in favor >> I no public hearings general business. General business like reports >> um administration just a quick item. Um I wanted to give a quick update on the insurance consortium. Um at our last uh I could do it under scale but I'll just do it now. at our last um scale service delivery committee meeting. Um we had Gallagher there and we're kind of talking about who's on the bus and who's not on the bus. Um Scott County which is kind of integral to participating or one of the other counties um to provide the best benefit of the consortium. Uh Scott County um indicated that they are not ready to go for 2027. And so the new target goal that we are working towards would be January 1st, 2028. So that means that um for this upcoming 2027 year, we would need to our usual process of going out to the market. Um at this point um there does appear to be a level of interest from Carver County, but they're kind of at the beginning of the process. They have a strong interest, but they haven't gone very far from an analytical standpoint. And there does continue to be some level of interest from Dakota County, but their situation is complex and they still might lag behind the the rest of the group. Uh the cities that have indicated at this point that are likely in are pretty much what we've talked about previously. Um it would be ourselves, um it would be Prior Lake, it would be um Shock P. Um but uh the 2028 actually provides for greater participation. It's possible that Savage and New Prague may be more interested in participating with the Jan 1 2028 initiation date. Uh Jordan is in and Bell Plane is undecided at this point. So again time might provide a greater opportunity than for to analyze it. So long explanation for no changes for this up um in our approach for this upcoming budgetary cycle. Uh, was there anything from public works? >> Um, public works was out today doing sampling for individuals that consented to who had a water quality concern that we'd previously received and had consented for us to do the testing. I believe we did eight wells today. There's a couple more where we had people submit um consent forms but weeks after the deadline. And so we're currently working through how we will respond to that. >> Um besides the the conversation conversation, um I don't think I had a chance to talk about our um public safety our safety camp that we had. I think I went back with Chase's family at the last meeting. So, um I assume you guys saw on Facebook where we hosted 60 kids for a safety camp. Um went really well. Um great turnout. Um had very positive feedback on the surveys that we did after. And want to give a special prop to surprise Jody Mulan um was very instrumental in kind of helping us set that up and partnering with her with the fire department to help us get that going. Um so that was great. We'll try and look at doing that again. had a lot of donations to help with that and sponsorship and things. So, we we'll keep pushing for that to to do that again. Uh we have one final interview tomorrow uh for hiring out of the five candidates that we started with in this last pool. Um fingers crossed that that person does well and then we do still have one candidate um who has passed background and um is going through the psych and medical testing and would still have to finish school in the fall before that person could start. That's all the updates that I have. >> All right. Engineering. >> Uh, nothing formal. Thank you. Uh, got a fun little fact that I read the other day. Um, a little morbid, too, I guess. Uh, did you know that when a person dies, the last thing that stops working is the pupils? They dilate. little little quicker to the punch line than tonight. So, no, unless there's any questions, I got nothing. >> Okay, we always look forward to the joke. >> We need development. >> Um, we did have a planning commission meeting on Tuesday night of this week. the we gave them the comprehensive plan workshop that we presented to the council at the last meeting and reviewed our sexually oriented use policy and zoning regulations and um that was all that's all that was on the agenda since the last um planning commission meeting. We did receive the final plat application for park the remaining phase of Parkway Meadows. just north of city hall here. Approximately 42 lots. Um Highlands at Eagle View second edition uh will be starting grading work if they haven't already um within probably the week or next week. >> Yeah, I believe that will be starting next week I believe. >> Okay. And then today we received an application for a concept plan review for um Boulder Heights South which is uh south of Boulder Heights up against the county line. they are under contract with an additional 10 acres that's adjacent to their 30. So, they've amended their concept plan. Um, that will we're going to try to schedule that for review by the planning commission and council here within the next month or two. That's all I have. >> Before we move on, do we still have to uh touch on the interim compensation adjustment for the police department? Are we doing that tonight? Um yes. >> So maybe make a suggestion we go back to see our police department and then Yeah. So long and short, um a surprise surprise, um police departments are struggling to find candidates, um and uh actually find people to hire and then make it all the way through FTO. So I've used the analogy before, but it's hungry hungry hippos and there's not enough marbles um out there. Um to be honest that's