001Commissioner Okonnell First, but it's got to turn green. There we go. >> Here. >> Commissioner Prele >> here. >> Commissioner Height >> here. >> We have a quorum. Um, since we only meet every two years, we elect a different chair every uh session each two years. Uh, so if somebody would like to volunteer or get volunteered to do that, well, we'll listen to nominations. Well, we were sort of thinking that we should make you chair. >> Oh, this is what happens when you come late. [laughter] >> I think that's what happened. >> Well, okay. I'll >> nominate Mr. O'Donnell. >> Okay. A second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. All opposed. >> You are the chair, Mr. Okonnell. >> All right. >> I can I can continue to guide us through the meeting
002if you'd like. Then you can handle the discussion. Uh, next is approval of the agenda. You should all have an agenda. >> Can I have a motion to approve the agenda, please? >> Motion to approve the agenda for November 24th, 2025. Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. Agenda is approved. Uh, we now have public comment. Anyone who wishes to speak uh at this session uh can uh step to the podium and you'll have three minutes for public comment. Seeing no one in the room, we will close public comment. Uh, next we will move to approval of the minutes of the December 19th, 2023 session. You should have the minutes in front of you. Take a moment to look at them if you would like. I can answer any questions you have.
003[snorts] My only question is um it doesn't indicate actually what the um vote was or how many yays and how many nays. Is it is that protocol to just say approved by or disapproved by >> was done on a voice vote. I believe it was unanimous. So my recollection I'm just wondering we should note that for >> we can do a roll call vote if you'd like >> for for future reference that particularly if we are able to reach consensus that it showed that the entire commission was supportive of the motion >> or I can just make a note if it's unanimous. >> Oh yeah that would be fine that would be fine then you don't have to do a roll call but just note that >> as I recall it was unanimous. >> Yeah
004I think it was. Yeah >> I can I can make that change in these approvements too. >> That would be great. I'll go back and check the tape just to be sure. Any other uh changes? I'll motion to approve the minutes. >> I move to approve the minutes. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> All opposed. Minutes are approved. Uh next we move to commission business. the resolution to determine salaries of the mayor and city council members for FY 2027 and FY 2028. Discussion on the resolution. Um I would I [snorts] was just thinking we have um I think we've come a long way with the formula that we are using. I would certainly be open to expanding it beyond the 60% cap that is currently in effect for to again
005recognize the contributions that council members make uh while still deferring to the fact that the mayor has a certain number more responsibilities. I don't know that we shouldn't go beyond the 60%. So I would certainly encourage us to think about that. In order to uh uh uh have discussion, do we need to move and approve uh uh the motion to actually then lead to discussion? >> Uh no, it's fine. We can just talk about it and vote on it. Um >> Okay. >> And I know you had wanted you told me, >> right? I had one suggestion. I wonder too for the uh just purposes of quick review uh and and with Lawrence being new, can you just do a quick Yeah. a summary of kind of how we came to be uh uh where
006we are. >> Yeah, that would help. >> Yeah. Um so, you know, over probably over 10 years ago at this point, um there was a discussion of the body at the time to establish some sort of a formula for this to avoid kind of this an ad hoc decision making process. Uh and what they settled on was a a mixture of metrics. Um on page two of the handout you have, we have them listed at the top. Um so it is looking backwards because that's where we have the data for the previous two years. Um the 12-month change in CPI for each year. Uh and then the percent change for city non-UN employees for each year. So taking an average of all of that, it's a rough estimate of the um annual change in salaries
007over the past sorry annual change in cost of living uh over the past uh two years. Uh and then to apply that prospectively. >> So um look looking back you can see that the numbers were right around 3% for everything. >> Yeah. >> Uh 2.9 for the CPI and this is measured on our fiscal year. So July to July uh 2.9 2.7 for the CPI change uh and then 3% each year for city non-UN wage. Um so uh the average being 2.9 of the four. So just taking that average and applying it going forward for two years. It's not you know completely precise in any way except that it kind of reflects the averages from the past two years. Um so again it's always looking looking backwards >> and the other the other part of
008that was that we perceived that even with the calculations that we were relatively satisfied with the metrics we had chosen just because the way that the math worked. We were actually creating an increasing uh divide rather than a a decreasing divide between the mayor's salary and the council member's salary. And we felt that um that the amount of work reflected in the polls that we took in our own observation about how much energy goes into doing this job. We felt that even though the mayor's salary should still be distinct and you know to some degree in advance of what other council members were earning uh what what this reflects is that we were trying to narrow the gap. >> Right. So the the mayor's salary is adjusted on the percentage basis and then the council
