Rent, Landfill, Gas, Sewage: The Ends are Near

SittingDucksTonight’s Santa Clarita City Council meeting was full of inflammatory statements. Elaine Ballace said “They are raping both of us!” in reference to recent business practices by mobile home park owners. “We’re sitting in a circle of death!” said a Val Verde resident of Santa Clarita’s proximity to landfills and a natural gas storage field. And Councilmember TimBen Boydston proclaimed, “There is a special place in Hell reserved for you,” that “you” referring to mobile home park owners who raised rents so as to effectively force seniors out. The heated rhetoric was certainly contagious–likely a result of discussing many issues that hit close to home (literally) tonight. Apart from fielding residents’ worries about Chiquita Canyon Landfill, Honor Rancho, and mobile home rents, the council also managed to officially raise its future salary (second and final reading), shuffle around committee appointments (no luck again, TimBen), and take further actions in the ongoing mobile home struggle.

Actually, That Wasn’t Jefferson

Mayor Kellar read many quotations from Thomas Jefferson to open the meeting. More correctly, they were quotations incorrectly attributed to Jefferson on certain websites and in some popular social media posts but for which there is no evidence of Jefferson’s authorship. These included, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” and, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” The Thomas Jefferson Foundation has a full page devoted to clearing up these spurious attributions. Kellar closed with the observation that “He was a very, very intelligent man…many of his thoughts and writings…they apply every bit to today’s society.” Invocations are one of the portions of the meeting not scripted by city staff and, consequently, are prone to error.

Awards and recognitions followed. The Valencia High School Marching Band was applauded for winning a recent competition despite the fact, we learned, that the program really struggles with funding and must use some 20-year-old instruments. Deputy Curtis Foster was recognized as the Santa Clarita Sheriff’s Department Deputy of the Year, and the crowd was quite vocal in its support of him. Finally, the Santa Clarita Valley Economic Development Committee came up to celebrate itself. Holly Schroeder gave an update on the SCVEDC’s year of accomplishments, which included attracting Logix Federal Credit Union’s corporate headquarters to Santa Clarita–they’re currently in Burbank. She said this would lead to an anticipated $1.7M boost in tax revenue each year. “If the economic development committee had not been involved in this project they would not have chosen the Santa Clarita Valley,” Schroeder asserted. Other accomplishments included taking credit for listening to businesses, taking credit for businesses staying in Santa Clarita, and taking credit for the tagline, “Still Golden,” which the SCVEDC was able to trademark because no hair color company or luxury retirement community was convinced that “Still Golden” was the right direction to take their marketing (my inference).

The End is Near

There was a decidedly apocalyptic tone to many of tonight’s public participation remarks. Elaine Ballace spoke about mobile home park owners who are trying a variety of tactics to get more money from renters. She called them selfish and successful only because “he who has the best lawyer wins,” not because justice has been on their side. “The landowners need to answer a little bit more clearly to the people, and to the city, because they are raping both of us!”  she pronounced.

A couple of Val Verde residents spoke about their experiences with Chiquita Canyon Landfill and the Castaic Area Town Council. Steve Lee described how residents found “receipts of deadly substances that the Chiquita Canyon Landfill accepted.” They asked the CATC to write a letter to Supervisor Antonovich about the allegedly dangerous landfill practices, but the request was tabled multiple times until it was decided that no letter would be written. “One of the reasons was that to do so would cost them the promise of money from the landfill,” said Lee. This inspired a recall effort, but there were many more obstacles to finding out exactly how many voter signatures were needed and to getting agencies to stand by their numbers (Lee said that the L.A. County Registrar, Congressman Knight’s office, and others were contacted in this effort). Lee closed by stating that three people in Val Verde had recently died of cancer and that action was needed. Susan Evans, also of Val Verde, spoke about the CATC recall and predicted the valley’s demise by some combination of the dumps, natural gas field, and oil pipeline: “We’re sitting in a circle of death, in my opinion…we’re sitting ducks waiting to blow up.”

Sandra Cattell and Cam Noltemeyer were also worried about Santa Clarita’s natural gas storage field, Honor Rancho, in the north part of the valley. The massive gas leak at Aliso Canyon was used to urge the City Council to be more active in assessing the safety of Claritans.