true and across the board but um the impact is a bit different within law enforcement. Um while actually takes us longer to recruit in other departments there is some level of backup or redundancy within those departments where in the police department if we're missing an off if we're missing a vac or have a vacancy that's a shift that is not being covered. So the impact is a little bit different. If public works has a vacancy, they can spread the load a little bit amongst the department because there's one shift with those people if you guys are following what I'm saying. So, we've been looking um to fill positions and we've been in a constant state of hiring for a couple of reasons. One, vacancies, normal turnover that we've had, but largely due to expansion within the department. And so, we're looking to fill those vacancies so we can provide a high level higher level of service and higher level of coverage within the community. Um, as a council's aware, uh, we've had three vacancies that we've been trying to fill since last year, probably to one degree another, this time last year, and we have had success filling positions, but we still technically have three vacancies at this time. While we have made an offer and it has been accepted by somebody, it's not truly filled until that person starts hopefully this fall. We still have two remaining vacancies that we're trying to fill. So, in discussions with the chief, um there the council's being asked to consider uh taking interimm measures uh to make us a little more attractive within the market. And there's a couple of different pieces to that. The first piece is with regards to pay. So, three years ago when we did our last comp study, um the council made the decision to move into a more competitive market group where we could compete better with the people that, you know, would steal from us, which are generally the larger cities generally to the north and to the east of us. Um and uh that helped a lot. We moved within our market area and we distinguished ourselves from a compensation piece. um we'll never exceed those people to the north and east of us, but it makes it close enough that we at least will get consideration and it's less likely for existing officers to want to move to those agencies. Generally, PE officers that are going to come work in an Elco new market are officers who want to work in a smaller or smaller growing community. And so our direct competition, so to speak, for those types of officers are going to be like your Lawndale, your Montgomery, um your New Prague, your Bell Plane, and your Jordans of the world. They're going to be a little more more direct competition for that minded officer. Well, um as these things happen, uh since we did our last comp study, everybody else has made moves within the market as well. and now a cursory review of salaries for officers. We're no longer leading that group. We're now probably half a step behind the average of that group. Now, the council tonight just approved a um the next compensation study for this next cycle. Um but realistically that would not be implemented until January 1st of anything that would come out of it that would adjust in us in the market um won't become effective until January 1st of 2027. Sometimes if we have budget capacity we'll implement it a little later, but the reality is it would be several months before anything material would come out of it. So the first thing the council is being asked to consider is does the council want to look at doing something earlier than that? We're not making a specific recommendation, but if the council wants to do that, we'll take a look at it and come back with a recommendation, but making a move prior to January 1st of 2027. The second item um re the next two items really are related to um lateral um officers. Um if you are an officer in another agency that's experienced and you're going to move, it's just like your job. If you're going to move and you have several years of experience and you're acrewing vacation time at a certain amount even though if you have it in the bank gets cashed out, you still have to acrew no new vacation at your new employer before you can actually take vacation. And that is within the industry a big barrier for lateral moves. Um I've spoken with the council informally in the past that that's something it's is one of the items that we will be taking a look at is providing some consideration for experienced candidates related to either acral and or um upfront PTO. Um but for right now in the interim, the council's being asked whether or not that would be something we would want to consider for officers on all of these items. The inter with the exception of the pay adjustment for this. It would be an interm period through the end of the year and we would implement whatever the council wants to implement out of the study. There's two elements that we would consider to it. One would be the acrual rate. would they be given some consideration with regards to their acral rate related to their years of service? Um, and for purposes of this, um, for them to be considered, I guess you'd say, a useful experienced officer, they would have to have two full years, at least two full years of experience as a licensed officer. The other thing would be PTO in the bank. So they would start with for example 40 hours of PTO already acrewed and then they can acrew additionally on top of that. Um the chief has looked around and for those agencies that are doing it 