The approved increases are as follows: election inspector from $8 to $9/hour; floater from $8.50 to $9.50/hour; chairperson from $11.25 to $12/hour; and absent voter count board supervisor from $14 to $14.50/hour. According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, prepared by the city clerk’s office, the increase in pay is expected to cost $2,000 in a local election and $8,000 in a presidential election. For the upcoming 2012 presidential election, the increase would total $5,000 – a cost that will be reimbursed by the state.

The justification for the increase in pay for Ann Arbor’s election inspectors was based on comparative pay with other nearby jurisdictions. For example, the raise for election inspectors from $8 to $9 now matches what the city of Ypsilanti pays.

After the raise, however, the proposed compensation for election inspectors would still fall short of the amount set forth in Ann Arbor’s living wage policy, which the city itself is not obliged to follow. By ordinance, the wages paid by city contractors to their workers must meet minimum thresholds that are adjusted each year, based on federal poverty guidelines. In May of 2011, the new living wage minimums were set at $11.83/hour for those employers offering health insurance, and $13.19/hour for those employers not offering health insurance.

The living wage factored into the council decision to postpone the election inspectors’ pay raise from its Dec. 19, 2011 meeting. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) questioned why the raise did not match the city’s living wage and that prompted the postponement until the council’s Jan. 9 meeting. The cost of the higher increase was upwards of $60,000 and the council did not deliberate on that additional increase on Jan. 9.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, presents a possible board configuration for a countywide transit authority at the board's June 3 meeting at Weber's Inn. (Photos by the writer.)

On both occasions, a significant focus was the AATA’s countywide transit master plan. At the June 16 meeting, the board approved the final version of the first two volumes of the plan, which had previously been released in draft form. The two volumes cover a vision and an implementation strategy. A third volume, on funding options, is not yet complete.

The plan is the culmination of over a year of work by AATA staff and a consulting firm to perform a technical analysis and gather public input. The goal was to create a document to guide transit planning in the county over the next 30 years. The timing of the next step – beginning to translate a neatly formatted document into reality – will depend in part on a third volume of the plan, which has not yet been finalized. The third volume will describe options for how to fund expanded transit service in the county. Countywide transit funding will ultimately be tied to the governance structure of some entity to administer transit throughout Washtenaw County.

And governance is a topic that’s ultimately reflected in the actual wording of the resolution that the board adopted at its June 16 meeting on the transit master plan. The resolution authorizes transmittal of the documents not just to the public, but also to an unincorporated board, described as an “ad hoc committee” that will work to incorporate a formal transit authority under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. [AATA is currently incorporated under Act 55 of 1963.]

For the last few months, CEO Michael Ford’s regular monthly reports to the AATA board about his activities have included his efforts to meet with individuals and representatives of government units throughout the county to discuss participation in the governance of a countywide transportation authority. June continued that trend. So wrapped into this combined report of the AATA board’s last two meetings is a description of the June 2 visit that Ford and board chair Jesse Bernstein made to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

At its June 3 retreat, the board also voted to shift some funding to the AATA staff’s work associated with the countywide transit master plan.

At its June 16 meeting, the board handled some business not specifically related to the transit master plan. The board adopted two policies that it has previously discussed: one on the rotation of auditors, and the other on a living wage for AATA vendors. They also received updates on the expansion of service to the University of Michigan’s East Ann Arbor Health Center and to the Detroit Metro airport.

Progress on those two fronts led board member David Nacht to suggest that the kind of movement and progress the AATA was demonstrating, even without additional money that could come from a countywide funding source, showed that the agency’s future plans deserved support from the community.

Transit Master Plan (TMP)

At its June 3 meeting, the AATA board was asked to vote on a resolution endorsing Volumes 1 and 2 of its countywide transit master plan (TMP) as revised and amended. The plans had been previously released to the public at the board’s April 21, 2011 meeting.

A “whereas” clause in the board’s resolution provided some additional description of a transitional governance structure, which could lead to an eventual countywide authority established under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. The transitional structure would be “an interim and  ’unincorporated’ Act 196 Authority Board (‘U196 Board’) which will act as an ad hoc committee to establish an organizational framework and funding base for an expanded transit system, and to work toward formally creating and incorporating a new Act 196 Authority.”

According to the resolution before the board, both volumes of the TMP are to be transmitted to the U196 board “for further analysis, refinement, and definition.” [.pdf of "Volume I: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of "Volume II: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

Michael Benham, project coordinator for the AATA’s transit master plan, told The Chronicle before the meeting that not much, besides revised formatting, had changed between the version of the plan disseminated to the public two months ago and the final draft. But he pointed to one substantive alteration that was made to one of the appendices, which describes a set of short- and medium-term enhancements the AATA hopes to make to the existing bus system. Those enhancements essentially involve the routing and timing of buses, as opposed to the construction of massive new infrastructure like rails or extra roadway lanes just for buses.

Between the time of the  draft and the final version of that appendix, the strategy for serving the Washtenaw Community College campus and the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital has been beefed up. The initial draft looked like this:

Draft of planned bus network service enhancements between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, including the Washtenaw Community College and the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital. Route 3 is depicted in red. (Image links to larger file)

Between the draft and the final version, the same section of the map was revised to look like this:

Final version of map in appendix of the AATA transit master plan. Route 3 is depicted in green. Route 7 and Route 48 (an Eastern Michigan University shuttle) shoulder part of the ridership volume in the Washtenaw Community College and the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital area. (Image links to larger file)

Improvements in service that can be achieved in the shorter term – through route reconfiguration, increased frequency and extended hours of existing operations – are a theme that the AATA has tried to highlight through the transit master planning process. The idea is that existing service can be improved and additional services can be provided, before the establishment of a countywide authority.

During the June 16 meeting, the board heard from CEO Michael Ford, as part of his regular report, that the AATA would be extending its paratransit service to the University of Michigan’s East Ann Arbor Health and Geriatrics Center starting July 1, 2011. Ford also told the board that the target date for beginning some kind of bus service to the airport – likely by partnering with another provider like Michigan Flyer – is Oct. 15, 2011. The AATA is sticking with that target, even though the AATA’s grant application for federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to support the airport service has been rejected.

In addition, the geographic boundaries for the Night Ride service have been extended out to Golfside Road.

News about service to the airport, the East Ann Arbor clinic and the Night Ride service led board member David Nacht to conclude that, “We’re making progress.” He ventured that the AATA was getting itself into a position where it could say to voters throughout the county, who may be asked to support a countywide authority with their tax dollars: Look what we’ve done without any additional funding – look at how we’re turning ourselves into a regional organization. We deserve some funding.

A comment from board chair Jesse Bernstein on the resolution that authorized dissemination of the final version of the TMP acknowledged that the next phase will be “very delicate.” He called the process so far “encouraging” in terms of communication with the community. The AATA will need to continue the values of open communication and discussion, he said.

Earlier in the meeting, Bernstein had responded to a criticism made during public commentary at a previous board meeting – that the AATA board did its work through committees, and did not do its work in the public eye – by laying out the structure of the board’s committees and how they work. The board has three committees: (1) performance monitoring and external relations (PMER); (2) planning and development (PDC); and (3) governance. The PMER committee is currently chaired by Charles Griffith; PDC is chaired by Rich Robben; the governance committee consists of the two committee chairs, plus Jesse Bernstein as chair of the board. Minutes of the PMER and the PDC are included in the board’s meeting packets, which are available to the public for download from the AATA website. The meetings themselves are also open to the public.

The unincorporated board of the new transit authority – called a “committee” and labeled “U196″ in the resolution – will be discussing how to incorporate the board and move forward, Bernstein said. The U196 will be making final recommendations, dotting i’s and crossing t’s. Bernstein said it is an exciting time to be on the board. He thanked the staff and those who have participated in the process so far and who will continue to participate.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve dissemination of the first two volumes of the transit master plan and to convey it to the U196 board.