Lynne Plambeck implored the city to look into the proposed merger of the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) and Newhall County Water District (NCWD). She said that it would do nothing to benefit ratepayers: “Bigger is not better, a huge water monopoly in our valley will just increase our rates.” She said that the CLWA has “had its way” with Santa Clarita for long enough.

City Manager Ken Striplin tried to calm concerns over Honor Rancho, which he said had just one-third the storage capacity of Aliso Canyon and was being thoroughly monitored for leaks. Striplin said that scrutiny by various oversight agencies is strict and that staff have been in communication with the gas facility. There was still interest from the council in learning more about the facility and about the potential effects of Aliso on the SCV. At the urging of some residents who had contacted her, Councilmember Marsha McLean asked that the Air Quality Management District make a statement about whether the Aliso methane plume could be impacting air quality in Santa Clarita. Overall, most councilmembers agreed that Aliso Canyon and Honor Rancho were not the same beast. Mayor Pro Tem Acosta stated, “This is a much different facility…it is quite a bit newer.” And he should know, as he recalled “being chased off the [Aliso] property a number of times” in his wayward youth.

Mayor Kellar asked for the council’s interest in discussing the CLWA/NCWD merger, and interest was high. Councilmember McLean, in particular, wanted to ask “a lot of questions” because she is a NCWD ratepayer and would be affected.

The council was mute on the topic of Chiquita Canyon Landfill and the politics of the Val Verde recall. These are out-of-city issues, certainly, but it wouldn’t be untoward for Santa Clarita to look into Chiquita Canyon Landfill practices considering it’s a nearby neighbor with whom the city shares an air- and water-shed. As readers don’t likely need reminding, Chiquita has spent money on Santa Clarita politics, so it certainly seems to think that it’s already on the radar.

Separate Votes

The consent calendar had a number of items that were handled in separate votes due to conflicts of interest or disagreement among the council members. Let’s cover them in order, briefly.

On Item 3, the second reading of the plan to increase 2017-18 councilmember salaries by 10%, Councilmember TimBen Boydston and Mayor Kellar voted no while the others pushed it through with their yes votes. Boydston reiterated his statement from last week that a raise wasn’t warranted given that seniors hadn’t seen an increase in social security, inflation hadn’t shot up dramatically, and the workload of councilmembers remained about the same.

The Cross Valley Connector was proposed to be renamed “Santa Clarita Veterans Memorial Parkway” in Item 4. Councilmember McLean asked that the word “Memorial” be removed so that the road would honor Santa Clarita’s thousands of living veterans as well as the deceased, and everyone agreed.

Item 5 presented $155,755 worth of grants to Santa Clarita’s arts and community services groups. Groups recommended for funding ranged from the American Diabetes Association to the Gibbon Conservation Center to the Santa Clarita Philharmonic. The majority of groups that applied for funding were funded, and Councilmember McLean suggested that those which weren’t funded seek help form the city on preparing their applications for next year. Boydston and Weste had to sit out votes on the Canyon Theater Guild and SCV Historical Society because of their involvement, but both of their groups were also funded.

Finally, on Item 6, Al Ferdman expressed some dissatisfaction with the loan repayment arrangement between Santa Clarita’s redevelopment successor agency and the city. Ferdman pointed out that only a tiny amount of the loan was being paid back and actually brought up one of Kellar’s erroneous Jefferson quotes about the importance of paying off one’s debts. City Manager Ken Striplin disagreed with Ferdman’s assessment, however, stating that the State dictated interest terms and the repayment schedule. He added that it was good news that Santa Clarita would be getting paid back at all–the loans repayments could have remained unenforceable. The recommended loan modifications were approved.

That Special Place in Hell

If anyone had thought that the City Council’s major overhaul of mobile home park ordinances would have helped ease tensions between park owners and renters, they were proven wrong yet again at tonight’s meeting. In response to testimony from renters about senior parks changing to family parks (a change usually accompanied by a hefty hike in rents) and a problematic recusal policy for the Manufactured Home Rental Adjustment Panel, two actions were taken. First, the council approved an urgency ordinance that prevented any parks from changing from mostly/only seniors to all-age rentals. It went into effect immediately and will last 45 days. Second, the council passed to second reading a plan to appoint replacements on the mobile home review panel, which hears appeals. Currently, if someone on the panel owns or rents at a park under review, they must recuse themselves, which makes for a lopsided vote (the panel is composed of two owner reps, two renter reps, and one neutral arbiter, so losing an owner/renter could doom a vote from the start.) The new policy will be to allow the third-highest vote-getting representative from the effected side (owners/renters) to replace a recused panel member for a particular vote. Obviously, the replacement will have to come from a different park.

