May 10, 2021, City Council Meeting (held virtually)

Note: links to the video recording and the council packet can be found at the bottom of this post. Please note any errors or omissions in the comments. Anything noted between brackets was inserted by Clarkston Sunshine.

Meeting:

City Manager Jonathan Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the rules for virtual meetings as they were presented on screen.

Agenda item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark 0:01:24):

Meeting called to order by Eric Haven.

Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:01:28):

Pledge said.

Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:01:48):

Eric Haven, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Gary Casey, Jason Kniesc, Joe Luginski, and Sue Wylie were all present in Clarkston, Michigan.

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:02:25):

Motion to approve agenda by Wylie; second by Casey.

No discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:03:12):

Haven said that they will be enforcing the three-minute rule and Smith would be keeping time.

Chet Pardee:

The conclusion of the statement regarding Bisio v. Clarkston in the 4/26/21 council meeting packet confirmed the council meeting schedule and invited questions. About the statement: Who participated in the development of the statement regarding Michigan Supreme Court decision against the city? Were legal costs incurred by the City or MML?  Did city council formally approve the statement? The lengthy statement invites a continuation of comments and questions.

The statement erroneously attempts to justify the withholding of the 18 documents and attempts to explain what cannot be explained in light of the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision. City officials could have acknowledged “The law has been clarified. We will abide by it. Let’s move on.”

Instead, City officials have attempted to explain their actions or inactions for the past six years which likely have cost Michigan taxpayers millions of dollars. They have invited a continued discussion because their explanation is not rational or accurate. The statement makes a commitment to transparency questionable by the extensive defense.

The FOIA request asked specifically for 18 documents as described in the city attorney’s invoices to the city. The city attorney would not have charged the city for his time if the documents had not involved city business. City council approved the requested payments in the consent agenda portion of several council meetings in 2015. The specifically requested 18 documents came before the city in the consent agendas and were formally approved for payment by city council members. The statement now suggests the city attorney billed the city for emails not used in performing an official function.

In 2017, the mayor asked that questions citizens had for the city attorney be submitted. The 24 questions below were never asked of the city attorney in any public forum.

The 18 documents involved family members of the former mayor and councilwoman. Thirteen documents involved the proposed development of 148 N. Main and “Hold Harmless Agreement” discussions based on the potential environmental risk from gasoline plume contamination. The March 26, 2015 document (number 3.J. in the FOIA request) contained the “Hold Harmless Agreement” draft and was copied to the city manager. Did it not come before the city? The scientist has explained that the plume had moved south and west under Clarkston Road and N. Main Street about 5-6 feet below the surface. The developer withdrew his proposal.

Five documents involved the lot at S. Main and Waldon. The city requested the lot be maintained. When maintenance occurred, the City’s Historic District Commission took issue. Legal review concluded the property owners were within their rights. The question remains why the city attorney withheld these documents.

The city’s statement concludes by inviting citizens to ask questions. Does the invitation to ask questions indicate that city officials now intend to answer citizen questions asked in public comments?

Smith advised Pardee that he was over the three minute time allotment.

Haven asked if Pardee was concluding his comments at that point. Pardee said that Smith told him that was over three minutes so he will stop but wanted to know if anyone had any questions or any answers.

Haven said they are not going to change the practice of not requiring that public comment questions be answered. That’s a very reasonable, time-honored practice and it’s necessary for order. This is a settled court case and Haven thought that all questions had really been answered ad nauseum over time. Haven said Pardee is able to come to city hall and ask any questions he wants, the documents are there, and Smith is willing to answer any of his questions. But as far as public meetings are concerned, we’re not going to require anyone – unless they want to – council members or our attorney or anyone else – to answer a question in public comments. That’s the practice we’ve had and we’re going to maintain that practice.

Haven asked if anyone wanted to answer any of Pardee’s questions. Haven noted that there were no answers, and it was time to move on. [See Clarkston Secrets comment below.]