40 seems to be the most common number. That's what I'm seeing on the board is it's becoming more common because it is a barrier. You work how many years at a place you're going to leave all your vacation to start with? Zero. And we really don't get lateral applications at all. It's very rare for us right now. >> Do our current policies, whatever it might be, contract or union stuff, can they can any of our staff, not just officers, can nobody go in the hole, like you know, so if I start and I know I'm going to acrew, let's just say 40 hours for easy math, I'm going to acrue that over the next year. Can't I go in the hole um at all? We don't allow that. We do not. Okay. >> We un with uh city administrator approval, people can take unpaid leave, but aside from that special approval, you need to have the leave to take it. >> And that's across the board for all of our staff and all the positions and all the department. >> Correct. >> And bear in mind too, as far as an interim adjustment, we're under payroll for two right now. um two officers and shortly we'll be starting under for a third starting in July. So there is already unspent money in the budget to help offset that too when you're considering that. >> Do you anticipate this like any feathers with the department? >> No, they they're as desperate as I am to get these people going because it affects them. It it gives them more opportunities to bid a different ship. It gives them the opportunity to actually have a partner. I a lot of these guys are still working by themselves. You know, the it gives Detective Son that opportunity to finally move. We talked about this in was it back in 2025, I believe, about him moving to standalone so he could focus more on his Well, we're still not there. So, no, this will cause no ruffle feathers there. There would be zero push back. There would actually be appreciation because we're just struggling to get it done. Well, Quite honestly, there wouldn't be a basis for it. The only two officers currently in the department that would have been eligible or in the past, etc. would have been the chief and the sergeant who've been out now been with us for 100 years. >> 100 years. >> That's what I feel >> a decade in 100 years. Um, so there isn't there really isn't a basis for it. And again, we would be if we did something staff would recommend that you do it as an interim measure. we're going to provide this extra thing through the end of the year and then take what comes out of the comp study and make decisions about going forward. So, this is really about a moment in time. Now, from a pay standpoint, that would affect all of the patrol officers. It's not intended to be an adjustment for the chief and the sergeant. That would come out of the compensation study. So, the current line officers would if we made an upward adjustment, they would receive the benefit of that anytime. So, obviously, no push back. um no push back on that. They would be receiving a market adjustment if they're um if there is one in advance of the other employees. Um so but and I think there's an understanding that with these inter measures, these are things that we're doing for a moment in a moment in time in response to in response to the the market. >> Yeah, I don't anticip I mean this is uncharted territory for this agency. I I'm not saying this couldn't happen in the future as it grows. obviously, but there hasn't been a time in the past where we've ever been trying to hire three officers at one time for this long. And I can say we're doing everything we can internally. You know, I'm making sure we don't lose people by doing a lot of different things internally. Um, we've we looking at changing our recruitment video. The other one got kind of stale. We've added stuff to the website. We post on Facebook kind of almost endlessly of what we're doing, trying to get the word out, but we're struggling to attract applicants and a lot of the intangibles that I can sell the department on, I can't do that externally. I I can only do so much. And we try and sell ourselves in interviews or ride alongs, but getting their attention is a struggle for us when there are so many other opportunities for people to go to. And when New Prague is bigger and has more stuff going on than we do and and Bell Plane and Jordan and they all pay kind of the same, well, why here? That that's the the battle that we're really kind of it's getting their attention to at least apply and then we'll see what we get. But that's been the real struggle is just even getting the interest. So if we kind of look at it from a lowhanging fruit standpoint, if you guys will bear with me, the easiest thing is probably credit for years of service for lateral transfers. It comes up, it has come up for the last 10 years with any employee that maybe 15 years with any employee that we've hired that is a lateral from another agency regardless of position. And the response has been no because we don't we don't provide for that in policy. There's no additional budget impact. It does increase your liability, but if we're talking like 40 hours, it provides the ability for somebody that's coming on board to be able to take that vacation. You know, they had that cruise planned, you know, two months from now, but they're not going to acrew the vacation they need for that cruise. We'll let them go unpaid because it was planned before they were hired. So, it it comes up. It has come up mostly with more senior positions obviously because that's where you're