At the June 16 meeting, both people who commented during public time at the conclusion of the meeting were supportive of the board’s action on the TMP. Thomas Partridge saluted the board’s work on the plan, but encouraged board members to start using creative strategies for enlisting public support to help make bus stops more accessible.

Carolyn Grawi, of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, echoed Partridge’s praise and also his suggestion about bus stop accessibility. She suggested that perhaps a visit to the Ann Arbor city council might be in order to address the intersection at Research Park Drive and Ellsworth, where Grawi has long advocated for a traffic signal. It would allow the AATA to run service in both directions in and out of Research Park Drive.

Countywide Governance

The resolution approved by the board at its June 16 meeting – which authorized dissemination of the transit master plan to the public and to the U196 board – was also considered by the board at its June 3 retreat. It was not approved at that meeting, mostly due to uncertainty about what that U196 board would actually be. To the eventually approved resolution, the following whereas clauses were added, to provide some general idea about the status of the U196 board:

WHEREAS, discussions have been held with locally elected officials within Washtenaw County for the purpose of establishing an organizational framework and funding base for such expanded transportation services, and

WHEREAS, those discussions are expected to result in the creation of an interim and   “unincorporated” Act 196 Authority Board (“u196 Board”) which will act as an ad hoc committee to establish an organizational framework and funding base for an expanded transit system, and to work toward formally creating and incorporating a new Act 196 Authority, therefore …

In broad strokes, Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986 enables the establishment of public transit authorities that include multiple jurisdictions in a single geographic area – cities, townships, villages – but has a provision for political subdivisions to opt out of inclusion in the transit authority.

Countywide Governance: Two Acts – Act 55 and Act 196

The AATA now operates under Act 55 of 1963. Current discussion has focused on the possibility of forming a countywide funding base through creating a public transit authority under Act 196 of 1986. [Previous Chronicle coverage lays out in detail some of the other technical differences between Michigan’s Act 55 (1963) and Act 196 (1986): "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit."]

One advantage to Act 196 (if any type of “fixed-guideway” system is envisioned) is that it allows for voters to approve the levy of a millage lasting up to 25 years for transit service that includes a fixed guideway. Vehicles that run on rails – street cars and commuter trains – are obvious examples, but bus rapid transit (BRT) is also a fixed guideway system. With a BRT operation, special reserved lanes and queue-jumping infrastructure at intersections allow buses to take priority over other traffic on the roadway, so that they have a fixed guideway within the roadway.

Another advantage of Act 196 is that it offers more administrative flexibility for the formation of a public transit authority. Act 55 enables cities to establish a transit authority. While it’s possible to subsume additional multiple jurisdictions in an existing Act 55 public transit authority, there is little flexibility for opting out.

For Act 196, a county counts as a political subdivision that can establish a public transit authority under the act. And that’s what the AATA would like Washtenaw County to do, if the county board of commissioners is willing to take that step. But there are other options for forming an Act 196 authority, which include the formation by an existing Act 55 authority, or by multiple political subdivisions who choose to band together under an intergovernmental agreement.

On any scenario for formation of an Act 196 public transit authority, the flexibility for inclusion or exclusion in that authority is one possible advantage of using Act 196 for expanded countywide service in Washtenaw County. An Act 196 authority allows for political subdivisions of the county that do not wish to participate in a public transit authority to opt out. And those political subdivisions can opt out without eliminating the opportunity for other political subdivisions to band together to provide public transit for their residents.

Countywide Governance: Third Act – Act 7

The initial indication is that Salem Township is not interested in participating in a public transit authority for Washtenaw County. In Michael Ford’s monthly written report to the board for June 2011, he notes:

In a disappointing development, Salem Township voted not to participate in the Northeast Group for the time being. However, we will not be deterred. We will revisit Salem when Northfield Township votes in July and continue to update them before the U196 board starts meeting.

The other members of the “Northeast Group” to which Ford’s memo refers include Northfield Township, Ann Arbor Township and Superior Township.

On the scenario the AATA has sketched for eventual Act 196 authority board membership, the Northeast Group would have one of 15 seats on the Act 196 authority board. Of the four political subdivisions in the Northeast Group, Ann Arbor Township and Superior Township have already struck an agreement made under Act 7 of 1967 – which establishes how interlocal governmental agreements are made. That agreement may, as Ford’s report indicates, be joined by Northfield Township in July.

Countywide Governance: Interim Unincorporated Board – U196

The Northeast Group is part of a possible governance structure for an Act 196 authority that the AATA has sketched out for the county. It blocks out the county into nine geographic sections corresponding to a total of 15 board seats. Seats would be assigned partly based on population, and partly on the funding used.

Possible composition of board membership for a Washtenaw countywide transit authority. (Links to larger image.)

The sketch envisions a scenario where Ann Arbor’s existing 2 mill tax would remain in place, in addition to whatever countywide millage might be enacted, and so assigns Ann Arbor seven board seats. Based purely on population in the county, Ann Arbor would receive one-third of the board seats – that is, only five.

Concerns about the proportionality of representation as well as the proportionality of benefit have been raised not just by those outside of Ann Arbor, but by Ann Arbor residents looking at a future countywide system from a broader point of view.

At the June 3 AATA board retreat, during public commentary Vivienne Armentrout told the AATA board she felt that if she were in an out-county area, she’d wonder about proportionality of funding compared to benefits. She asked: “Are we talking about massive investment in commuter rail?” Without having funding options on the table, it’s not clear what you’re asking people to buy into, she told them. [Armentrout is a former member of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.]

In the rest of the county, the reaction to AATA’s possible Act 196 board representation has also met with some skepticism and resistance. On a second visit to the Washtenaw County board by representatives of the AATA, the different perspectives – among commissioners representing Ann Arbor districts in the county and those representing other areas – were readily apparent.

Countywide Governance: Visit to Washtenaw County Board (June 2)

In April, staff from the AATA and the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) had made a presentation at a working session of the county board of commissioners, giving details of tentative plans for the countywide transit system. Some commissioners raised concerns at the time, particularly related to a possible governance structure, which designated seven seats to Ann Arbor on a 15-member transit authority board. From The Chronicle’s report:

Commissioner Kristin Judge, whose district covers Pittsfield Township, protested the way board seats were assigned, saying it gave an unfair advantage to Ann Arbor. Commissioner Wes Prater, who represents southeast portions of the county, said he was “flabbergasted” that the governance plan had been developed so fully without consulting the county board, which under the current proposal would be asked to ratify the new transit authority’s board members. However, some individual commissioners were previously aware of the proposal, including board chair Conan Smith and Yousef Rabhi, chair of the board’s working session. Both Smith and Rabhi represent Ann Arbor districts.

The topic was taken up again at a June 2 county board working session, which included a presentation to county commissioners by AATA CEO Michael Ford. Ford and Jesse Bernstein, chair of the AATA board, also fielded questions about the proposal, covering a range of topics – from the number of seats on a governing board to whether Ann Arbor residents would continue to pay their current transit millage.

After Ford’s presentation, Dan Smith kicked off the discussion by noting that at their retreat earlier this year, commissioners had talked in general about the county government taking a leadership role in coordinating countywide initiatives. He clarified that at this point, the governance structure is just a proposal, and might be changed in the future. Ford confirmed that this is the case, saying it would ultimately be up to local governments as to how they form a transit authority’s governance. AATA is just trying to facilitate the discussion, he said.

Rob Turner wondered what the county’s role would be. Is it necessary for the county to incorporate the authority, as the proposal calls for? No, Ford said – but that would be the easiest way to handle it, rather than having multiple units of government file for incorporation separately.

Turner asked what additional role the county would play. That’s up to commissioners and the county administration, Ford said. If the county wants to take on additional responsibility, it’s possible to explore that, he added – possibly some kind of liaison role would be an option.