009member salaries are set at 60% of that. >> Yeah. >> So that's the process. >> Got it. >> Any other questions for me? >> Brian, did you want to propose? >> Yeah. Um um I suggested this proposed amendment. you've got the a draft resolution or legislation text and on the next page there's a one pager uh right there the >> so suggest the following additional whereas clause and then I'll give you my reason for uh recommending this um whereas the mayor and city council oversee a municipal corporation with a fiscal year 26 budget of over $600 million and the LOCC believes that their compensation should reflect that financial responsibility and be sufficient to encourage encourage qualified persons to perform this public service. Um the reason I suggested this addition is that if you look at
010um uh compensation levels for our mayor and council relative to other communities in the state um we are a bit higher I would say on average. Um there are communities that pay their mayor a higher salary but they are also um full-time mayoral positions. they're the in effect the chief executive of the of the municipality. In our case, um the mayor is still a part-time position, we have a city administrator, you who oversees the general operations of the uh of the municipality. Um however, when you look at well, first of all, you know, in our uh earlier work some years ago at the number amount of time that people are spending on this job. Um but then when you look particularly in in my mind at the size and scope of of the city of
011Ann Arbor's um portfolio um we have a budget of over $600 million a year. That's over half a billion dollars a year. Um and it just seems to me that uh compensation should not only um you know be such that it doesn't discourage people who don't necessarily have the means to um to be able to do this on a pretty uh full-time or close to full-time basis that they're they're not um kind of excluded financially because they couldn't begin to you know give the time needed. But also just this given the scale of what these folks are responsible for overseeing uh essentially as a board of directors, right, a board of governors. Um that um it just seemed to me that that the compensation as we've now laid it out, you know, 50 rough mid-50s
012for the mayor and uh lower 30s for council members seems very appropriate. Uh, also one of the handouts showed that our taxable value in the city of Ann Arbor is uh $8.5 billion. That's a a B billion dollars of taxable value that again that we're that this community is uh uh and this um council is responsible for overseeing um and protecting. And so it just seems to me that given those metrics um we kind of blow away virtually every other community in the state of Michigan with the scope and scale of the uh the services and the uh just kind of the scale of of the operations here. So that was my reason for suggesting this additional whereas clause. Um I think it's important for um you know not just the mayor and council to
013be aware but the larger public as well as they if they look at this resolution to appreciate um just how large a responsibility uh mayor and council is >> further further discussion that sounds like a proposed amendment. It is a pro I like to add that as a proposed amendment to the existing um text and I I'm trying to think of where that would go here. Um uh Chris, do you have a sense of whi which where um >> there's a whereas clause there that's kind of in the middle. The commission recognizes the city budget has a great number of demands. Maybe somewhere >> Oh yeah, right after that one. If you you note that >> then that the next whereas clause would be a little more specific about the scale of their of their
014work. >> Yep. I could put it there. >> Okay. So that that if that's u the suggested location of this clause >> I'll do I'll do a council uh style. Is that friendly to the body the amendment? >> Yes. Any further? >> I have I have dueling thoughts about it. >> Mhm. I appreciate being reminded that this is a huge budget, although I'm not entirely sure that the public is going to look at our resolution to be aware of that. >> Um, I have felt that the reasons that we've given so far are ample and adequate for what we've done. And um I am not sure that this adds anything and I I say this as a person who you know you can add on and add on but what does it really add to
015the overall weight of it and I am not meaning that what you have come up with is lightweight but just I'm trying to give it some serious thought here. Um sufficient to encourage qualified persons to perform this public service. This is tricky because I feel that I mean I don't mind sharing with you that I have had grave reservations about the directions that our council has taken um the city. Um I nonetheless feel that the the what we have done over the years reflects our recognition of the work that they do and the need to try and I don't want to say exactly diversify because you can't control that. That's an electoral thing. Um but at the same [snorts] time, how would you be able to make a connection between people who have say they're
016bringing some sort of prudence if if you will or financial um expertise? I mean, we've had a couple of city council people who are accountants and I was certainly glad that they were on board, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they >> have a better idea than anybody else on how to spend big bucks. In fact, >> I don't know where that comes from. >> And um I also this occurred to me, you know, we could wind up with um candidates that don't have a lot of life background, right? Not a lot lot of expertise. And the safeguard that we have is that they're part of a council. So if they, you know, don't have a full appreciation of what we're talking about because this is a lot of dough to roll in. >> Yeah.