There were a number of speakers on this item before it passed, and the council’s sympathies seem to remain most strongly with renters. Some residents spoke about the nightmarish conditions that have followed new ownership at parks, their inability to keep up with rent increases, and less than respectful treatment from owners and managers. Councilmembers Laurene Weste and TimBen Boydston were among the most insistent on seeing that seniors would not be forced out of their homes by increases in rents. It was at this point in the meeting that Boydston informed park owners who forced out seniors via rapid rent increases that “there is a special place in Hell for you.” The statement ended with a steely glare from Boydston into the beyond and surprised but mostly supportive utterances from the audience.

BoydstonHell

No San for You

Committee appointments are an important opportunity for the mayor to exert his/her limited power through recommendations of who should serve on which committee. Before Mayor Kellar read his adjustments to committees, a few speakers had some recommendations of their own. Al Ferdman asked that lobbyists not serve on committees. This was in reference to Arthur Sohikian, the man who lobbied to erect massive digital billboards along Santa Clarita’s freeways, who has long represented Santa Clarita on the North County Transportation Coalition. Sohikian is the only non-councilmember to serve on a committee. Steve Petzold and a few others recommended that Councilmember TimBen Boydston serve on the sanitation district. Petzold said that Boydston is among the best-informed on sanitation-related issues, and he felt that perennial sanitation district member Laurene Weste wasn’t qualified to serve any longer based on her past performance. “I can’t see putting her back on the board after the complete disaster we saw in 2015 with deep-well injection,” said Petzold.

After public comments, Kellar read his list. Everyone was named as member or alternate to 10 or 11 committees , which is a more even distribution than we’ve seen in the past. However, Boydston was only named as an alternate to Kellar and Weste on the sanitation district. He asked whether Weste was a sanitation district ratepayer. “For my rentals,” she replied. He said being a ratepayer can be helpful in getting action, but he didn’t push it further. There was also some discussion about the cost-efficacy of having sanitation meetings in Whittier or in Santa Clarita, and Weste restated her expertise and efficacy regarding the chloride disposal issue. She felt proud that they had reduced chloride removal costs by a projected $400M. In the end, the list was approved. Councilmember McLean, who has jealously guarded her committees in the past, only gave a little mumble instead of a strong yes on the item. Though she didn’t address it in comments, perhaps she missed out on some wanted appointments.

During the closing round of public comments, Al Ferdman suggested that the council needed to be more technologically up to date with the ability to show written materials on-screen and to use teleconferences to save money on traveling to meetings. Stacy Fortner spoke about the council’s plan to discuss the recent CLWA proposal. “There is some backroom, shady business going on” said Fortner. She did not deign to go into too many specifics, but she felt there was ample cause to carefully examine the issue. The meeting ended at 9:18.

Hart Board To Consider Complaint Over Joe Messina’s LGBTQ Comments

The Hart district governing board on Wednesday is scheduled to consider whether to take up a complaint brought against board member Joe Messina over disparaging comments he’s made on his radio show about gay and transgender individuals, according to documents obtained by Sclarita.

Erin Kotecki Vest in October submitted a written complaint to the William S. Hart Union High School District after listening to episodes of Messina’s radio show, The Real Side. As Sclarita has previously reported, Messina has routinely made offensive remarks on his show about the LGBTQ community.

While she said she finds the remarks on gay and transgender individuals generally offensive, Vest, 41, told Sclarita Tuesday that Messina’s remarks became personal after her 10-year-old daughter, Hala, came out to her last year. Vest said she has allowed Hala, currently a 5th grader at Santa Clarita Valley International Charter School, to continue listening to Messina’s show in order to prepare her for people who are bigoted toward the LGBTQ community. SCVI’s charter is authorized by the Hart district.

Sclarita asked Vest permission before putting specific identifying information about her daughter in this story. Vest said her daughter has already come out to her classmates and is “in a very supportive home.”

