October 20, 2026 - Special Council Meeting

0:00 Sorry please. >> Hello and welcome to the Village of Holly special council meeting Tuesday, October 20th, 2026 at 6 PM. Clerk, will you please call the role? >> Here, >> here. >> Ryan >> here, >> Pascal >> here, >> here. Ty >> here. >> Brandon >> here. We have a quorum. Meeting is in session. If you're willing and able, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

0:46 justice for all. >> At this time, I will entertain public comment. There is no public here. Moving on to new business. Consideration of village council approval of the 2026 through 2029 tentative bargaining agreement with the police officer labor council patrol. Tim, would you like to introduce this item? >> Absolutely. So before council this evening is the proposed three-year collective bargaining agreement between the village holly and the police officers label labor council and the command uh representing our patrol officers. And again, the next item is going to be the command covering July 1st, 2026. Again, this is going to be retroactive until uh back then through

1:31 June 30th, 2029. Throughout negotiations, our objective has been to modernize the agreement. This agreement is much different than the past ones. We're looking through all of our agreements trying to get them to have standardized language so that when myself, Lisa, Tessa have to go back through it. there's kind of one standard throughout for all employees and not hey we have to look at this agreement over here and oh no this is slightly worded differently and so we're just trying to get standardized agreement and luckily both police patrol and command were on board and we went line by line on this document with them that's why it took so long we clarified language aligned contractual provisions with current departmental practices uh again some of the old stuff had been on their books forever um that just wasn't how we did operations anymore and establish a fair

2:17 and sustainable framework for both our employees and the village. The proposed agreement includes updates to compensation, working conditions, administrative procedures while maintaining the village's ability to effectively manage police operations. I want to thank everyone involved in the negotiations for their time, professionalism, and willingness to work collaboratively collaboratively towards an agreement. Although this is a three-year agreement, we do have wage reopeners each year. So we, you know, this is a 3% increase is what we talked about in budget season what we're planning to do. They agreed to that. Um really the only additional addition that cost us anything was that we uh because they they did request more. What we gave them was an additional holiday. We gave them Junth which is um you know there is a cost associated to having an additional holiday. Um but it was um neg

3:05 negligible compared to if we did an higher increase of percentage. And so uh and then I know we're going to do patrol first, but command um is very similar in language just in representative of the um two now three three um people within that bargaining unit which is um because we just promoted um uh Sergeant Hal now so to to Sergeant and that will be in your November meeting um where we're actually do the formalized portion of that um but there's only three members of the command team. He doesn't get a union. So, >> I'll entertain a motion to approve new

3:50 business item A. >> I'll make a motion consideration uh to approve uh a village council approval of the 2026 2029 tenative bargaining agreement with the police officers labor council patrol. >> I'll second. We have a motion by Wein Brener. We have a second by Ky. There is no public for comment. So councel >> um Tim did you fix the leave recurral amounts >> the 96 hours? >> Oh so there there is one change that we need to make on um the actual contract which I'll get agreements on them but I think that on uh page let me see it it just was an inconsistency on how we were doing it. It was rather than we agreed up to 96

4:36 hours of um it's on page 22. It's just a consistency in language. So in it we say that they time bank up to 96 hours of uh CTO uh comp time that they could take and then later on it references that they can they can have a maximum in their bank of 80 which is inconsistent language and so it should be 96 and we're just increasing that to 96. So, and that's the only uh change there. Again, it's just what we discussed in the room was 96. We just did not fix those hours. >> We wine Brener and Kyer, do you amend your motion and support to agree with that amendment? >> I'll amend my motion. >> I'll amend my support. >> Okay. Council,

5:24 if there's no further discussion, sorry, go ahead. >> Sorry, Madam President. So, I did have a Um, two questions. The first question was the MS defined benefit plan. So, I I did talk to manager Price uh briefly before the meeting and just with Lisa for probably 30 seconds um Miss Bone about this. So, my concern was just to make sure when um so there's two different types of defined benefit plans. one's at 1.5 and then the other one's at 2.5 is my understanding. And I think the way if it's worded now is it says all employees before 2019 will be on this and then in the second section it says um other