Luginski asked Smith what the reference to a survey was all about. Smith said he’d been contacted by three residents who said that someone knocked on their door and asked them to complete a survey. In one case, a copy of the survey was provided, and it said that it was as straw poll vote. It asked questions about who you would vote for, for mayor or for council, and then it went on to ask about some other topics like marihuana and abortion. Smith said this is not an official public survey of any type and not something that the city condones, supports, or knows anything about. Smith wasn’t sure who was circulating the straw poll vote, but it’s not coming from the city, the county, or the State of Michigan, and no one is under any obligation to answer the survey or speak to these people. Luginski said no one had come to his door and probably won’t; he was just curious.

Casey said that someone came to his door and dropped the survey off. He has not responded. He thought it was interesting that the envelope that the survey came in had a new $1 coin inside. Wylie asked if he was supposed to mail it back, and Casey said yes, he was supposed to keep the $1 and mail back the form. He thought there was an addressed envelope inside but doesn’t recall where it was supposed to go.

No other public comments.

Agenda Item #6, FYI – Public Notices: 1. Planning Commission Public Hearing on 05/17/2021; 2. Public hearing to review proposed 2021-2022 city budget 05/24/2021 (Video time mark 0:12:05):

• • Public Notice – Planning Commission public hearing, Monday, May 17, 2021, 7:00 p.m. re: amendment of Article 8, Residential Planned Development District (page 3/49 of the council packet)
  • Article VIII – RPDD, Residential Planned Development District, marked up copy (page 5/49 of the council packet)
  • Public Notice – Public hearing to review the proposed 2021-2022 city budget during the regular city council meeting on 5/24/2021 (page 20/49 of the council packet)

There are a couple of public notices. One is for a rescheduled Planning Commission (PC) meeting which is now a public hearing on May 17^th. This is very important, and all of the information is in the packet. Haven encouraged all citizens who have an interest in the issue to come to the virtual meeting.

The other piece of information concerns a public hearing proposed for May 24^th. That’s in the city council meeting and is a formal hearing to review the proposed 2021-2022 city budget.

Those two items are important for the Village, and Haven encouraged everyone to attend.

Agenda Item #7, Sheriff Report for April 2021 (Video time mark 0:13:03; page 21/49 of the council packet):

Haven said that this was part of the amendment that was sent out. Lieutenant Hill was present, and Haven asked if the council had any questions.

Luginski asked what the one violent crime was in April. Lieutenant Hill said he would have to look it up to be sure, but he thought it might have been an assault and battery.

Smith asked Lieutenant Hill for continued support for Depot Park. They are having a huge number of kids in Depot Park in the afternoons on school days and maybe on the weekend when Smith isn’t there. Monday-Friday, starting at 3:15-3:30 and 3:30-4:30 is particularly heavy. Smith said that we would appreciate it if an officer could come by, even if the officer just sits in the parking lot. Smith thinks that their presence would make a huge difference, even if the officer didn’t get out of the car. We are seeing more and more damage to the park almost every day when staff comes in in the morning, including a picnic table in the Mill race, bicycles in the Mill race, damage to playground equipment, damage to the gazebo, trash in the park, or people turning the trash cans upside down. There has been damage to the signs that we put out at the request of a homeowner to respectfully say that a neighboring property is private. Smith is also hearing from business owners who say that there are large groups of kids in the afternoon – 8, 10, 12 kids – walking into businesses with no apparent interest in patronizing the business. They just walk in and walk around. The property owner across the street is having the same problem with the building getting overrun by a large number of kids. It’s really become an issue recently, and Smith wasn’t sure if this is a COVID-related trend. They are definitely seeing a lot more kids in the park right after school and they seem to be kind of riled up and ready to do some damage. Smith wants to encourage them to use the park, but at the same time, Smith said he hates to see a mother and her little child scared away by these kids all over the playground and the park in general. Smith said Lieutenant Hill could talk with him more offline, but he wanted to bring this continuing problem to Lieutenant Hill’s attention.