Turner then asked how the proposed governance would be affected if a smaller group of communities wants to form an Act 7 partnership. For example, right now the proposal calls for an Act 7 formed from jurisdictions on the entire west side of the county – including eight townships, Chelsea and Manchester. What if only a portion of those entities wanted to form an Act 7? Turner asked. How would that affect the transit authority’s governance structure?

Ford said they hadn’t faced that issue yet. All of the local governments had indicated agreement with the proposed plan and its geographic breakdown, he said. If that changes, he added, adjustments would be made. [Later in the month, Salem Township's board voted not to participate, though AATA still hopes they'll eventually join the authority.]

Finally, Turner clarified that if a local entity doesn’t opt out within a 30-day period after the vote to incorporate as an Act 196 authority, they’d be joining for five years. That’s true, Ford said – it’s specified in Act 196.

Wes Prater asked why AATA couldn’t incorporate under Act 196, rather than the county. That would be an option, Ford said. Prater expressed concern that the county would seem to be accepting liability and responsibility for the transit authority, but wouldn’t have any power over it – as proposed, no county representative would have a seat on the authority’s board, for example. It didn’t seem like the transit authority would answer to any elected body, Prater said.

Prater also objected – as he has in the past – to the way that seats on the transit authority board would be assigned. It’s not a one-person, one-vote structure, based on population, he noted. Rather, Ann Arbor would get seven of the 15 seats, even though the city’s population represents a third of the county. The remaining eight board members would be representing two-thirds of the county’s population. ”That doesn’t add up to the one person, one vote in my mind,” Prater said.

Ford noted that Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would bring assets (buses, bus stops, and buildings, for example) to the new entity – and that both cities already have dedicated transit millages. He said AATA’s attorney had reviewed the proposal, and that they’re confident that the way they’re proceeding is sound.

Prater wanted the county to have its attorney check the proposal as well. If it approved the Act 196 incorporation, the county board would be authorizing an entity that in turn could put a tax levy on the ballot, he said. The governance proposal really bothers him, Prater said.

Bernstein said Prater had raised some core questions that will have to be answered. The board of the unincorporated Act 196 entity will be the people who decide how the transit authority will be governed, he added – it isn’t set in stone. The issue of how many representatives from Ann Arbor serve on the unincorporated board is wide open, he said.

The AATA is suggesting this as a point to start the discussion, Bernstein told commissioners, but there’s plenty of room for modifications and adjustments. They’re not ready to propose something definitive.

Prater again cited concerns over creating a transit authority that doesn’t report to any government entity. He said he’s very cautious about supporting an authority that might put a countywide tax on the ballot. Prater expressed support for the model used in Grand Rapids, in which a smaller number of jurisdictions form the transit authority. He guessed that most areas in Washtenaw County, outside of the urban areas, don’t have the population to support a countywide transit system.

Bernstein reported that in talking with people in the county’s rural townships, they are concerned over the ability of residents to age in place – that is, to continue to live in their homes, even if they can no longer drive. Elected officials in those areas, he said, want transit services for residents to get to their medical care, for example.

The other issue is land use, Bernstein said. Townships don’t want dense developments in their communities – they’d rather see transit corridors, he said, so that their tax base can grow while they preserve farmland and open space at the same time.

Bernstein said it’s true that there’s not yet a funding plan, though organizers assume it will be a millage of some sort. There’s still a long way to go, he said.

Prater noted that five townships and two cities account for about 75% of the population in this county – those are areas where he supports public transportation. [He was referring to the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ypsilanti, Scio, Superior, Pittsfield and Augusta.] Prater said he’s not convinced that the approach being pursued is the right one, adding that he’s very critical of it. If the governance isn’t fair, the initiative is already in trouble, he said.

Leah Gunn clarified that each jurisdiction involved in the transit authority would vote separately on a transit tax. She noted that Ann Arbor residents have been paying 2 mills for transit for many years – it was voted in as a permanent millage in the 1970s, and funds the AATA. Will that millage be retained, even if there’s an additional millage?

That’s one of the suggestions, Bernstein said, adding that he’s open to whatever makes sense. Some have said that every jurisdiction should pay the same amount. All of these things are decisions that need to be made. ”I have no idea what that [funding mechanism] is going to look like,” he said.

Gunn said she feels strongly that Ann Arbor should keep its 2-mill transit tax. She elicited from Ford that Ann Arbor has invested nearly $180 million in its transit system over the years. In addition, they’ve leveraged those dollars for millions more in federal funding, she noted. Ann Arbor has been very generous, she said – without that investment, AATA wouldn’t be able to provide transit services to other communities, like Ypsilanti.

Yousef Rabhi clarified that whatever future millage might be voted on would be on the ballot only in jurisdictions that wanted to be part of the new transit authority – it wouldn’t necessarily be countywide. He also pointed out that based on having one-third of the county’s population, Ann Arbor would be entitled to five seats in a 15-member transit authority board. But if the city also contributed an additional 2 mills in funding, that could justify an additional two seats on the board, he said.

Rabhi said he’d like to keep the 2-mill transit tax, noting that he uses the AATA bus system frequently. With a larger system, it’s an opportunity for more routes, more services – more of a good thing, he said.

Ronnie Peterson weighed in, telling Ford and Bernstein that a countywide system has been a long time coming. He had urged AATA’s previous two CEOs to take on this project, but they hadn’t, he said. He wished it had been undertaken when the economy was better. “Keep your foot to the pedal,” he told them.

Peterson urged Ford to bring communities to the table that already buy transit services from AATA, like Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – communities which Peterson represents on the county board. That should happen even before a formal entity is created, he said.

Bernstein concluded the discussion by noting that the next major step will be to pull together representatives into an unincorporated entity, and to develop articles of incorporation for an Act 196. Meanwhile, AATA will continue to operate its current system, he said, and they’ll work to get answers to the questions that commissioners have raised. Where they wind up must be inclusive of everyone who wants to participate, Bernstein added – they won’t return to the county board until everything is in order.

Countywide Governance: Funding, TMP Volume 3, U196

One next step is the actual creation of the U196 board, now described as an “ad hoc committee.” The membership on the U196 board is not proposed by the AATA to be the same as the eventual Act 196 authority board. In fact, at the June 3 board meeting was a resolution that would have authorized the chair of the AATA board, Jesse Bernstein, to appoint three members of the current AATA board to serve on the U196, not all seven board members.

The board did not vote on the resolution, but did discuss it long enough to establish the rationale behind not appointing more than three: Action by the U196 board should not be construable as actions of the AATA board. [Four members would constitute a quorum of AATA board members.] Bernstein was keen to emphasize that the U196 board would be open, welcoming and transparent to all.

Another next step for the AATA is to complete Volume 3 of the transit master plan, which would focus on funding options. Existing funding options include fares, advertising (on vehicles), state and federal grants, and property taxes if approved by voters. Possible future funding options identified by the AATA include local vehicle taxes, gas taxes or sales taxes. Those would require state-level legislative action.

A resolution that was before the board, but was not voted on, at the June 3 meeting was one that would release “Volume 3 – Funding Options Report” to a “panel of financial and public funding experts, to review, refine and adjust the document” before it is forwarded to the U196 board.

To take the next steps will also require more funding for planning – though not on the same scale as for the future transit system. Before the board at its June 3 meeting was a resolution that decreased the budget for AATA administrative salaries and benefits by a total of $200,000 and made a corresponding increase in line items supporting the effort of transportation master planning – for agency design fees, consulting fees, printing and production and media.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the budget change to support additional planning work.

Regular Business (June 16): Living Wage Policy

At its June 16 meeting, the board considered a living wage policy that is roughly parallel to the living wage policy expressed in the city of Ann Arbor’s city code. It applies to the wages paid by AATA contractors to their employees. The AATA living wage policy would apply to contractors who have a contract worth more than $10,000 per year and employ or contract with more than five people. It would apply to nonprofit contractors only if they employ or contract with 20 or more people.

