Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter details former city administrator's separation package and seeks invoices
Summary
A public commenter recounted documents showing the city paid former city administrator Damian Arula roughly $333,380.06 (12 months of salary, PTO and floating holidays) and said the city is withholding invoices related to an internal investigation; she urged transparency and said she filed public‑records requests.
During oral communications, resident Julie Souchard summarized documents she received via public‑records requests about the separation agreement for former city administrator Damian Arula and pressed the council for transparency.
Souchard said the city paid Arula a lump‑sum equivalent to 12 months of base salary — which she identified in the records as $317,020 — in addition to paid time off (87.34 hours, listed as $13,311.79) and floating holidays (20 hours, $3,048.27), for a total she calculated at $333,380.06. She also said the city would pay up to 12 months of COBRA premiums for Arula and his dependents while he remained unemployed, and raised questions about other charges she alleged were on city credit cards (car‑wash use, meal charges and a $3,478 electric‑vehicle charger claimed for exclusive personal use and $12,079 to install city‑hall chargers).
Souchard said a deputy city administrator canceled a $6,000 minimum farewell‑party contract before it was charged to taxpayers and that the contract language indicated deposits were nonrefundable. She told the council she had requested invoices for private‑investigator fees the city paid and said the city had set a new public‑records deadline of Dec. 5 for those documents.
Council did not act on these allegations at the meeting but acknowledged the public‑records process; staff noted additional time is needed to respond to outstanding record requests.
Next steps: Souchard said she would await the Dec. 5 records deadline; the council did not take formal action beyond acknowledging the comment and public‑records request process.
