The $0.5 million cost cited by Dan Rainey and reported in the article is likely based on the June 18, 2007 city council resolution authorizing the software purchase:

Resolution to Approve a Service, Software Licensing, and Support Agreement with CRW Systems for the TRAKiT Software and Implementation of a third party (Tele-Works) IVR system – RFP No. 626 ($504,000.00) and establish a project budget
not to exceed $554,400.00

Re: IT–New employees aren’t considered failures part way through their orientation and training. Complex software systems require a similar integration and setup period. The users of such systems, being the ones whose daily work requires the most changes, are often not enthusiastic during the transition period. On the other hand, some users appreciate the potential of new systems and look forward to using it more fully, showing less frustration with immediate problems.

To my knowledge the Etrakit purchase contract was negotiated through the City Attorney’s office. I suggest that anyone interested in the details of the purchase contract contact the Attorney’s office.

Among other features, I believe that the real time online updates from field inspections has yet to be complete and implemented.

The contract was essentially written to CRW’s specifications that excluded other vendors and the city’s existing software vendor at the time BS&A.

According to staff of PDS, to this day, CRW/Etrakit has NOT fulfilled the terms of the purchase contract. It has been a costly failure.

I did read it from the viewpoint of “How much are workers getting?”;
that’s the cause of the confusion.
I think many would agree the paragraph is perhaps less than clear.

Regardless, now we can look at numbers instead of potentially
confusing words, at the link cited.

Thank you for the accuracy check, and your fine efforts.

She said the city was not the highest in terms of wages, but that in terms of pensions, deductibles, and co-pays, the city was on “the low end.” Hohnke sought clarification of “the low end” – Wilkerson meant that Ann Arbor workers paid less than workers in other communities towards those benefits.

In commenting, please do not strip quotes of their original context, giving them a different interpretation, in order to serve a rhetorical point.

What is interesting about Ms. Wilkeron’s quote — and the reason we quoted it — is precisely that she, as the city’s human resources director, sees the issue from a different point of view than the average citizen, namely: “How much do workers contribute towards their health care and retirement?” It’s an interesting contrast to the way many people look at the issue, which is simply: “How much are city workers getting?”

Not even close!

I suggest everyone look carefully at:
[link]

It clearly shows our city workers earn substantially more than their
governmental peers, and way more than civilians earn.