going to get your laterals. But it has come up but there's not an immediate budget impact to doing that. When you talk about frontloading flex leave again there isn't a direct um so that one's easy. The credit for years of service that we have done for um experienced employees. there isn't a um if they are at an executive level the policy already allows for me to do that. So, for example, when we hired Brady, former chief, he was giving credit for years of service with regards to his acral rates. Um, uh, with that, that's some, uh, a change here for officers, I think, and it's something we should look at for all positions, but there isn't a budget impact to that. They're um, the last one where you're talking wage, that one gets a little bit trickier. one, there's a budget impact, but the chief is absolutely correct. We've had vacancies over the course of the year. So, the amount of time we're talking through the remainder of the year, it's unlikely that that would affect the overall budget for the reasonable adjustment we would be making, we would probably still be well within budget. However, the challenge would So, there's that. The challenge would also come within how do you figure it out? Because if you make an adjustment and you guess on the long side now, you get in a position where we go to the market, you may have to tell the And I've talked to other cities that have run into similar situations where they're like, uh, you kind of went above the market now, above where our market state of market position is, so you're not going to get as much as everybody does the next year because you're already a little ahead of the game. And that has created a certain amount of angst. The flip side is true. if you try and be overly cautious, you don't achieve the goal that you're trying to achieve. I believe we could work our way through that, but there's some risk associated with it. Um, so and then so I think we can accommodate within within the existing budget, but there's a little bit of a risk as to how do you implement it in a way that doesn't become problematic. I would like to explore it for sure. >> Direction. If you direct um give us direction on the items that you would like to explore further, we will prepare specific recommendations to come back to the council. I have a question because on the memo there were like three different bullets but >> how you were just describing it I if I'm hearing correctly is like the credit for years of service would be combined with or that has to be two or more completed years as a license officer. >> Okay. So those are >> so what we're trying to avoid is we we seem to get an inordinate amount of officers applying who did not complete field training somewhere else >> and that could be >> or their probation >> or their probation. It could be so some of them if we just said lateral experience well they're getting credit for having only been a cop for two months which >> right >> you're still a cop. I appreciate that effort but you don't know anything after two months as a cop. So, we're trying to truly recognize lateral experience, not just I was a cop for two months and now I should get that. So, if we're going to make that additional investment in you, we want to have a lower risk um of that being a failed investment. So, >> I mean, my only hesitation, and it's it's a big hesitation, is to do this for one department feels not something that I would support. Uh, and so I think it for internal equity and and for the same challenges we're going to face in many other departments and hiring many other folks, I would want us to consider things that we're looking at here, which I think are all great, just to be applied across the board. Um, and that's how I it would get me to support it if we did looked at it more globally versus just one department for one moment in time. I think the interim stuff is is kind of funky, too, because then you hire somebody January 15th of next year. No, you don't get it. Sorry. Uh I mean, and then is it ongoing and then how do we how do we reel it back if there's certain things that have to be reeled back? I mean, it's just it feels clunky. So, what we would suggest is I think should be ongoing in in perpetuity. >> I think that's as far as the uh front loading of flex. Um I think that so let me go through them one by one. The credit for years of service um with your acral rate I think that I think if you're going to do it you're doing it I think that makes sense if you're just going to do it across the board and you have the same policy and it's it's equitable across all departments because it's there's not a lot of there's no difference so to speak with regards to the front loading for um candidates in the police department. Um, I do think that that is has a larger discussion. I don't see as much of an issue if you're going to do it for an interimm period through the end of the year and it's done. Or you can choose to as part of the comp study recommendations expand it out to everybody else, continue it, discontinue it. Um, I think the pay item we that you need the comp study to be completed. Our intent is if you gave direction on that tonight is we Kelly and I would talk to Abdo and say, "Hey, can you accelerate this part and can you spitball us a number that won't that's not likely to get us an issue um where they would basically accelerate that piece and they might give us something a little early um on that and see if they can do that for us if they explore that piece of