Luginiski asked about the damage to the park and wanted to know if that was coming in the afternoon or at night. Smith said that a lot of the vandalism takes place overnight under the cover of darkness. They find something most mornings, but in the afternoon, there have definitely been some issues with kids just being kind of out of control. At one point, there were 6-7 kids, one on a bicycle, inside the new bathroom. Smith understands that kids need a release and we want them to come to the park and have fun, but when they start breaking things, they’ve crossed a line and we need to step in.

Pardee asked Lieutenant Hill if there is a video on the security system.

Lieutenant Hill said that they have increased their patrols in the afternoon and will continue increased patrols on the afternoon and midnight shifts. The afternoon sergeant has been in the park when complaints have been called in and has said that the kids aren’t doing anything. Please don’t hesitate to call the Sheriff’s office whenever there is an issue. It’s much easier for them to identify those problems. Even if you don’t think that they can identify the person, especially with vandalism, reporting so they can start tracking any criminal activity helps law enforcement identify the time and the area to get more patrols. Even if they can’t identify someone at the moment or if the video doesn’t show anything, it will at least show the time, and Lieutenant Hill can increase patrols in that area for when they do catch the perpetrator – and they usually do catch them. They can start assessing not just one damage incident but to hold them accountable for all of the actions that were done at that place and time. Please don’t hesitate to call the Sheriff’s office and they can help address it.

Luginski said that a lot of communities have neighborhood watch organizations. He wanted to know if they are helpful or if they cause more problems. Lieutenant Hill said that a lot of statistics have shown that having neighborhood watch or having the community participate in neighborhood watch-like items, such as keeping porch lights on; keeping cars, garage doors, and side doors locked; and reporting suspicious activity really does help cut things down. Spending money on neighborhood watch signs may help a little, but it’s the community collaboration that helps. One of the things that most of the school resource officers were tasked with last year has been to be a community liaison officer. As soon as school gets out, Deputy Gavey from the Sheriff’s office will be taking on that role, and he will be the one making stops in different businesses and attending meetings in subdivisions and homeowners associations as requested. Luginski was curious because he’d seen it in other areas. Luginski said he has no problem walking the park in the middle of the night. Lieutenant Hill said the midnight shift does that as well, and when they were looking at cost of service increases, the extra patrols were one of the non-criminal activity increases. They document this to ensure that they are showing accountability for their actions. Lieutenant Hill would encourage Smith and anyone else not to think that it’s a waste of time to report things the next day.

No other questions.

Agenda Item #8, City Manager Report (Video time mark: 0:23:16; page 22/49 of the council packet):

Haven said we have brand new signs in town. He asked Smith to describe if the gateway signs were meticulously placed to the boundary or to the closest possible location. Smith said that he has received a few well-meaning calls with questions about why the signs might be in different locations other than the actual boundary. Smith said that they had to find a location that was at or inside the boundary that would be suitable for the sign, i.e., it can’t be blocking vision, be safe, and be where it can be seen (some locations had trees or a curve in the road). They settled on some locations that may not be exactly on the border. Even though the signs say “Clarkston Village Limit,” they were never intended to be a legal boundary line; they were just intended to be approximate. Smith thinks that people understand that other factors had to be considered when placing the signs.

Wylie mentioned the ransomware attack on an oil pipeline. She noted that there’s been a lot of discussion about state and local governments being attacked the most and asked how protected Clarkston was. We put in a lot of measures at the time of our attack – are they being kept up, and how does Smith feel about our protection? Smith said that they have set up a procedure with IT Right to do a full backup of the server every weekend, and they do an incremental backup during the week. So, if there are 20 files that change on Monday, then just those 20 files will be backed up that night. They always have a way to get back to the previous night. If someone were to call the city and say that they have access to the city’s server and have locked down all the files, as happened last time, we would have an option that we didn’t have last time – we could just shut the server down and reload it with those backup files and not have to pay the ransom. It’s a very different situation now than it was a few years ago when we had the ransomware attack. We didn’t have good backup files at that time, but we do now, and IT Right is responsible for doing those backups.

Luginski wanted to know what service we are using to prevent that from happening. Smith said that IT Right has installed a firewall on the server, but he couldn’t recall the name. He could provide the name if Luginski wanted it, and Luginski said they could discuss it offline.