The minimum wage to be paid to their employees by AATA contractors would be at the same level stipulated by the city of Ann Arbor. In May 2011, the city ordinance on the city’s living wage – keyed to poverty guidelines – required that the wage be nudged upward. The new wage is set at $11.83/hour for those employers providing health insurance, and $13.19/hour for those employers not providing health insurance. That’s an increase from previous levels, which have remained flat at $11.71 per hour for employers offering health insurance and $13.06 per hour for those who don’t offer health insurance.

The AATA board had initiated the process of setting a living wage policy at its Dec. 16, 2010 meeting, when it passed a resolution directing staff to explore that policy. The context for that resolution was a janitorial contract for the Blake Transit Center. Board member Rich Robben had expressed concern that a vendor might be achieving an extraordinarily low bid by paying its workers substandard wages.

During the brief deliberations by the board, David Nacht characterized the policy as reflective of community values, but still sensitive to very small employers. It shows the AATA doesn’t believe in slave labor or undervalued labor, he said.

Sue McCormick clarified what in cases where the AATA has current contracts in place, they’ll continue as they are. But she gave the example of the auditor, where there’s an annual contract renewable each of five years. On renewal each year, the living wage policy would apply.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt the living wage policy.

Regular Business (June 16): Auditor Rotation Policy

Also at its June 16 meeting, the board considered a new auditor rotation policy. The policy would entail that the AATA not use the same auditor for longer than two four-year terms – a total of eight years.

Sue McCormick, who also serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s public services area administrator, was the board member who originally suggested looking into the issue of implementing an auditor rotation policy. She had raised the issue at the board’s Sept. 16, 2010 meeting, when board members approved a contract with Rehman as its auditor, but only for one year.

Among the risks cited by the AATA in adopting the rotation policy were the potential for needing to hire an auditor with less experience, who would produce a lower quality of work, and the potential that competitive bidding would be restrained. Among the benefits cited by the AATA in adopting the rotation policy were independence, a fresh approach, and lower cost.

At the board’s May 19 meeting, Charles Griffith, chair of the board’s performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee, had indicated to his colleagues that the policy would need to come before the board at its June meeting so that there would be time to issue a request for proposals in time for next year’s audit.

In reporting out from PMER at the June 16 meeting, Griffith said the idea of limiting an auditor to eight years of service had received McCormick’s blessing.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt the auditor rotation policy.

Next Board Meeting: Hoists

Although the board does not have a July meeting scheduled, CEO Michael Ford indicated that he would likely ask them to meet that month, in order to approve some capital improvements to the AATA maintenance facility – bus hoists, used to lift buses so that mechanics can work underneath them. A possible date floated at the June 16 meeting was Monday, July 18.

Present (June 3, 2011) : Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Present (June 16, 2011) : Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale. Absent: Rich Robben.

Next regular meeting (tentative): Monday, July 18, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The new wage is set at $11.83/hour for those employers paying health insurance, and $13.19/hour for those employers not paying health insurance. That’s an increase from previous levels which have remained flat for at least year years at $11.71 per hour for employers offering health insurance and $13.06 per hour for those who don’t offer health insurance.

The Ann Arbor city ordinance applies to the wages that must be paid by companies who have contracts with the city worth more than $10,000. Passed in 2001, the city’s living wage ordinance stipulated in that year that workers vendors who held contracts with the city had to pay their employees a minimum of $8.70/hour if the contractor provided employee health care and $10.20/hour if not.

The ordinance provides a mechanism for increasing the living wage based on federal poverty guidelines. Ann Arbor’s living wage is to be increased each year by “… a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the federal poverty guidelines as published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services …” This year, the guidelines showed a 1.0% increase, and the living wage has thus been increased as well. [.pdf of poverty guidelines]

[Previous Chronicle coverage on the living wage ordinance: "Living Wage: Insourcing City Temps"]

From AATA documentation, before (left) and after (right) bus stop improvements at the Mallets Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Board member Rich Robben had raised concerns regarding whether appropriate wages were being paid, but was convinced to support approval of the contract in part because of another resolution on the agenda. That resolution, which the board also passed unanimously, directed AATA staff to explore the possibility of a living wage provision for its contractors that would be similar to the ordinance used by the city of Ann Arbor.

The board also approved adding an additional return trip for the AATA’s commuter express service between Chelsea and Ann Arbor. The trip will leave Ann Arbor for Chelsea at 7:10 p.m. It was added in part due to feedback from current riders, who would have greater flexibility to work later on days when they take the bus to work. Many of the riders are University of Michigan employees. Robben, who is executive director for plant operations at the university, reported that the value placed on the express service by riders had been “bludgeoned” into him by some of his coworkers. He voted for the additional trip, along with the rest of the board.

The board was also given a presentation on the AATA’s bus stop improvement program, which featured several before-and-after slides. And among the topics reported out by the board’s committees and CEO Michael Ford was the on-time performance of AATA buses.

At the start of the meeting, during the time for communications and announcements, board member David Nacht noted the passing of Rev. S. L. Roberson, whose memorial service was taking place that evening. Nacht described Roberson as a force for equality in Washtenaw County and an important person in the community. Board chair Jesse Bernstein recalled having worked with Roberson in the ’70s at Ford Motor Co., and described him as an excellent person.

Bernstein concluded the meeting by thanking the AATA staff and the board for all their hard work this year, and suggested that next year they’d be asked to work even harder.

Blake Transit Center Janitorial Service

Before the board was a request to approve a three-year contract at $72,000 per year with JNS Commercial Cleaning to provide janitorial services for the Blake Transit Center. The contract with the current vendor expired on Oct. 31 and was extended through Nov. 30, 2010. On a split vote, the board had postponed consideration of the contract at its November board meeting, amid concerns that the bid from JNS – a new vendor – had come in at a cost a bit more than half of what had been budgeted for the year: $72,000 compared to the budgeted $126,069. Board members had concerns about how the cost savings were being achieved.

During board deliberations, Rich Robben noted that he’d raised concerns about living wage issues and that some additional information had been provided to compare worker compensation levels between the previous vendor and the new vendor for non-supervisory positions. He said the comparison was difficult because of the different job classifications used by the two vendors. In any case, said Robben, he was withdrawing his objections because of the decision to begin exploration of some kind of living wage requirement for AATA vendors.

Outcome: The janitorial contract with JNS Commercial Cleaning was unanimously approved.

Living Wage Requirement

The resolution before the board did not establish a living wage requirement for its vendors, but rather expressed an interest in AATA staff exploring the possibility of establishing such a requirement. The city of Ann Arbor has an ordinance requiring that the city’s vendors adhere to living wage standards as set forth in the ordinance, but it does not apply to the AATA.

By way of background, the ordinance is contained in Chapter 23 of the city code and is available online in its entirety via the Ann Arbor city clerk’s city code gateway. The rationale for higher wages is included in the ordinance language:

According to economic research summarized in the Economic Policy Institute’s August 2000 issue guide, “Higher Wages Lead to More Efficient Service Provision,” payment of higher wages is associated with greater business investment in employee training, higher productivity, and lower employee turnover, [...]

In the near decade since it was first passed, the wages have been adjusted upward to $11.71 per hour for employers offering health insurance and $13.06 per hour for those who don’t offer health insurance. That upward adjustment is based on federal poverty guidelines and was stipulated as part of the original ordinance.

During the brief board deliberations, Roger Kerson noted that the idea behind the AATA’s exploration of the issue was to make sure that its vendors did not achieve their economies based on paying unreasonably low wages.