it. Um otherwise um Craig and I will have to go out and just do it internally. Uh the difference though is there's more that goes into the salary structure with regards to pay equity and balancing between positions and all that kind of stuff and we don't I'd rather that came from ABDO so it fits into the final so we're less likely to be out of sync with that but that would be the intent there. I think that would be hard to just say we're going to do it across the board for everybody unless it was some sort of simple spitball like we're going to make x% adjustment to the salary schedule and we're confident that that's good. >> Yeah. I mean and I'm leaning against any of the wage increase piece in or like early on otherwise why are we doing the comp study? I mean why are we spending the money to do that if that's what that's for? So the other two or anything else to get creative in the interim again applying it to all employees of the city I think would be something that would be good to consider >> and we could take that into account. I mean to be reality on the on the first two bullet points if we're doing it for the police department it's just as easy to do it across the board. It would just become a general policy that would be applicable. I guess my only concern I would broach is if we and a love was good for us is good for everyone. I if it gets delayed or it suddenly is now September October then it did nothing. It didn't help the police department because I know Josh you mentioned other departments struggle sometimes to hire two. They haven't been trying to fill the same position for over a year and spent the amount of money we've spent on sending people through well maybe one position executive position but the line kind of positions there's no other department that's taken a year to fill one let alone three spots and the cost to send all these people through background and testing and all this stuff it it really adds up for police which I think is probably more expensive than it is for the other positions. Yeah, I I would agree with the fact that it's there's three positions. Um there have been other positions which have taken longer, but again the impact of those vacancies have a different impact on the organization than having an officer vacancy. >> And I hear you when you say that, you know, I think filling those positions isn't like if I'm one of the current officers, like just fill the damn positions and that's enough. But I also, you know, is there something we can do for those current officers too then um to to I like so even even if we many of them or most wouldn't have the credit would you know be the two years or whatever for those that are even if it is a limited amount and I'm looking at half of them I still think it should be you know we should consider applying it again not just to the new hires but to existing Yeah. And I think we agree as part of the probably the compensation study when that goes out with OBDO that part of it. And I think Tom and I are just really more worried about right now. What what can we do immediately um sooner than that to kind of help at least get one or two. >> Yeah. I I think then the cops that I assume would look at for everybody. >> We're back at Is there is there consensus on that? Okay. Um then we'll return at a future meeting with recommendations. >> Thank you guys. Appreciate that. The minutes are attached. If you have any questions, I can answer them. And >> yeah, >> easy easy. >> Um, so as you can see, I've been putting some posts out there on Facebook. Um, we are currently at 25 vendors and I believe we are at nine food trucks um for fire rescue days. So, we just need to make certain we're getting the word out there. It's also out there as an event. I made an event under um New Market Neighbors. So, if you guys wouldn't mind sharing it cuz in that event page is where I'm dropping all of the sneak peek vendor ideas and then or the vendors that will be there. And then I will also be putting an advertisement in there for all of the food trucks that will be coming. I dropped the Chambers um bean bag tournament sign up in that as well. just kind of an gathering spot for everyone to go to and say, "Okay, this is what's happening at the park." So, I'm not doing the event for the entire fire rescue, 3 days, 4 days. I'm just doing for Wagner Park, but if you guys could share, it would be most fantastic. Other than that, um, anyone from council that wants to help out that day, please let me know. and uh I'll have a a job for you, >> Kate. How are we doing overall for volunteers? >> We're doing actually okay. Um I have a lot of the CCC members are going to be there and the uh Boy Scouts will be there and I have to reach back out to Michigan, but he had said that there was going to be people coming from Niagara. Uh, like I said, I've just got to reach out to him and see how many he thinks are going to be there. So, I wouldn't mind just have bless you having at least, you know, five or six more. So, if anybody knows anybody would be great. I will be working on where all of the volunteers are going probably next week and then I'll have an exact number of what I need. >> What's the max capacity for? >> I have a max capacity of 30 for vendors. Um food trucks were pretty much 10 to 11 would be enough. Are the food trucks planned to be on the same like Park Street as they were last year? Okay. >> Pretty much the same layout as last year. At this time we'll go to meeting real property at P number 23921064.