Pardee had a sign suggestion. He said that there are extensive yellow warning signs in Independence Township and Oxford, and he may have seen one within the city limits, alerting people to the fact that there’s a crosswalk or bicycle crossing coming. He thought we could use those, and they are much more permanent than the pavement painted crosswalks. Smith wasn’t familiar with them. He asked Pardee to send him a location in Independence Township and said he would be happy to go look at it.

Smith asked everyone to please be patient regarding the signs because there are more things to be done. We didn’t have all of our stop signs at the time that the ASI installations were going on last week. We are doing a lot of clean-up work over the next few weeks and finishing up some of the final steps to make the sign package with the city align with what the vision for the city is. They are slowly getting there, and he asked for patience in the meantime.

Agenda Item #9, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:29:35):

• • 04/12/2021 – Final Minutes (page 23/49 of the council packet)
  • 04/26/2021 – Draft Minutes (page 25/49 of the council packet)
  • 05/10/2021 – Treasurer’s Report (page 27/49 of the council packet)
  • 05/05/2021 – Check Disbursement Report, 04/01/2021-04/30/2021 (page 28/49 of the council packet)
  • April 2021 Invoices, Thomas J. Ryan, P.C. (page 30/49 of the council packet)
  • 03/31/2021 – Invoice, TNR Lawn Service Dumpster Rental (page 33/49 of the council packet)
  • 04/28/2021 – Invoice, Sherman Publications (page 41/49 of the council packet)

Motion for acceptance of the consent agenda by Avery; second by Luginski.

Pardee wanted to know what drove the voiding of an entry for Howard and Howard on 4/14. At the last meeting, Pardee asked if there had been a Howard and Howard invoice and was told there wasn’t any. Smith said that there was some question on a couple of the charges on the March bill, and they wanted to make sure that it was fully documented. Mark Peyser [the attorney hired by the city to represent the city at facilitation in the FOIA lawsuit] decided to pull the invoice back and provide a combined March and April bill. The city had already written the check, but there will be a new invoice and the final statement for Howard and Howard. Pardee asked if the Howard and Howard invoice was paid and approved by council. Smith said, no, they issued a check, and it was sitting on his desk. After Smith talked to Peyser, they agreed to void that check and Peyser will issue a combined March/April bill later.

Pardee said that there are TNR disposal invoices that go back to September 2019, 21 months ago, and he wanted to know what drove the delay. These are dumpsters that were apparently required for city hall and Pardee doubted that they were included in the city hall tally. Smith said that the TNR dumpster service has been going on for some time. Smith has been working with Tony at TNR to clarify the billing. Smith recalled that TNR provided two dumpsters free of charge but believed that there was a total of four dumpsters, two free and two paid. Tony said that there were two free dumpsters and four paid dumpsters. Clerk Jennifer Speagle has been working on this issue. It’s been going on for months, and we finally got all of the pickup slips for each of the six dumpsters. We held off making payment until we had the pickup slips. Now we have them and are paying the bill. It’s an old bill but it took some time to get it cleared up so we could reconcile the statement.

Wylie wanted to know about a 4/29 entry on Ryan’s legal bill regarding a dismissed appeal for Lehman Investment. Ryan said that the paperwork wasn’t filed timely or at all with the circuit court. Ryan received a notice from the court that the matter was dismissed, and he forwarded it on to Smith and to Jim Meloche, the Historic District Commission [HDC] Chair. Wylie asked if it related to 42 W. Washington, and Ryan said it did.

No additional questions.

Motion to accept the consent agenda passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #10, Old Business (Video time mark 0:35:25):

No old business.

Agenda Item #11, New Business

Item 11a – Discussion: Disabled Veteran Tax Exemption Annual Filing (Video time mark 0:35:28):

• • Letter from Oakland County Management and Budget to property owners (page 42/49 of the council packet)

Haven said that there is a generic letter relative to eligibility for this consideration. They aren’t going to vote on this; it’s a discussion.