Board members agreed that was not possible to implement any such requirement in the middle of the current janitorial contract, and decided to explore such a policy for the future. From the resolution:

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Board of Directors hereby empowers staff to investigate the institution of a living wage policy, and report findings to the Board along with any cost implications.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution to explore the institution of a living wage policy.

A2-Chelsea Express

Before the board was a proposal to add an additional return trip to its A2 Chelsea Express service. The additional trip would leave Ann Arbor for Chelsea at 7:10 p.m. The idea is to attract more riders by providing service to people who work longer shifts at the University of Michigan, as well as others who work late. The farebox recovery rate for the route is 25% – 7 points higher than the fixed‐route rate of 18%. Farebox recovery rate is the percent of the cost for operating the service that is covered by passenger fares. Estimated cost for the additional trip through the rest of the fiscal year is $24,300, with about half of that coming from the transit millage. The other half would come from fare revenues and state money.

By way of background, the AATA launched the A2 Chelsea Express using an outside vendor, Indian Trails, but switched the service in-house earlier this year. Some key dates for express commuter service – for Chelsea and Canton – over the last two years:

• May 15, 2008: AATA launches A2 Chelsea Express commuter service using Indian Trails as an outside contractor. For workers who commute to work in Ann Arbor from Chelsea, there are two morning trips, leaving at 6:10 a.m. and 7:16 a.m. There are two evening return trips to Chelsea leaving from Ann Arbor at 3:44 p.m. and 5:12 p.m.
• May 20, 2009: Review of the first year of A2 Chelsea Express service prompts board scrutiny. [.pdf of one-year milestone report] Ridership was not meeting expectations. At that month’s board meeting, David Nacht wonders if AATA has the expertise to experiment with this service. ["On the Bus to Chelsea, Ypsi, Arborland"]
• Aug. 24, 2009: AATA launches A2 Canton Express commuter service, also using Indian Trails.
• March 24, 2010: AATA board votes to move A2 Chelsea Express service in-house and to cut fares from $125 to $99. ["AATA on Chelsea Bus: Cut Fares, Add Wifi"]
• Aug. 10, 2010: AATA board votes to move A2 Canton Express service in-house and to make fare structure the same as for the A2 Chelsea Service. ["AATA Targets Specific Short-Term Strategies"]

In providing some rationale for adding the additional, later trip, Roger Kerson explained that the idea was to attract riders to the service who might feel more comfortable knowing that there is a later bus available, in the event they cannot take one of the earlier two buses on an given day.

Rich Robben said he’d be remiss in not voting for the additional trip, because a number of his colleagues at the University of Michigan, where he is executive director of plant operations, had “bludgeoned” him with the fact that they love the service.

In May of 2009, before the AATA had hired Michael Ford as CEO and was operating without a permanent director, David Nacht had expressed reservations about the experimentation the AATA was doing with express commuter bus service, especially in view of the poor ridership that the express service was showing. [See Chronicle coverage: "On the Bus to Chelsea, Ypsi, Arborland"]

Anya Dale expressed support for the expansion of the A2 Chelsea Express service to include an additional return trip to Chelsea in the evening.

On Thursday, however, Nacht noted that the AATA was still learning how to provide express commuter service and characterized the effort as a “healthy experimentation process.” He told the AATA staff that they should not worry about coming back to the board multiple times with different changes to the service.

Jesse Bernstein echoed Nacht’s sentiments that the AATA shouldn’t just quit on the service. Bernstein noted that when the AATA introduces a new service, people don’t adapt the way they live overnight.

For Anya Dale, it was important that the implementation of the additional trip had come from suggestions made by current and potential riders. Dale wanted to know how long the additional trip would continue to be offered. Ford indicated that they would monitor the ridership and continue the marketing and promotion of the service. From the staff analysis of the additional service, those marketing efforts include the following:

Accompanying the improvement in service would be a continuation of focused marketing efforts, working very closely with UM and the getDowntown program. A full description of the marketing program was provided in the November Status Report on this project. Highlights include:

• Attending UM new employee orientations every week and providing A2X information to those living in the service areas.
• Promotional inserts in City of Chelsea water bills.
• Inclusion of promotional materials in UM’s annual parking application process.
• Testimonial ads (newspaper, electronic, billboards) featuring A2X riders.

Establish a new goal for this service: maintain or exceed current fare box recovery ratio of 25%.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the addition of a later return trip for the A2 Chelsea Express.

Bus Stop Improvements

The presentation on bus stop improvements was given by Jeff Murphy, AATA’s bus stops and zone foreman.

Bus Stop Improvements: Public Commentary

During her public commentary time, which came after the presentation and board discussion of the bus stop improvements, Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living thanked the AATA for the stop that had been installed near their facility on Research Park Drive. In response to a board member’s suggestion that heat could be provided as an amenity at some bus stops, Grawi volunteered the CIL stop to serve as a pilot location.

Bus Stop Improvements: Presentation

Murphy began giving an overview of the process used by the AATA to make improvements at bus stops:

1. Identify Opportunities to Make Improvement
   120 bus stops have been identified for concrete improvements over the next three years.
2. Selection Criteria
   Passenger Activity Data (20+ daily riders).
   Demand (requests by agencies/customers).
   Bus Stop Placement Guidelines
3. Implement
   Surveys with city inspector and schedule work.
   Meet project managers on site as needed.
   Input data in Trapeze [an AATA database].

Murphy showed the board several before-and-after photos of stops that had undergone improvements, some of which highlighted collaboration and coordination with various other agencies, like the Ann Arbor District Library, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Pittsfield Township, the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and Eastern Michigan University.

Murphy told the board that the AATA was close to meeting or had well exceeded many of its 2010 goals for improvements of its bus stops. Those included:

• Goal: Install new shelters at 6 bus stops – 10 were installed.
• Goal: Add lead walks at 15 bus stops – 38 bus stops completed.
• Goal: Install benches at 10 bus stops – 20 were installed.
• Goal: Increase Adopt-A-Stop participation from 83 to 100 – 95 signed agreements.
• Goal: Solar lighting for 5 installations – 2 locations are being tested.

Murphy explained how the criteria for undertaking improvements were not necessarily rigid – a willingness on the part of someone to adopt the stop could result in an improvement at a stop that doesn’t meet all the criteria. [Volunteers in the AATA's Adopt-a-Stop program help to pick up litter and to clear snow around the stop.]

Bus Stop Improvements: Board Discussion (On-time Performance)

After the presentation, in response to board questions, Chris White – the AATA manager of service development – also explained that the ability to coordinate with existing projects already planned by other agencies can also factor into which bus stop improvements are actually made. This helps save on cost, he said, because the cost of the concrete is much less than the cost of the set-up for pouring it.

Jesse Bernstein waned to know if site plans for new developments that are submitted to municipalities where the AATA operates are automatically sent along to the AATA. White confirmed that for some municipalities this is the case, but not for all. For example, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, as well as Ypsilanti Township, automatically send proposed site plans to the AATA, but Pittsfield Township does not.

Jeff Murphy, the AATA's bus stops and zone foreman, prepared his slide presentation on bus stop improvements before the meeting.

Roger Kerson wanted to know why some of the stops, which were deemed to be poorly located and moved as a part of the program, were located there in the first place. The explanation was that many of the stops have been in their current location for many years.

David Nacht identified two issues connected to bus stops that he wanted to see explored. The first is the idea of providing some kind of heat at certain locations. He noted that there are some people who may not be willing to stand outside waiting for a bus in 10-degree cold, and it’s important for the AATA to explore heating, if it wants to try to get people to choose to ride the bus.

The second idea Nacht floated was some way of getting on-time information to people at the bus stops so that when a bus is late they are aware of it. He alluded to the the issues that have recently been raised about AATA on-time performance. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "Community Forum Attendance, On-Time Performance 'Abysmal'"]

Bernstein advised that the on-time performance was actually such that 97.6% show up within 10 minutes of when they are supposed to be there. Bernstein allowed that the AATA shouldn’t necessarily accept that as good enough.