“I am disgusted,” Vest said. “I can’t believe someone on the school board is allowed to say things like this. It’s incredibly offensive.”

Vest claims Messina’s comments and stories he’s written mocking the LGBTQ community violate administrative rules prohibiting district officials from engaging in unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation or bullying.  Messina was elected in 2009 to the Hart governing board which oversees district policy.

“The bylaws state board members must represent every student fairly,” Vest said. “It’s a direct conflict of his job. He doesn’t only get to represent straight Christian students. He has to represent all students.”

Reached for comment Tuesday, Messina did not respond specifically to Vest’s complaint. In an email, Messina said, “Why don’t you come on my show to discuss, we can actually have a 2 way [sic] conversation. I have talked about this locally, over and over again. I’m really not sure anyone wants real answers…just me gone.”

Though the matter is not fully adjudicated, it appears unlikely Messina will be formally censured under district rules. In a letter the district sent Vest last month, Hart Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Michael Vierra said that the district lacks the authority to take action against Messina because he made the statements in his capacity as a private citizen. Vierra wrote:

The District acknowledges that Mr. Messina made comments, in his capacity as a private citizen, regarding gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals. The District finds you were offended by these comments. However, after carefully considering your complaint, the District has determined that, while it does not dispute your concerns or condone Mr. Messina’s conduct, the District cannot regulate or restrain Mr. Messina’s speech, which was made in his private and professional capacity. The District understands and appreciates your concerns about Mr. Messina’s comments. However, your allegations are more properly addressed in another forum. The District’s complaint procedures do not envision and are not designed to address complaints raised against Board members.

Before reaching its initial decision, Vierra said in a letter that the district interviewed Messina, reviewed his webpage, opinion articles and listened to his show from October 19th, a show Slcarita wrote about. On that broadcast Messina brought on Tami Jackson, senior editor at an anti-gay website called BarbWire.com. The website was founded by Matt Barber, a member of The Liberty Council, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as an anti-gay hate group.

During the show, Messina mocks Caitlyn Jenner, “Coming Out Month” and days that are set aside to raise awareness of LGBTQ issues. Although Vierra indicated that the district is concerned by Messina’s statements, Hart can’t censure him under its bylaws (Emphasis mine):

 

“The District acknowledges that Mr. Messina made comments, in his capacity as a private citizen, regarding gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals. The District finds you were offended by these comments. However, after carefully considering your complaint, the District has determined that, while it does not dispute your concerns or condone Mr. Messina’s conduct, the District cannot regulate or restrain Mr. Messina’s speech, which was made in his private and professional capacity.”

 

Vest appealed the decision and Hart board members are scheduled to consider that appeal during Wednesday’s hearing, according to correspondence with the district that Vest provided to Sclarita and posted on her Facebook page. The public agenda for the meeting says the board will “Consider Whether to Hear Appeal of Uniform Complaint Pursuant to Administrative Regulation 1312.3”, but provides no further information.

If the board decides not to hear the complaint, the district’s existing decision will be considered final; if members do decide to hear the complaint, Messina will be formerly notified, according to complaint procedures outlined on the Hart School District website. In an email to Vest that she forwarded to Sclarita, Vierra said members of the board will meet in closed session with legal counsuel to discuss the complaint. The board will vote on whether to hear the complaint in open session, he said.

When asked a question about what would happen next if the board does take up Vest’s complaint, Hart spokesman Dave Caldwell directed Sclarita to Vierra for an answer. Vierra could not immediately be reached for comment late Tuesday. This post will be updated when Slcarita receives a response.

Vest, meanwhile, said she intends to speak at the hearing, though she indicated that she is not optimistic that board members will take up her complaint.

“I don’t have any faith that the board will do what I’m asking,” Vest said. “I hope they surprise me.”

The Sloppy Raise, Council 101

WesteMoves

Tonight’s meeting was brief, but not brief enough to have spared several councilmembers from awkwardness. Councilmember Boydston generously praised the Canyon High School Theater Group’s recent success in competition, but none of its members showed up for their certificates. Councilmember McLean had to ask City Manager Ken Striplin for a definition of “contract city.” And Councilmember Weste and Mayor Kellar took quite a while to grasp the nature of the councilmember pay raise they were voting on. Even with all the bumbling, the council managed to approve a raise for next year in a 3-2 vote, reversing a decision they had made mere months ago. Things are off to an auspicious start for 2016.