017>> Right. Uh at the same time, that's part of the safeguard of being on a council is that you don't one vote doesn't determine anything except if the mayor's vetoing, but that's different. So I appreciate your thoughts. I don't feel strongly that this is necessary. Um and so I would probably Yeah. I'm sorry. >> No, that you could kind of go either way. >> Ambivalent. >> Yeah. My feeling is I'm I'm not going to say absolutely not over my dead body, but I just feel like I don't know what it's going to communicate to the public in terms of the people that we are inviting to be part >> of our government really. Um, I don't want this to send a message that unless you're, you know, you've been out of college for 10 years
018and you've had a responsible job, don't bother, you know. >> Mhm. >> Yeah, I do appreciate that. Um, for me it it it it it actually was, you know, as I looked at our um kind of where we're at and looked at the compensation again relative to other communities, it just led me to kind of initially question, boy, why are we significantly higher than the averages for most other communities in the in the state? And and you know as I dug deeper and I asked Christopher for some background on you know operating and capital budgets for the city um it was kind of an aha for me like oh we are also so much larger in scale than than almost any other community including some of the wealthier suburbs of Oakland County that you know
019it just seemed to me that that that >> it made more sense to me kind of where why we are where we are on this with this kind of compensation. package uh for our our council members. Um and my sense is that you know, yeah, there might not be many many people who read this, but some who would actually look at a council packet and see this information. Other people who may decide uh uh uh uh be interested in ultimately running for mayor or city council that see this at for context. uh future members of this commission, you know, who receive this packet in the future. Um, you know, as some of us move on, that they they've got a that background as well that provides a little context about why we um have kind
020of chosen the compensation that we have. U so that was kind of my reasoning behind uh just seeing this as a as a as a worthwhile amendment. >> I understand. Well, I I would say I think anything that um gives people who are interested more information about what we're basing this on is helpful. At the same time, I would I I would take Juliet's point about you don't want to scare off the >> right >> the uh someone without a lot of financial experience. Um, >> so I guess I and I hadn't thought about that uh before. So I'm a little torn, I guess. I I don't think um I don't think it hurts us and it may help. Um but there is that risk that you pointed out. >> I actually do support the
021language. Um, I think that the um the budget and the financial responsibility for both the mayor and the council is significant and I really I I do believe that something like this justifies or works not maybe justifies the wrong but works in that vein to explain some of the parameters that were taken into consideration by this group. More discussion or would you like to vote on it? >> Is this a vote on the amendment first? >> On the amendment. Yeah. The amendment. >> Yeah. Why don't we vote on it? >> Okay. Uh all in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. >> Not opposed, but I abstain. >> Uh the motion carries. The resolution is amended. Uh discussion on the resolution as amended. So the question that I have with regard to increasing the relative proportion
022of the council members salary is that currently we have already took me years to get this straight that next year is already taken care of and it's built into the budget. So what we're talking about is 27 and 28, >> right? >> Okay. And I am satisfied that in 2026 we will be at 60% for the council members. >> Um I don't know that I want to say that the council commissioner wishes to consider setting city council member salary at 60% of the mayor's salary. >> Um I do believe that we could continue to close the gap without harm. And one thing about a $600 million budget is I don't worry too much about where that money is coming from. But I do think that the work that city council members put into what they
023do here is phenomenal. Um so I would propose even going higher than 60% for 27 and 28. I mean I don't know if there's any kind of cap that we want to impose, but I don't think we're there yet. So this is my second time around. And when you first worked on the methodology and we're looking to close that gap, what did you start at? >> We actually were keeping we were kind of keeping constant. So we were using the same percentage. >> Okay. >> But the percentage wasn't of the mayor's salary was the percentage was identical for the mayor and for city council members. So there were set salaries and then you gave just that 3% or 2% or 4% on that. >> Well, because of the way the math worked, what we found