Nacht countered that in October 2010, on Route #4, there had been 108 cases when a bus had been more than 21 minutes late, and when added to the number of times when a bus had been more than 15 minutes late, it totaled 236 cases. In the same October period, Nacht continued, the Route #5  bus had 150 cases when it was late by 15 minutes or more. [.pdf of memorandum on late buses, including October data for time-point crossings]

Bernstein told Nacht he agreed with Nacht’s concern, but that they needed also to look at the other end of the spectrum. During the same October period, the AATA had 142,000 cases of buses arriving at their destinations within 10 minutes of the scheduled time.

The exchange between Bernstein and Nacht about on-time performance concluded with Nacht indicating agreement with Bernstein, saying that it is Bernstein’s job as chair of the board, speaking for the organization, to talk about how the AATA was functioning very well. Nacht said that his job as a board member was to say, “We can do better.”

During his communications to the board, Michael Ford – CEO of the AATA – reported that some of the worst on-time problems would be addressed through January service changes to Route #18. The cause of very late buses was generally due to construction or congestion, he noted. Ford reported that conversations had taken place with the city of Ann Arbor about traffic signal prioritization, and about having the police officer who’s contracted to police the Blake Transit Center help in directing bus traffic out of the BTC. Ford noted that the upcoming year would include more construction – work on the East Stadium bridges will start next season – which would bring new challenges.

In his report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, board member Charles Griffith said the focus was on identifying the reasons why buses were very late. He said their committee discussion had included ways to provide real-time information about the on-time status of buses. The AATA’s current system allows riders to check on-time status, he observed, but a messaging system that pushed information to riders, with an explanation for the delay, would be even better.

Communications from Committees, CEO

The board entertained its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from the CEO, Michael Ford. Here are some highlights.

Communications: Blake Transit Center

Ford reported that a formal request had been made to the city of Ann Arbor for a six-foot parcel at the southwest corner of the BTC site, to facilitate the design of the new transit center. In his communications from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben reported that the design for the new center was coming along for a nice-looking functional building that would be LEED-platinum certified. During question time for the board, Roger Kerson inquired whether there is a plan in the current new BTC design for a place where bus riders could buy coffee and a newspaper. On hearing that this is not currently a part of the design, Kerson allowed that there would be janitorial issues associated with a coffee/newstand, but still wanted to encourage the AATA to look at that option.

Communications: Airport Bus Service

Ford reported that he’d met with officials from the Detroit Metro Airport, SMART – the metro Detroit public transit agency – and the visitors and convention bureau about providing service between Ann Arbor and the airport.

Communications: Meeting with Legislators – East-West Commuter Rail

On the topic of east-west commuter rail, Ford reported that in the course of the last month he’d met with Mark Ouimet, Jeff Irwin and David Rutledge. The three men were elected this past November to the state House in districts 52, 53 and 54, respectively. Ford also said that staff from U.S. Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin’s offices, as well as staff for U.S. Congressman John Dingell, had been in attendance.

Communications: Van Pool Service

Reporting out from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben described their meeting as filled with presentations. Among them was a report from URS, a consultant tapped to provide an analysis of how the AATA might provide a van pool service. The idea of AATA getting into the van pool business was discussed at the AATA’s retreat held in August 2010. Robben reported that URS had provided three options: (1) contract out for a turn-key contractor, (2) use a service component contracting model, or (3) operate the service in-house. The URS recommendation, he said, was for (2).

During her public commentary, Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living noted that it is important that the van pool service be accessible to everyone.

Communications: Ypsi-Ann Arbor Enhancements

During question time, Charles Griffith noted that service enhancements to routes between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti had not been mentioned in any of the reports. He noted that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had recently made a challenge grant to help fund such service enhancements.

Chris White, the AATA manager for service development, described how the AATA was planning to extend the geographic reach of the Night Ride service to Golfside Road, with the goal of eventual expansion to Ypsilanti.

During her public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi cautioned against expanding the service given that the current contractor [Blue Cab] is not providing adequate service for the current area. She said there are not enough vehicles on the road, and that wait times in her experience could be over an hour.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Absent: Sue McCormick

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

And two months later, attached to the city council’s May 3, 2010 agenda was a communication about Health and Human Services guidelines for poverty levels – there was no change this year. That means there’s no change to the minimum compensation required under the city’s living wage ordinance.

How does the living wage ordinance relate to the approximately 35-40 temporary employees who are transitioning from Manpower to the city’s payroll? It doesn’t. The city itself is not required to pay its own workers at the level stipulated by the living wage ordinance – it applies to outside contractors with the city, like Manpower.

But the majority (with some exceptions) of the transitioned workers won’t see a drop in their wages – and that’s viewed as a positive outcome by the city. On the other hand, there’s no health insurance benefits through the city for those workers – Manpower had offered a health insurance option. And a hoped-for increase in temporary workers’ wages – a move supported by some city supervisors – did not materialize, foundering on an overall budget climate that made talk of wage cuts easier than a discussion of increases.

The recent move away from the use of Manpower as an agency to staff temporary city positions provides a good excuse to review the living wage ordinance itself, and its less-than-obvious connection to the upcoming Ann Arbor Summer Festival and to the city’s recycling program. In the case of the recycling program, the city is spending several hundred thousand dollars over a 10-year period to ensure that workers for a private company operating the city’s materials recovery facility are paid in compliance with the living wage ordinance.

Transition from Manpower: No Wage Increase

During council meetings, city administrator Roger Fraser has a slot on the agenda for providing communications to the council. The Chronicle’s report of the March 15, 2010 meeting included this description:

Fraser announced that the city has reduced its number of temporary workers to the point that it is no longer cost-effective to have Manpower administer that operation. This will be brought back in-house.

In response to a question from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Fraser explained that some, but not all of the temporary workers would be brought on as city employees.

The Manpower temporary workers applied for the city jobs through the city’s regular hiring process. From a staff memo sent out in late March:

Effective May 3, 2010, the city will no longer be using Manpower Staffing Inc. as a temporary staffing vendor. HRSU will be moving most of the current active Manpower temporary staff to city payroll by the end of April 2010.

A “hiring fair” is scheduled at Cobblestone Farms on April 26, 2010, from 4 to 7 p.m. for those Manpower temporary staff transitioning to city payroll. In addition, HRSU will be holding two training sessions for those managers and supervisors that need a refresher course in hiring temporary staff with the city. More details on this training will be forthcoming in the next issue of the HRSU In the Know newsletter.

The application that workers were asked to complete was the regular application for city employment. [.doc file of application]

Based on a May 3, 2010 email sent to Fraser by Robyn Wilkerson, the city’s human resource director, there were some instances of workers who transitioned to the city’s payroll system from Manpower who will be making $.06 an hour less working for the city than they did through Manpower. Based on a 40-hour week and 50 weeks of work a year, that translates into $120 less a year.

The majority of the 35-40 employees who have moved into the city’s payroll system, however, will earn the same wage. For example, workers in the city’s natural area and preservation program (NAP) who were earning $12.25 an hour through Manpower will continue to earn that amount through the city.

But there had been some hope that the wage rates in NAP would increase in connection with the transition. Supervisors in NAP wanted to make a case for higher wages, but ultimately were not successful in convincing city administrators. Dave Borneman, manager of the city’s NAP program, conveyed the disappointing news and his appreciation for NAP workers in a May 24, 2010 email:

From: Borneman, Dave
Sent: Mon 24-May-10 17:21
To: Adopt-A-Park, NAP [...]