6:10 employees that are on this plan and then it does 50% um bonus. So [clears throat] I does that make sense? So my my problem is or my not my problem, my concern is that the people that are supposed to be on the 2.5 plan, section one overrides that by saying if you were hired before 2019, you're not getting this. So I don't want them I don't want to go to murders and have them be confused because it already says if you were hired before 2019, you're on this plan. >> I think that um so first of all on this section as you know you we were reading a little bit together and we're like this is really confusing. So this particular section, although we went line by line on everything, this was the one area that we asked the labor attorney to actually draft so it was compatible with our um our MS uh our

6:56 settlement agreement that we had because we wanted to make sure the language was consistent. And so this this [snorts] was reworked to match that. I would say that um really the only so no one knew was going into the defined benefits plan because it's a closed plan. [clears throat] Um, so that that alleviates some of the concern there. The other concern that you and I had spoken about was that, you know, with the over like if someone were just do a lot a lot of overtime. >> Well, I did look at the I did look at that and that's that is allowed based off of the agreement we signed. >> But that the agreement that I'm concerned with is section one, it says you are in this plan if you were hired before 2019. And then the second section it says, well, there's this other there's this other plan too you could be a member of. So, I I think based off of our settlement, we need to have specific

7:42 dates in there based off when you were hired. So, but if the attorney already said this is fine, then I'm okay. >> I I think it's there these people are already established [snorts] in MERS, so there's not going to be any changes within their plans. I don't but Lisa knows a lot more about this than I do. I don't know if there's >> So, does it make sense what I'm what I'm what I'm saying? Worse. >> So, I'm looking at section one. It says for employees hired prior to July 1st 2019 the village will provide the merge defined benefit program with a 1.5% multiplier 10ear vesting center. All right. And section two it says each member of the merge defined benefit B450 25ear service for vesting based on gross wages. For purposes of this provision gross wages includes 50% of total over time earned. Then section three says for

8:28 all employees hired on or after July 19 in lie of the defined benefit pension plan the village will maintain a defined contribution. >> Right? But but we we've already established that there are two different defined benefit plans. >> So the first date and the only date on there is 2019 and it's saying 2019 before 2019 you have 1.5%. So there's no and in the agreement that we signed the settlement agreement there are other dates in there based off when they were hired. So, as long as this isn't going to screw MS up and the attorneys are happy, >> it won't. Um, the 20 the 2019 is the hard and fast date and everybody's seniority after that is what determines where they are. That's on the defined benefit. The defined contribution is everybody after that date. The

9:14 settlement of the 50% only applies to the DB people. It doesn't apply to the defined contribution. >> But aren't there two different defined benefit plan people? >> Yes. Right. They sign up for it when they join the program. So there's no switching it now. Anyone that switches now only >> Well, I'm not saying they can switch it. I'm saying based off this contract, but MS looks at it. As long as they're happy, then that's fine. >> Yeah. And MS understands it and the attorney and the union, everybody kind of settled on that because it was a little tricky. Not that language, but the actual >> because in the in the actual settlement that we signed, it's a lot more specific and it has date ranges based off of what plan you're in. So if you're in the 1.5, you're hired between this date. And if you're in the 2.5, you're hired between this date. and where in this contract it just says before 2019 it's poof. >> I we again we've gone through this >> as I said as long as attorney's fine you

9:59 guys are fine. >> That's the only date that really applies in this section is the 19th. >> And the second item madam president >> um there was a difference between the old contract and the new contract regarding opt out of health insurance. So the old contract and I unfortunately I couldn't print it out so I apologize. My printer was offline, so I don't know why, and I couldn't fix it in time. Uh, basically, it said it's prrated, so if you opt out two months later, you get 500 prorate, your refund $500. And going forward now, that section regarding the proration has been erased. So, my PE brain tells me that what could happen