Panel Me This

“Everybody’s not home for the State of the Union–that’s obvious,” observed Mayor Bob Kellar as he opened the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Dante Acosta then delivered the invocation, a freeform prayer of sorts: “May our words and our deeds be pleasing.” Both Kellar and Acosta emphasized titles when referring to one another, helping December’s transitions to sink in.

While Canyon High’s drama students were dramatically absent for their recognition, Saugus High’s phenomenally successful cross country team members came to the meeting to be recognized as CIF champions. They’ve spent an unprecedented 10 years finishing in the top three.

Public participation followed. R.J. Kelly requested that the cross valley connector be named “Santa Clarita Veterans’ Highway” (or similar) in honor of the thousands of veterans living in the SCV. He pointed out that everyone on the council had served in the armed forces or had a family member serve. Kellar followed the remarks by asking whether fellow councilmembers would support agendizing the item, and they agreed.

A number of speakers addressed mobile home park rent and appeals when they came to the podium. The most compelling comments came from Dave Boizelle, a resident of Greenbrier Mobile Home Park. He explained that he is filing an appeal against his park’s rent increase. The appeal will go before a panel which consists of two representatives for park owners, two for renters, and one neutral arbiter. Unfortunately, one of the renters on the panel is also from Greenbrier, and she will have to recuse herself from voting on the appeal. Boizelle believed this doomed his appeal, as park owners wouldn’t vote against their self-interests. That would mean at best a 2-2 vote, and ties aren’t enough for an appeal to be ratified. To highlight his point that park owners wouldn’t be impartial, he read a statement from Dowdall Law Offices, which represents Santa Clarita’s mobile home park owners: “This form of panel is not impartial but evenly unbalanced…two partisans cancel each other out.” It seemed clear that a means of substituting owner/resident representation in cases of recusal was necessary.

However, City Manager Ken Striplin seemed to think that the system was working fine. After public participation concluded, Striplin said, “I understand the concerns that the speaker spoke of, but I can also tell you that, historically, that has just not played out…In the appeals that we’ve seen, we have not seen the decision of the panel come down to party lines, so to speak.” This conclusion seemed utterly at odds with the structure of the panel, the forced recusal of the Greenbrier resident, and the statement from the park owners’ attorney, but Striplin assured the council that despite recusals in the past, the panel had operated fairly and effectively.

Councilmembers McLean and Weste were not satisfied with Striplin’s assurances. They made a point of asking whether they could do something to address the potential for unbalanced decisions, and City Attorney Joe Montes explained that the ordinance would have to be amended. Weste wanted to “find a way for there to always be an alternate.” The council supported discussing potential amendments at a future meeting. Striplin added that there have been discussions about changing some senior home designations to family spaces, and the council also wanted to discuss that sooner rather than later.

Other remarks from Striplin and the council included support for L.A. County Sheriff’s Department. Al Ferdman had expressed some misgivings about the station moving west of Santa Clarita and about the lack of a station in the east valley, and the city manager assured him that current discussions were aimed at improving presence rather than decreasing it. Mayor Kellar echoed Striplin’s support, contending that Santa Clarita gets access to a lot of big department resources at a cost-effective rate through its contract. He seemed to be heading off any calls of “let’s start our own police department!” at the pass.

Avoiding Larry

The consent calendar came and went without much discussion and without speakers. Most of the items dealt with bookkeeping matters like approving tract maps and landscape contracts. One item gave up to $130,000 to Southern California Edison to develop plans for “undergrounding” utilities along Soledad Canyon Road, which will make for a more pleasing skyline. All items passed with the recommended actions.

One of the votes went 4-0 instead of 5-0, however, because Kellar recused himself. The item was a parcel map approval involving Spirit Properties, and Kellar explained that he wouldn’t vote because he had had “a business transaction in the past” with Spirit’s Larry Rasmussen. Of course, Kellar hasn’t always been so meticulous in avoiding votes that affect his pal. As Mike Devlin wrote in 2014, “Kellar voted ‘yes’ to pay Larry Rasmussen $1.1 million for the future billboard property.” That was quite a long time ago, of course, but the question of when to recuse oneself is always popping up in a valley as small and connected as Santa Clarita.