024was that the gap was actually wider in widing because you know another 3% or another whatever percent of the mayor's salary enhances his salary by a bit more than council members. And so we were actually [clears throat] increasing the gap. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So that's why we reset it to peg to the mayor's salary because that kind of corrected that distortion. But what you're saying, Juliet, is you're not sure that it's enough for council members. >> I think that our goal was to I I may be recapping more than I can honestly say I remember, but I think [laughter] our goal was to reach 60% and then decide if we wanted to go higher >> down the road. >> I see. >> Right. And because we are now talking about salaries for 27 and
02528, especially being reminded that we have the money, this is not, you know, this is not going to be a painful tooth extraction or anything like that. I think we can afford it. And I think that, you know, I don't know what percentage to arbitrarily pick, but I think that going above 60% makes sense to me because it's still a big gap. And I think the 60% figure was just a bit of a back and forth and a kind of a general sense of the commission at the time of what that differential should be. I don't think it was based on any kind of logical >> modeling or anything to to come to that >> conclusion. So it is something of a kind of an arbitrary benchmark that was set a few years ago um
026as that differential. >> Uh just a note 10 years ago in 2015 the council salaries were 37% of the mayor's salary. >> Wow. >> Huh. >> I mean would you propose potentially increasing it like it had from the 2023 session to now? So another 2 and a half%. I would feel very comfortable with that. That's at even at a minimum because one of the things actually I had going back to what you were saying earlier, Brian, Brian, when I was um looking at the the attachments that we sent and some of this is old information, >> it has always struck me that it's difficult to figure out where we stand visav other communities, especially other communities out of state. But one big difference is that when you have a mayor who is essentially also the
027supervisor, right? >> Mhm. >> That's a big deal. That's two jobs in one. We have a city administrator, >> right? >> So the city administrator, it takes a certain amount of that load off the mayor. In addition, um changes that have been made over the last several years have really taken responsibilities of both the mayor and city council members and reallocated them to administrative departments. Now, that burden shifting has probably affected members as equally as the mayor, but it sort of to me um reiterates how similar the jobs are rather than how different. So, I don't feel as protective as I might otherwise be if the mayor's job really were uh a combination of mayor and supervisor, mayor and city administrator. It's I mean, he's he still does more. There are certain tasks that are
028assigned to him >> that so I think we can respect that difference while also saying >> it's a lot of work for everybody. Yeah, >> I think that's a fair point and I I would just add to that. I think Ann not only in terms of its unique uh size, budgetary size, but we have dozens of local commissions. Um and I think in almost all cases at least one council member if not two serve on those commissions which I think is quite unusual >> for municipal government and certainly to have the number of commissions that we do. Um and so they are spending a significant amount of time even beyond their uh commitment as council members to also as members of active members of these various commissions uh within the city because we really try
029to reach out as much as possible and engage the citizenry in our decision-m. Uh, so I think it speaks well to to your point of um they really do a lot above and beyond even what a normal or a typical council member in another community might be uh involved with. Uh so I do appreciate. So you I'm just thinking out loud as as you were talking that that and rather than and I I want to be careful about moving the goalpost here, but that maybe you know twothirds is is a more realistic >> target to set uh as a longer term differential between what uh our council members make and what the mayor makes. uh in part as I'm thinking in light of the fact that they are engaged in in um I think by
030charter in serving on these various boards and commissions outside of the council itself. >> Yeah, >> I would feel comfortable with that too. >> Do we have the ability to set a percentage for one year and a different percentage for the Okay. >> Yep. >> So you're saying to ultimately get up to 66%. Yeah, that's well yeah I think so >> and again it wouldn't be I mean one of the things that we do understand about our role here is that no um commission is really bound by precedent this just basically persuasive authority but I think that we have >> we have over the last several years really had a good vision for where we want to go and so even if we were to set a goal for 66% that's not binding on any