10:44 essentially is if someone and I don't know if they could use insurance or if they don't have to use insurance to opt out, but the last month of the year they could potentially say I'm now opting out even though I've had insurance for the entire year and they get a refund of $3,000. >> And that was in the old agreement. So, the old agreement basically said if you opt out the last month, you don't get a refund. >> Okay. >> The new the new one says you can opt out the last month of the policy and you get all the money back or it doesn't specify you don't. And I think there would be a reason the only reason to take it out is so someone could get it back. >> So, it does say in this it says uh at the very bottom if an employee elects not to participate in the health insurance plan, they will not be allowed to reenter the plan until the regularly scheduled enrollment period. So what if

11:29 someone opts out right right before the Roman ends? I mean right before it begins. >> So they're opted in. They're in it all year. The last month comes and they're like I want to opt out. What now? >> That goes to the next year. >> It's the next >> that's the next year [clears throat] we're paying previous. >> So then why can't opt out in the middle of >> Yeah. >> Okay. So why did the previous one previous contract stipulate you would get prorated depending on when you opt out? That could be because of uh when you're if you leave, you still would get your prorated like let's say you're only here six months during that uh time frame. You would get six months of that pay because again you're still entitled to that because again that's prior. So you're getting you're not getting it in

12:14 advance. You're getting it after. But what my understanding is is let's say they're giving you $3,000 and you opt out for you you employed for six months >> and then you leave >> and you get $1,500 >> even though you had insurance for the whole six months. >> You wouldn't have insurance for the whole six months. >> But why would you leave and you're no longer on the books and get $1,500? >> The only time you get the money is when you don't take don't opt into the insurance plan. So you have no insurance. You're saying you're covered by your spouse. You're covered by somebody else. This is This is a move of >> right but what we said is you can opt out they said they said there is no opting out once you opt in you're in you can't opt out halfway through >> right it's for the year >> so it makes sense why so it makes sense why there was an opt out provision in

13:00 the last contract >> she's saying that's for if you retired >> retired early quit >> retire you quit because again it's still you're still entitled to it if you quit and you're talking about if you didn't have insurance for six months and now you quit you still give that you give that that buyout because again you hadn't had insurance for six months. >> So so for instance you would have signed up for it and you wouldn't have had it for six months >> but they still collected >> they still benefit the cash the cash value because again like I said they didn't have it for six months. >> Okay so someone so for instance someone has a job >> they do not collect insurance they do not have insurance then they retire six months they get six months buyout or six months of prrated insurance payments.

13:46 Okay. All right. That makes sense. >> Thank you, >> council. >> Uh I'm just going to beat a dead horse probably because I'm still confused. But uh >> Awesome. [laughter] >> I uh I talked to Tim for a few minutes earlier before I came in to ask for some verification, but I still am a little lost about it. Um we've got I'll just use as officer five or whatever number corresponds. I don't use her name, but like for officer 5, it's $77,753 for retirement. Do we pay that in every year? >> So, yeah. So, um let me let me talk about that because if you look at some officers, uh so part of this beforehand, um council had requested a uh a wage wage breakdown about how this would

14:32 affect um you know, how this actually looks in actuality with our officers. So, we gave them that. And so there are representatives in the in different um in those different DB plans that we talked about. And so how it's represented in this is that for example, one of our sergeants um their retirement because of our unfunded pension liability in the DPB plan is at like $75,000. And that is because that's broken down between all of the other people still remaining within that DB plan. If like let's say one of those officers were to leave and my understanding is that that number would go up because we still have to we still have the unfunded pension liability that we have to cover with those different uh those different individuals. The question that we talked about um you know so it does look

15:18 skewed. It is skewed. That's why we got away from a DV plan. Um you know until we get fully funded which is 2040 I think we're still going to have some of these liabilities left. So what that is that's just showing like it's like a big group of people and we divided it amongst the ones we still have here. >> Yeah, it's that total amount divided into four or three or four. Okay. >> And the team sters have something similar where there's only you know if you look at teamsters and I haven't I should grab that uh as well for you but like they have even less people in that plan now. So that >> that makes it look like people are paying more. >> So it might look like someone pays 100,000. What we've talked about in the past is rather than having it associated with an individual, maybe having an additional line item that just talks about uh pension liability like that and