Speagle said that our assessor, Rob Doyle, sent the letter. He wanted to let us know that it was previously not mandatory to file a veteran’s exemption every year because it was Oakland County’s position that if you were permanently disabled, that’s probably not going to change. The State of Michigan did not agree with Oakland County, so now these have to be done once per year.

Haven asked if this is a for your information only. Speagle said yes and thought that there are three permanently disabled vets in the city. This is just here as a discussion in case there are questions and also to let everyone know that the three existing people, and anyone moving into the area, will now need to file these every year for their exemption.

There were no questions.

Item 11b – Discussion: 2021/2022 FY Budget Proposed Salary Changes (Video time mark 0:37:06):

• • 05/10/2021 – 2021/2022 Fiscal Year Budget, Proposed Salary Changes (page 43/49 of the council packet)

Haven said that this was a discussion relative to proposed salary changes for the 2021-2022 fiscal year budget.

Smith said that there has been some discussion in a couple of Finance Committee meetings about salary changes. He knows that this is always an area of interest. This will be discussed in the next public meeting and is not intended in any way to replace the public hearing where the same topic will be discussed. Smith wanted to pull this one area of the budget approval forward so that any detailed questions can be addressed.

Smith began reviewing his presentation. He read from the slide regarding the city manager’s duties, which include maintaining competitive compensation levels. It’s difficult to find employees.

Smith wanted to show how he went about establishing the salary amounts. He uses the Michigan Municipal League’s (MML’s) Annual Salary Study. Smith put an example of the MML spreadsheet for the city manager on screen. Smith sorted the file based on the taxable value of all of the muncipalities in Michigan. Some cities show zero taxable values, and Smith believed that they didn’t complete all of the information. Smith sorted the actual pay of the city managers using taxable value sorted from zero to the highest number. Clarkston is in the middle of the highlighted box. Our city-wide taxable value is $46,000,000. Smith considered taxable value plus or minus $10,000,000 and used $36,000,000-$56,000,000 as a comparable range to Clarkston. Other factors can be used, such as budget, but Smith used taxable value to get a sense of what comparably sized communities are paying their city mangers. The actual salaries paid are in column I, and almost all of them are 40 hours per week. $38,000 is the lowest of all the communities. Grand Rapids had the highest taxable value at the bottom of the list with a value of $10,000,000,000, and they are paying their city manager $265,000.

Smith compared Clarkston with other municipalities in the targeted taxable value range. Comparable salaries for a city manager are $70,729, a treasurer is almost $31,000, and a clerk is $38,000. All of these were extracted in the same way as the city manager’s salaries. These are comparable salaries for the type of work being done.

The next set of columns shows the salaries for the current 2020-2021 fiscal year. To the right of that are the proposed salaries that are new numbers that will be proposed as part of the budget for the next city council meeting. The city manager’s current salary is $38,000 and Smith is proposing to bump that to $40,000, which is about 56% of the $70,000 average. Smith said he would like to try to target at least 80% of the average. Smith knows that we have our financial challenges and doesn’t expect to be above the average, or even above 80% of the average, but he is targeting 80% of the average. The Treasurer is where he should be. We have already lowered the Treasurer’s salary to $25,000 and because we have shifted some work from the Treasurer to Evelyn [Biehl], the administrative assistant. The Clerk is at 72% of the range, and Smith is proposing raising her salary from $28,000 to $30,000, bringing her to 77% and closer to the 80% goal. Evelyn is at $12,000 and Smith is proposing that her salary be raised to $15,000. This is more than a normal jump but that’s because they reallocated some work away from Greg [Coté, Treasurer] because of his other job. Jimi [Turner], the DPW supervisor, is at $41,600. This is 76% of the target. Smith is proposing to take him up to $43,600, which would get him exactly to the 80% goal. Carson [Danis] is at $24,960, and Smith is proposing to give him a small raise to $25,792.

Smith said that overall, that would bring us to 70% of the target. We’ve made good progress over the years and gradually notched the salaries up. Smith said that it was awkward to present his own salary. It’s a requirement that we set these salaries based on something, and Smith is basing it on the MML salary study. It’s important to be consistent across the board and that’s what Smith has tried to do.