031subsequent commissions and if you know by some terrible happenance, people need to throw it in reverse. They can do it. >> Yeah. >> Um but I also think we we will never be in a position to set a cap because that's not our responsibility. >> Right. Good point. >> So we're looking at 2728 with potentially an idea we want to get to 66%. What if we went say 62 and 27 64 and 28? >> Oh. Uh-huh. >> And then assuming that the next group doing this >> likes the idea, they could move it to the >> Sure. >> 23. >> So we could indicate in here that >> put a note in there that that's our concept. >> Yeah. Similar to what is in here, what is in the current resolution getting up to that
032point? >> I like that. >> Um, that's fine. Would you like to propose some Well, so do I. I hear uh what percentages would you like to So last time we did 2.5% uh for the first fiscal year and 2.5% increase for the second. >> Would you like to do that or would you like to suggesting? Yeah. So what my suggestion was 2% for the first year and then another two on top of that for the second year with some language indicating our goal is to get to 66% of the mayor's salary. >> Okay. So for um FY2027 next one you want 60% or 62% >> 62 and then 64 for FY28 >> 28. Yes. Okay. Uh and then looks like we would just need to revise uh the second to last whereas claused something
033like commission has revised its goal to setting council member salaries at 66% of the mayor salary. >> Right. >> Yes. So let me just ask you this though. I understand the desire for caution but just being reminded that we had actually done 2.5 and 2.5. Do we have reservations about doing 2.5 and 2.5 or 27 and 28? >> Uh I don't have reservations about that. That kind of wasn't my thinking. But not knowing the past. Yeah. Maybe this will look like we're we're doing less this time around. I mean, I don't mind stopping short of 66. That would certainly get us to 65, but >> yeah, one of the difficulties about meeting once every two years. >> It's hard to remember. [laughter] >> Yeah, you can't afford to lose your brain. >> Yeah, >> I
034actually do like the 2.5 2.5. >> Yeah. >> Um and I would and I would go further to say um ultimately getting to 67 and a half which is beyond our scope if we're just going to Yeah, it's just it was wishes. >> Okay, got it. >> Oh, yeah. Wishes to continue. >> Yes. >> Up to 67 and a half >> with a recommended target in, you know, for >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> I'm okay with that. >> Since they have to they they can always veto us if they don't like it. We always have the out of if they find that this is too much money. >> Yeah. >> They can always say put all >> Yeah, I'm okay with that. >> All right. So I would then change the um second to last
035whereas clause to read. Whereas the commission has revised its goal um to set council member salaries to 2/3 or 67 uh I'll say approximately 2/3. >> Well, you're going to have to pick if it's 6 to 7.5 or beyond 2/3. >> I'll say approximately 23. >> Yeah, approximately >> or 67.5% of uh the mayor's salary. >> Mhm. and then change the actual uh increments multipliers to 62.5 in FY2027 and 65% in FY28. An increase of 2.5% for each year. Chris, assuming that we do want to proceed with this, uh, do you feel the need to crunch these numbers right now? Um, or to get us a draft with the final numbers that we can >> No, the numbers are the numbers. If you want to just approve it at 62.5 and 65, I can just
036run the numbers and the numbers >> just make sure that it's >> You got it. >> And I'll and I'll substitute that where as closed. >> Um, as long as we're all agreed that that's the changes we're talking about, we can vote on that. >> So, you are comfortable with that? >> Yes. Okay. Any further discussion on that? >> Yeah. I think the only other thing I would say it seems like those numbers are uh within the the range of what being forecasted for inflation. So, we're not >> Yes, >> we're not going far above the inflation rate or anything like that. Some might say we're well below the inflation rate. So I I think these are typical maybe of what a lot of businesses are looking at for the coming year. So I I'm
037comfortable with those numbers. Okay. Let me just make sure there's nothing else that needs to be changed here. Right. I will change the methodology description to be 62.5% of the mayor's salary in FY27, 65% in FY28 based on the average. Those are all the same. And then we'll just change in the multiplier to 625 and 65 for the Yes. Okay. Uh further discussion of the resolution as amended. Not. >> Can you um before we take a a vote, can you clarify um what happens uh once we've approved a resolution? >> Yes. Um once the determination is passed, it becomes effective 30 days after filing with the clerk, which will likely be >> [snorts] >> uh tomorrow. Uh and then it can only be rejected by a two-thirds vote of council. And if they do not