Sloppy Vote

After approving a 3% increase in fire district developer fees (this puts Santa Clarita in line with the rate for unincorporated LA County), it was time to discuss councilmember compensation. Didn’t that just happen a few months ago?, the attentive reader asks. Yes, it did. Tonight was a revisitation of last year’s vote 3-2 against giving the City Council a raise. Recall that the council always votes on raises that will take place after elections.

Discussion began with Cam Noltemeyer making several points about how the council was already adequately compensated, especially if benefits were considered. She then pointed out that councilmembers receive different benefits (in line with city staff benefits when elected), but she believed, “Every single councilman should get the same pay. The same pay. And let’s start being open with the public because you definitely are not.” Noltemeyer meant that Boydston should be compensated as well as Kellar, McLean, and Weste, but she even extended her statement to include Mayor Pro Tem Acosta, who is also getting lower benefits since he came on so recently. “And Acosta too, I guess, reluctantly,” she conceded.

Mayor Kellar asked if any of the councilmembers wished to discuss the matter. Councilmember McLean started with a question based on the use of the term “contract city” in earlier comments from this evening. She asked, “I was just wondering if you can explain what it means that we’re a contract city?” City Manager Ken Striplin then explained that it meant that Santa Clarita contracts with LA for services like fire. “So it’s providing for those types of services specifically and not giving contracts on individuals projects?” McLean queried. With that concept clarified, Kellar again sought action on the item.

Staff normally supplies a recommended action, but on the pay raises, all that was written was, “Provide direction to staff regarding Councilmember salary.” This led to confusion.

Weste: “I’d like to move the recommendation for the increase of the council compensation.”

Kellar: “I have a motion…is that the 5%?”

Weste: “If the council’s willing, yes.”

Kellar: “Do we have a second?”

Acosta: “I’ll second it.”

McLean, over Acosta: “Wh…OK, I was going to say if you don’t I will but you did, so…”

Boydston, over Kellar: “Discussion! Yes, there will be discussion…I thought this was settled three months ago!”

Boydston contended that Councilmember Weste’s motion had been improper, as she had moved the staff recommendation, which was only to provide direction–there were no specifics much less a recommended increase. Boydston’s speech soon veered into into grandstanding. He said that council pay had increased roughly twice as rapidly as the rate of inflation, and that seniors weren’t seeing any meaningful, comparable increase in social security benefits. He asked why the vote had to be brought up again–had their workload increased dramatically in the past few months?

Boydston has had a strained relationship with some staff and fellow councilmembers over compensation in the past. He once filed a claim against the City for about $10,000–the discrepancy in benefits between new and old councilmembers once a two-tier health care system had been adopted. Boydston contended that it wasn’t about more money but about paying everyone the same to do the same job. He was unsuccessful. At the time, he had suggested being OK with everyone taking the lesser benefits as well so long as everyone got the same deal. Boydston used the tactic of less is more again tonight, suggesting that the council actually vote to cut its compensation by 10% and give the funds to senior care.

Though Boydston spoke a lot, the rest of the council was silently clamoring to get to the vote without engaging in the merits of a raise. Weste and Kellar showed that they lacked a rudimentary understanding of the item, since Weste thought they could only do a 5% raise (not 5% per year) and Kellar thought it only applied to one year and that’s why Weste had said 5% (it applied to two). When asking for clarity from Dante Acosta, who had seconded the motion:

Acosta: “I believe it was 5% per year”

Kellar: “That was your interpretation, that it was 5% per year for a total of 10?”

Acosta: Nods, mumbles something

Weste’s recommendation and stated understanding had been 5% total, so how Acosta came to this interpretation is not clear. Perhaps his earlier prayer had granted him greater clarity than that afforded me or The Signal‘s Luke Money, who tweeted “Unclear on whether the #SCCouncil approved a 5% total pay increase or for 10% (5% for two years). Will check as soon as meeting ends.” In any case, the vote took place and  went 3-2, with those running for reelection this year voting against the raise (Boydston, Kellar), and those not running for reelection voting for it. And even though it’s for 10% total (Money got clarification from the city clerk), that is a tiny amount relative to the budget, and it marks the first time councilmembers will receive over $2000 a month.