You may have heard that JT [Jason Tallant], JF [Jason Frenzel], LTS [Lara Treemore-Spears], and I were hoping that we could use this transition from Manpower as a time to make some “positive adjustments” to temp pay rates. We pleaded our case, or at least started to, when this “clarifying” email (below) came through from Roger Fraser, City Administrator, via Sue McCormick, Public Service Administrator (and Craig’s boss). I chose to not share it at the time because I was not even sure then if we would be able to avoid any pay CUTS during this transition. But with the passage of the budget last week, and then scrambling to get everyone into the City Payroll system, it appears that we have preserved all the previous pay rates for each position.

I know some of you were hoping for a pay increase, and I am sorry that this will not be the year for that to happen. For what it’s worth (nothing, financially, I realize!) I do appreciate all that you do for us here at NAP. You make this a fun place to work, and an enjoyable, satisfying place to spend my work life. Thank you for your dedication to NAP, and to the City. -dave

David Borneman
Natural Area Preservation Manager

The email from McCormick that Borneman appended to his message made clear that maintaining the same wage level was seen as a positive by the city [emphasis added].

From: McCormick, Sue
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:09 PM
To: Bahl, Sumedh; Cariano, Robert; Hupy, Craig; Kenzie, Earl; Kulhanek, Matthew; Pirooz, Homayoon; Praschan, Marti; Welser, Wendy; Wheeler, William
Subject: FW: temps

Managers,

Please share this with your hiring supervisors. If there are any
outstanding questions, please let me know. As we are constrained to
such a great degree on revenues that we are asking for concessions
from all City employees and as the world around us in many cases is
rolling back wages, maintaining pay scales for our temps should be
considered a positive action.

Earlier on the morning of May 3, Robyn Wilkerson had sought clarification from Fraser on the possibility of temporary employees receiving an increase:

From: Wilkerson, Robyn
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:14 AM
To: Fraser, Roger
Subject: temps

I assume that we are NOT giving our temporary employees an increase this year. [...] Can you please confirm? [...]

Fraser’s response to Wilkerson was unambiguous:

From: Fraser, Roger
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:24 AM
To: Wilkerson, Robyn
Subject: RE: temps

No raises.

Roger

Transition from Manpower: Why Think of a Wage Increase?

The overall climate in which NAP supervisors had hoped for an increase in temporary workers’ wages was one in which the city council had spent several months discussing cuts to various aspects of the city’s budget.

In December 2009, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) had spoken of the need to “amputate part of the institution.” In January 2010, some city councilmembers announced they were giving back 3% of their salaries – they’d voted to approve a 3% increase in their own salaries back in 2007. Subsequently, they passed a resolution directing the city administrator to reduce compensation of non-union city staff by 3%. That context might help explain the efficiency of Fraser’s two-word email.

And in that context, why would anyone contemplate a wage increase in connection with the transition from Manpower?

First, the transition meant that Manpower workers no longer had access to health insurance from their employer. With Manpower, workers could purchase insurance ranging from $19.24 to $41.85 a week for an individual, depending on the level of coverage, and from $44.28 to $105.33 a week for a family. The city offers no benefits to temporary workers in positions that last no longer than 10 months.

Second, while the city’s living wage ordinance does not apply to the city itself, the wage levels the ordinance sets are seen as a standard against which city wages can be measured. And temporary workers in many cases do not earn the minimum stipulated by the city’s living wage ordinance.

The living wage ordinance specifies a minimum $11.71 for those employers paying health insurance and $13.06 for those employers not paying health insurance. With no health insurance or other benefits, a $12.25 temporary city employee falls $0.81 short of the living wage standard that applies to the city’s outside contractors.

This year, there was no increase to the wages set by the living wage ordinance, which is calibrated to federal Health and Human Services guidelines. Passed in 2001, the city’s living wage ordinance stipulated in that year that workers for vendors who held contracts with the city had to be paid a minimum of $8.70 an hour if the contractor provides employee health care and $10.20 if not.

The ordinance, which is contained in Chapter 23 of the city code and is available online in its entirety via the Ann Arbor city clerk’s city code gateway, provides in its “Findings” section a rationale for the $8.70 figure:

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the fair market rent for a two bedroom apartment in Ann Arbor Metropolitan Statistical Area for 2000 was $717.00 a month, and the fair market rent for a three-bedroom apartment was $940.00 a month. This means that a family of three requires at least $18,246.00 a year to meet a minimal needs budget in the Ann Arbor area, not including health care. This converts to an hourly wage of $8.77 for a full-time, full-year employee

And the rationale for higher wages in general is also included in the ordinance language:

According to economic research summarized in the Economic Policy Institute’s August 2000 issue guide, “Higher Wages Lead to More Efficient Service Provision,” payment of higher wages is associated with greater business investment in employee training, higher productivity, and lower employee turnover, [...]

In the near decade since it was first passed, the wages have been adjusted upward to $11.71 per hour for employers offering health insurance and $13.06 per hour for those who don’t offer health insurance. That upward adjustment is based on federal poverty guidelines and was stipulated as part of the original ordinance. This year, a communication from the city’s financial services unit, attached to the May 3, 2010 city council agenda, indicated that there would be no change in the living wage levels.

On April 1, Health and Human Services was contacted to inquire about the new guidelines. We were instructed to contact the State of Michigan who informed us that the 2009 guidelines will be extended at least through March 31, 2011. Therefore, there is no increase in the Living Wage hourly rates for the period April 29, 2010 through April 29, 2011. Any vendor who currently has Living Wage approval has had their approval extended in the database.

So through April 29, 2011, the living wage will remain at $11.71 per hour for employers offering health insurance and $13.06 per hour for those who don’t.

What would it cost the city to meet the living wage standard for its temporary employees? Part of the answer was provided to The Chronicle by Karen Lancaster, accounting services manager with the city. She provided figures for the non-Manpower temporary staff the city hired directly in FY 2009. [While some of the the city's temporary staffing was provided through Manpower, the city also did some direct hires of temporary staff as well – mainly for parks staff like lifeguards, cashiers, and the like. Now it's all direct hire.]

For those direct hires in FY 2009, it would have cost the city $198,000 more to bring temporary employees to the level of the living wage ordinance with health insurance, or $315,000 more for the level without health insurance.

Living Wage and The Summer Festival

The living wage ordinance applies to the wages that must be paid by companies who have contracts with the city worth more than $10,000. It does not apply to entities with contracts under $10,000. In the spring of 2008, the city amended the ordinance so that it also did not apply to entities that are funded out of the city’s community events budget, like the Ann Arbor Summer Festival.

But until the spring of 2008, it was important for the city to stay under the $10,000 threshold in its support for the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, an annual performing arts and outdoor entertainment event, now in its 27th season. The AASF does not pay many of its workers at the level that would be required by the city’s ordinance.

The city contributed $9,900 to the festival in 2007, which did not stack up to the $30,000 contributed by the University of Michigan, which partners with the city to help support the festival.

According to an April 8, 2008  Ann Arbor News article by Judy McGovern, the festival would have needed to pay its workers an aggregated additional $19,000 in order to comply with the city’s living wage ordinance. That meant that if the city contributed more than $10,000 but less than $29,000, the festival would not see any additional cash benefit from the increased funding.

So after postponing a measure from its March 3, 2008 and March 17, 2008 meetings, the city council voted unanimously at its April 7, 2008 meeting to amend the scope of the ordinance so that it would not apply to  entities funded through the city’s community events budget, like the Ann Arbor Summer Festival [emphasis added]:

1:813.  Definitions.
For purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)   Contractor/vendor is a person or entity that has a contract with the City primarily for the furnishing of services where the total amount of the contract or contracts with the City exceeds $10,000.00 for any 12-month period.

“Contractor/vendor” does not include:
(a)   A person or entity that has a contract with the City primarily for the purchase of goods or property, or for the lease of goods or property to or from the City; or
(b)   A person or entity that has a contract with the city funded by the community events budget.

From McGovern’s News article:

City Council Member Chris Easthope, who’s promoted the change, argues that the festival’s seasonal employees – almost all students – are not the kind of workers the wage law was meant to protect.