038take it up or they vote to reject fails, it will become effective 30 days after filing with the clerk. >> Change and and in in the unlikely event of a um a vote of council to change or um disapprove this recommendation. What what is the compensation at that point? remains the same as it is this past year >> and would remain for the next two yes fiscal years. Okay. Wow. Okay. >> And just to be clear, they can't change it. They can only reject it. >> Oh, okay. Got it. No amendment. It's either no action is basically approval. >> Mhm. Okay. >> What are those actual numbers? You have Yeah. Tell me can make me put my glasses on. >> I should have a calculator. Double checked. Yeah. So for FY27 for council salaries instead
039of 33,483.27 it is 34,878.41. So about uh $1,400 more. And then in 28 instead of 34454 it is 37325. Uh so just shy of 3,000 more. Okay. >> I think those numbers are palatable. Mhm. Okay. Further discussion. I'll entertain a motion to approve as amended. >> I move that we approve as amended. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> All oppose. >> Motion carries. unanimously. >> Yes. Uh and I'll write I'll write that up and send it around just so everyone can can see. Um and if you do need to meet again for some reason, let me know. We have to do it within 45 days of today. Uh but it can be done. >> Okay. So, just to be clear, >> yes, >> you're going to write it up and pass it around.
040But are you going to do that within the next 15 minutes or is that something that we can approve from our comfortable desks at home because otherwise we do need another meeting >> which I'd rather not have. >> Yep. I can Well, I'll I'll read you the res the whereas clause is the only real thing I'm changing. Otherwise, I've got direction to change to 62.5. >> So, you're saying we do not need it in writing to >> Yeah. No, we don't we don't need it in writing. >> Okay. Please go ahead. Uh so the whereas clause is going to be whereas the commission has revised its goal uh to set the council member salaries to approximately 2/3 uh well let's say 67.5% approximately 2/3 of the mayor's salary. Um and then the methodology will be
04162.5% in FY27 65% in FY28 and then those multipliers as we discussed that those numbers will be the numbers. Yeah. >> Right. So that's striking the whereas clause about continuing the um salaries at 60%. >> Yes. Replacing that clause. >> And please remind me um Brian's um amendment is going which >> uh going right after the clause that says whereas the commission also recognizes that the city budget has a great number of demands etc. >> Yes. Okay. That makes sense. Yes. Thank you. Okay. >> Y all good. >> Okay. All right. Uh, we then have communications from the commission or staff. I don't have any other than to say I will send you this um just to confirm that I've uh got it correct. And um if if for some reason somebody disagrees, you know,
042we probably have to meet again. >> So again, um methodology here. So, you're going to send it to us and in um in respect of the open meetings act, how do you want us to respond to all or to you? To me, >> to you. >> Okay. And how does that then get recorded in conformity with the open meetings act? Is our agreement today sufficient? >> That would not be a vote. That's just confirming that what I've done is an accurate reflection of what you >> So, it's kind of like the proofreading job. We don't need to have another pow about it. Okay, good. If somebody does disagree, then we'll have to meet again, >> right? >> So hopefully that won't happen. Um, communications then from the commissioners. >> I was looking at this communication
043from the last meeting. >> Yes. >> Um, in that the commissioners hoped that the mayor and council would appoint the full seven members for this session. >> Yes. >> Um, clearly we didn't get there. Um, should we include a communication similar to that for the next meet meeting? >> Yes, I'm happy to entertain that. >> I think that's and I will say that this is my last official year as part of this term and unlike Brian, I don't I don't wish to continue. Um, I can't say Oh, thank you. I can't say it's been ownorous, but I have a lot going on in my life that I just like to simplify things. So, that does put us at a tip edge point. >> Yeah. >> So, I will include that communication as in as in
044the previous one and I will transmit that to to council for you. >> Um, yes. So, thanks. Yeah. My only communication be thank you for everybody for coming together on short notice here. I know. >> Special thank you to Juliet her last meeting. >> Thank you. Well, thank you. >> Y >> thank you. >> Um >> thanks to Brian for continuing. Oh, noble person. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Um if there's nothing else, then um we can adjourn the meeting. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Yeah. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. Meeting is adjourned. Right. >> Very good. I got the G.