16:04 we could break it down like that to to show but but how it is um allotted to individuals I think. So we're just representative of like hey if you looked at like the actual payment type thing this is how it looks. We could we could pull it out to show you. Um but Lisa, do you have anything more you want to say on that? Because you understand it, you work closer with that. >> Yeah. The only other thing is that so again, these are the people who are active, right? Because again, you still have people who are >> retired that are still alive. >> Yeah. They're collecting the money. So again, we still have to fund that. But then you have people who have worked here, let's say, and they're vested. They they were here for 10 years, but they said, "You know what? I'm going to go to ABC municipality." So that So again, they at some point in time are

16:51 going to be able to collect out of our pension, just not as much as everybody else, but they're still going to be able to collect. So again, we still have to fund that because at some point in time they are going to be collecting as well. They might not be right now, but they may at some point in time. And again, because there's no other new people I can't new new employees coming in to put more money in because it's closed. >> That's we're not offering that no more. >> Correct. >> And so what's what's even more confusing or would be more confusing is let's say that we they're gone like we are out of these people. That doesn't mean that pension liability is gone that we have to collect on. So, even if we got rid of like let's say we went to just a part-time force that didn't have any

17:37 kind of insurance like that, we'd still have dollars of pension liability we have to do every year. >> And and how I like to put it is if you went to let's say the sheriff's office, you got to add that 485,000 to the cost of your So, that works better for me. I'm just saying. >> So, no matter so whatever the >> have it in the police budget. That's why it's spread out. It's reflective in our budget. >> I just I just I was just thinking for more transparency reasons, anything else like that. So, it's like it doesn't think that somebody's getting something more than somebody else's or like the health care are like 20,000 and 31,000. Now, I'm assuming that's probably the same thing. It's for the whole big

18:24 group. We just have to >> No, that's different. That's a little different because again that's based on um so again >> I I'll use me and Tim if you don't [clears throat] mind as an example. If if I was on the healthcare which I'm not but if I was I'd be a couple me and my husband. Tim is a family because he has him and his kids. Well again so the so the um the village manager's um budget is going to be more because he pays more because he has has a family where mine would be a couple and mine would be less because it's only there's only two. So again, this is all based exactly on how people if you've got officers that have families, if you have officers that are single, if you because like for example, DPW, we have a lot of younger people and they're they're not married, so they're

19:10 just singles, but then you have, you know, then you but in the police department, they have a lot of families. So again, that's actually cost to cost. >> Yeah. And age and other things. There's a lot of other factors. >> All that's factor where where you live, that's all a factor. Now, is it inappropriate to ask what we offer for health insurance or healthcare? >> That's not inappropriate to ask. I mean, no, I mean, that's public, uh, record. I mean, um, what do you, uh, I'm just >> retirement or health insurance? >> No, the health because right now with the health because I understand the retirement, it's just a big old got to put everything into a pool and divide it up. >> That's for the D >> against so many people that are still on that >> defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan. >> Yeah. Um, >> and then like I know health insurance. I know some places I used I worked for a

19:56 place a long time ago that paid the deductible and everything that I didn't have to pay nothing out of for my health insurance. >> I don't know how much it was that they paid but I don't know. I mean it's like $20,000 >> a year. Some of them are 3,000. Some are 31,000. I like I mean we offer what complete everything. I mean not saying that >> I would defer to I mean someone that has spent my entire life on doing government plans whether it was federal government or this I would ask Lisa who's worked in the insurance industry like to kind of give her opinion about where we sit uh in comparison to other >> before we go forward. Is this relevant to your vote on this item? >> Yes. >> Okay. So it's um so we we we fund everything. There's nothing that the employees um give any kind of a a match to or