Smith moved on to the next slide and said that the appropriations act requires a summary of annual salaries before and after and also what the salary equates to in an hourly wage. The $40,000 proposed salary for the city manager is $17.00 per hour at the current number of hours worked. When Smith started, he was working 50-60 hours and has gradually been able to get that down lower and lower. The goal is 30 hours, and that’s what the salary is based on. Smith is currently around 44 hours per week. The overall salaries for the Treasurer, Clerk, Administrative Assistant, and the DPW team would change from $173,000 to $177,860 in total, and that’s an overall increase of 2.8% year to year.

The last slide is a summary of the DPW budget because it is divided over a lot of categories. You can’t find their salaries in any one place. That’s a generally accepted practice for municipal governments. You associate the cost to the area of the work, for example, building maintenance, parades, dump truck repair, or plowing snow. You have to add all of those numbers up to get to the grand total. We also offer health insurance to Jimi; he is our only full-time employee. Last year, the cost was $10,000. Since Jimi is single, his cost is lower. That has helped both Jimi and us.

Smith said he wanted to give council a deeper dive into the salary study before the public hearing on the 24^th and welcomes all questions. He’s not trying to hide anything on the 24^th and can go through the same presentation again. He presented this portion tonight because there is more time.

Avery said he understands that you have to pick a baseline, but almost every single one of these communities that are highlighted have populations that are double and triple what we have. In theory, trying to make salaries equal for a city manager who is responsible for 2,700 people is a bit like apples and oranges. Avery is not saying that no one deserves a raise, and he has voted for them every time they’ve come up. He just wants to express caution about what Smith is using as a basis because the city is so small and kind of unique. It’s hard to find an apple that’s like us, and that’s what stands out to him. Smith said he could sort by population and see how the numbers stack up. Avery said the closest in salary is Zilwaukee, and it has double the population. Avery thought we are the smallest by far, so it’s hard to find an equivalent. Smith re-sorted on population and said that the communities in that range have an average salary of $59,302. It varies a little bit and is lower than the $70,000 average when based on taxable value. Smith said that we can use different parameters and try to come to a reasonable middle ground that is as comparable as we can get it to Clarkston. Avery said that we are at the low end compared to most, other than Springport and Stevensville. He understands that Smith is trying to find a sweet spot.

Pardee said that unrelated to salaries, there was a discussion in the last Finance Committee meeting about bringing an updated Capital Improvement Plan to council. That’s something that needs to be done annually and it would allow council to understand and weigh in on the capital expenses that are in front of us for the next year plus five years regarding what the priorities ought to be. Pardee thought that this would be part of this meeting so that there could be some discussion and consideration before the public hearing on the 24^th. Smith said that there is a finance committee meeting scheduled for this week and they will talk about the Capital Improvement Plan and the items on that list. Smith said he’s largely carried over what was there previously that the PC spent a lot of time and effort putting together, so they will look at that list. We didn’t spend nearly as much as we was planned due to COIVD, so we are a little behind with regard to the Capital Improvement Plan. We will talk about that on Wednesday and present it to council in the public hearing. Any requested changes can still be accommodated. We can make note that we are going to change something in the public hearing, so when it comes back to council at the end of June for final-final approval, we can still accommodate that change. The Capital Improvement Plan will be part of the public hearing and the final presentation on the budget. Pardee said his interest was in giving the council members an opportunity to understand and weigh in other than during the public hearing.

Wylie asked if the finance committee was going to update the Capital Improvement Plan. Smith said it’s an update that he’s done based on what he knows that the PC prepared last year. Smith knows that there’s a PC meeting coming up on the 17^th. Smith said that he was fine with the PC re-reviewing the changes and updates that Smith has made. If they want to focus on new things, the Capital Improvement Plan can be changed, updated, and things can be removed. Smith said that Wylie is welcome to do that, and he will talk with Rich [Little] about doing that in the March 17^th [should be May 17^th] Planning Commission meeting. Wylie said he would let Rich decide. It’s a public hearing and there are other items. At previous meetings, they’ve talked about tackling it again, and it hasn’t been addressed. Wylie said that she would work on it again and forgot that Smith had also done a lot of the work on it. Smith said he would send it out to Wylie and all of the PC this week as he reviews it with the finance committee, and perhaps it can be briefly mentioned on the 17^th.

Wylie said one of her biggest concerns is keeping our staff and not losing them. It costs us a lot, not just financially, but in many other ways. No one is irreplaceable, but it’s difficult to replace people. In her opinion, the city manager is underpaid. She thinks that these are minimal raises to bring them to living standards. She hadn’t even considered the fact that there are no employees waiting around for jobs right now, so if we were to lose someone, it would be devastating. Avery brought up a good point about population and she’d never considered that. It makes you wonder how communities that have roughly the same amount of money coming in as we do manage to pay their managers. It looks like the other positions aren’t that far off.

Haven appreciated Avery’s perspective on populations, but even having done that, we are still coming in extremely conservative. Our conservative approach, and Smith’s detailed approach to this in raising salaries not exorbitantly in any given year, is going in the right direction. The 80% perspective is valuable, and Haven wanted to echo what Wylie said in terms of the commitment of the employees. We have a tremendous team, and we want to honor them. We want to strike a balance, and Haven appreciated Smith bringing this forward.

Smith wanted to echo that the current staff is perfect. He’s very happy with all of the staff. We have a solid team and he’s not looking to make any changes whatsoever. Smith wants to keep everyone here and happy, and he tries to give them some flexibility in their jobs to keep them happy in other ways. But, salary is what everyone realistically counts on so it’s a key component. Smith appreciates the council’s willingness to slowly work toward the goal. It’s not just for the current staff. If you have to replace people, you have to be ready, have it in your budget, and offer a salary that will attract people. Otherwise, you will get no candidates. In this job market, it’s almost impossible to hire people, even for the simpler jobs. Smith doesn’t know what he would do if he lost a staff member.

Item 11c – Motion: HDC Nomination; Nomination for replacement of John Nantau (Video time mark 1:03:07):

Haven said that this is just informational. He’s received word that John Nantau has asked to step down early from his term on the HDC. A potential candidate has been discussed, but Haven won’t mention that person’s name right now because that person wants to observe the meeting tomorrow night before making a final decision regarding putting his/her name in as a candidate. Haven wanted to bring this to everyone’s attention so they know a couple weeks in advance that it will be on the agenda for a nomination. Haven will bring the person forward at that time, and if anyone has nominees, feel free to introduce them as well. In the past, it’s helpful to the council to have a brief resume or description, at least of the person’s tenure in the Village and their reason for wanting to serve in this capacity because this is a service function. We are a small community and a neighborly one. What we find on these committees and commissions are neighbors trying to work together to try to foster a very tight-knit community that is very focused on preserving what we have here, our value and so on. This appointment is very important and we are taking it seriously, so if anyone has any other suggestions, he would be happy to entertain them and wanted to make everyone aware.

Wylie wanted to know what the requirements are to serve on the HDC – do they have to live in the historic district? Haven said you have to be a Village resident for at least a year, but he didn’t think they had to live in the historic district. The minimal requirement is living in the village for a year. Wylie said that her recollection was that we required at least one person who has a professional background, e.g., an architect. Haven said that it’s not required for all members, but we do have people with some of those credentials on the committee already, and that makes it easier for someone who is new to learn. Care and concern for the Village is tantamount to serving there. Meloche has talked about additional training for the new candidate when that person comes aboard. That needs to happen, just as it does on the PC, to understand the context and the issues, and that will be provided. Wylie asked how much time is left in Nantau’s term, and Haven said that June is the end of his term but he wants to leave as soon as he can. Smith said that it is a two-year term and Nantau’s term expires in June 2021.

Agenda Item #12, Adjourn (Video time mark 1:07:08):

Motion to adjourn by Avery; second by Wylie.

Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording:
    http://216.11.46.126/CablecastPublicSite/show/3445?channel=2
  • 05-10-2021 – City Council packet