20:43 anything like that. that it's fully funded. Okay. Um we have our um our uh McDonald Financial is is who handles all of our he's our agent and he and he's the one that does like our hard cap to see like if we have to like if we have so many employees and this is how much it is and the people that opt out there's a formula that comes into play where you have you must have employees [clears throat] you know um contribute. So he did all the formulas and everything like that and right now we're at the point where, you know, we we're we're fine with what we're we're offering. >> So we feel like we have a pretty uh competitive um health care package in comparison to some other communities and some other organizations. And that's when part of what we bring to in negotiations because we are the one of

21:28 the lowest paid uh police departments. And so we we we bring out this is your total employee package. This is how much you know your health insurance costs. this is how much all of these things are. So I know that a lot of times we just look at the bottom line this is how much you know their wages are but when you look at you know this is you know the employee package this this is how we kind of sell it to them as well. Okay, that that makes very much sense. Thank you. >> And I will say [clears throat] P the personnel committee did meet with Lisa >> six months ago maybe. Um we did go over kind of what they offer for vision and dental and we went through all the different packages. Yeah. To try to get them >> Well, again, I'm not saying that we didn't do the best thing. I just wanted

22:13 to make sure I understood it. >> Yeah. >> 100% before I'm like Yeah. I'm like, [laughter] >> we are also not offering them the national average of even a cost of living raise, which is >> No, I I know that very while we're not offering our officers even the national average of a cost of living, we do offer a nice benefit plan. I think that's good. >> Yeah. And I think that's kind of worth noting. I mean, I just appreciate our like both the labor unions. I mean, we want to get them competitive with, you know, other places in Oakland County as far as how much their wages are. We're not we're not competitive with them. We offer a different kind of lifestyle here. We offer other things, but I mean, you know, to to do that, we just couldn't afford to do it. But they're willing to work here. They're willing to stay with us because they like the

22:59 community. They like the jobs we're doing here. Um, as Shannon mentioned, the CPI uh increase this year was 3.7 was that 3.7% uh increase, and we're only offering a 3%. So even to keep up with inflation, we're not even keeping up with inflation, how much we're increasing. So which is sad, right? But um but again, they're working with us. So >> Well, that's good. I was just I like I said, I wanted to make sure that I understood and that we're giving the best we can. >> Council, is there anything else? >> Clerk, please call the role. >> Winner, >> yes. >> Pascal, >> yes. >> Ky, >> yes. Wendle, >> yes. >> Ryan, >> yes. >> Cole, >> yes.

23:44 >> Brandon, >> yes. Motion carried. I will entertain a motion for the consideration of village council approval of the 2026 through 2029 tentative bargaining agreement with the police officer labor council command. Do I hear a motion? >> I will make the motion to consider the village council approval of the 2629 tentative bargaining agreement with the police officer labor council command. I'll second the motion. >> Motion by Cole, support by Wendell. There is no public for public comment. Uh Tim, is there anything else to introduce in this item? >> Nope. Very similar. Um obviously the patrol specific things have been removed and this is just focus on command. So our sergeants and above our sergeants and lieutenant we had right now we just have sergeants. >> Council, any further discussion?

24:32 >> Cler, please call. Sorry. Go ahead. >> All all per. [laughter] No, I do want to thank our officers. Uh, you heard Tim and Shannon briefly touch on it that >> I mean, they didn't spill it out, but they're not getting rich here. So, they're here to serve our community and >> they really got to love the job they do here. >> So, thank you. >> I think they deserve a round of applause. [applause] [laughter] >> Clerk, please call the role. >> Casawa, >> yes. >> Ker, >> yes. >> Wendell, >> yes. Ryan, >> yes. >> Cole, >> yes. >> We burner, >> yes. >> Brandon, >> yes. Motion carried. Our next regular meeting is Tuesday, November 10th, 2026 at 6 PM. This meeting is adjourned.

25:19 >> Thank you, council. On behalf of both unions and all the staff, thank you.