“This isn’t an attempt to drop people below living wage levels, but to recognize there are some short-term events that struggle. I don’t think that, when it was adopted, the living wage was meant to have that effect on a one-month event.”

On Jan. 20, 2009, the council allocated $15,000 to the Summer Festival. And on Sept. 8, 2009 the council allocated $25,000 for this year’s event. The festival’s Top of the Park series begins June 18 and runs through July 11 at Ingalls Mall, on the UM campus.

Living Wage and Recycling

A few years earlier, the city council had faced another situation where the requirements of the living wage ordinance posed a dilemma. In September 2004, the council reopened a contract with FCR Casella, the operator of the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF), in order to undertake a $5.6 million expansion of Ann Arbor’s recycling facilities. The contract with FCR – which extends to 2015 – had originally been signed before the adoption of the living wage ordinance in 2001 and FCR’s wages did not comply with the city’s living wage ordinance.

A May 18, 2005 Ann Arbor News article by Tom Gantert quotes then-councilmember Bob Johnson saying that FCR would not bring its workers’ wages to the levels required by the city’s living wage ordinance:

Johnson said FCR Casella was not willing to pay the living wage at its own expense.

“They are not going to take it out of their profits,” Johnson said. “We are going to have to make up the difference.”

And at the council’s May 16, 2005 meeting the council voted – with dissent from then-councilmember Mike Reid – to make up that difference. Specifically, it voted to make available $165,000 from the solid waste fund’s FY 2006 budget to subsidize FCR workers who would otherwise be paid less than the city’s living wage ordinance requires.

Then in November 2005, the council passed a resolution to amend the contract with FCR through 2015, providing an extra $48,000 to FCR for the remainder of FY 2006 and approximately $89,000 in FY 2007. The resolution passed on Nov. 10, 2005 stipulated that for the remainder of the contract through 2015, the city would make up the differential between standard FCR wages and the wages that workers would need to be paid to comply with the living wage ordinance. The funding would be, according the to resolution language, “through the dedicated solid waste millage and annual operating budget as approved by City Council.”

The contract with FCR was recently amended again to accomodate the city’s new single-stream recycling program. In reply to an emailed question, Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste coordinator, wrote to The Chronicle that the newly amended contract with FCR keeps in place the provision under which the city pays the wage differential.

Carsten Hohnke and Mike Anglin, both of Ward 5, framed by the chairs of Christopher Taylor and Leigh Greden, both of Ward 3.

Outside the Larcom Building around 6 p.m., Ann Arbor Police Lt. Michael Logghe was using a “slim Jim” to try to gain entry to a citizen’s car. The woman had locked herself out of her vehicle with the engine running.

She was there to pay a $15 parking ticket. She was hoping to avoid a call to the tow truck. Logghe had not achieved success by the time The Chronicle headed inside for the reception for new members of council.

Later, inside Larcom, the newly constituted city council with four new members began its year of work by approving the transfer of a liquor license to Quickie Burger, three drainage projects to be implemented to reduce phosphorus load along Allen Creek, plus a contract with Dawn Farms to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling and rehabilitation services to the 15th Judicial District Court.

Quickie Burger

A well-attended reception for new councilmembers preceded the meeting Monday, and The Chronicle spent part of that time chatting with Bob Snyder, president of the South University Neighborhood Association. As that reception blended into folks settling in for the meeting, Snyder offered his view of the agenda item concerning Quickie Burger’s liquor license. “Quickie Burger with a liquor license is like a Montessori School with a liquor license,” he laughed.

Councilmember Stephen Rapundalo reiterated the sentiments he expressed at the Nov. 6 council meeting, indicating that he would not support the transfer of the license to Quickie Burger, citing suitability and fit at its 800 S. State St. location. Specifically, he noted that while there are three party stores with licenses, no restaurant-type establishments had them. Rapundalo said that his concern – which he reported was shared by a number of other restaurateurs in the area – stemmed from the implications of the liquor license for policing that area, which he characterized as “in the heart of student country,” with residential areas immediately across the street, not just in the general vicinity.

Dan Dever, legal counsel for Quickie Burger.

Councilmember Margie Teall led off several supporting comments by saying that she’d “gone back and forth on this, but I think will be supporting it.” She said that part of town could use some vibrancy and attention and that she wanted to see some more activity in this little area.

Councilmember Mike Anglin couched his support in terms of supporting a business decision on the part of the owners. “It’s a large decision on their part, a major move that a business in our community is making,” he said. He said that we needed to be very careful that we don’t drive businesses out and that we needed to treat them with a welcoming approach. Anglin pointed out that licenses would be subject to annual review under the liquor committee’s revitalized commitment to bringing Ann Arbor’s process in compliance with state requirements, and that if there were any complaints they could be dealt with in that review process.

Councilmember Leigh Greden said he supported the analysis of Anglin and Teall. He said he wanted to confirm for the public that alcohol sales stop at 2 a.m. with only food served from 2-4 a.m. Greden requested and received confirmation from Quickie Burger’s counsel, Dan Dever, that staff at Quickie Burger would continue to be thoroughly trained to enforce service times as well as the age requirement.

For councilmember Carsten Hohnke, what convinced him to support the license transfer was that police and fire services departments at the city had approved the application, there were no objections from city staff, and he didn’t see any objective criteria on the basis of which he could object.

Councilmember Tony Derezinski echoed the same sentiments as Hohnke.

Councilmember Marcia Higgins sought clarification about the location of the outdoor service component of the Quickie Burger application. As discussion with Quickie Burger’s legal counsel and its owner, Kerope Arman, revealed that the outside service area was along Hill Street – contrasting with the language of the resolution, which talked about State Street – Higgins asked that the language be amended. After the clarifying amendment was passed, discussion continued.

Rapundalo addressed specific points made by his colleagues. “I don’t want my view to be misconstrued as trying to stifle local businesses,” he said, in response to Anglin’s comments. In response to Teall’s comments, he questioned the notion that the area needs more activity, saying that having ridden “party patrol” with the AAPD, he’d observed that it was extremely popular. In response to Hohnke and Derezinski, Rapundalo stressed that what the fire and police department had signed off on is simply that there are no violations on record. He assured his colleagues that there are concerns on the police force about having a liquor license there, but it’s not something they can legally state. He concluded by reiterating that suitability and fit are criteria by which a decision can be made.

Councilmember Sandi Smith weighed in with her support for the license transfer, saying that Quickie Burger serves food from 2-4 a.m. now catering to a post-bar crowd. She said that having a liquor license on site gives more control and more incentive to curb any rowdiness.

When the vote was taken, Rapundalo was joined in voting no by councilmembers Marcia Higgins and Christopher Taylor, who said after the meeting that he had based his vote on the same suitability and fit criteria as Rapundalo.

After the approval, owner Kerope Arman said he was happy with the support from council, and described the role the license would play in a Quickie Burger family dining experience: with a meal, a mom can enjoy a glass of wine, a dad can enjoy a beer, and kids can enjoy one of the recently introduced milkshakes. He described the enterprise as the brainchild of his son, Varujan, in much the same way as he did for David Erik Nelson, writing for “Current” back in September.

Drain Projects

At councilmember Sabra Briere’s request, Molly Wade, water quality manager with the city of Ann Arbor, gave some background on the three drainage projects, all designed to comply with a directive from the state to reduce phosphorus loading in the Huron River by 50% and to reduce E coli levels to those safe for bodily contact. The three projects on the agenda are a part of the 2007 Allen Creek Initiative, which is an effort to achieve the reductions in phosphorus loading. Mayor of the city of Ann Arbor, John Hieftje, elicited from Wade the consequences for not achieving the reductions, which range from state-mandated specific remedies to fines of up to $25,000 a day.

The sites for the three projects are at Pioneer High School ($4,211,242.00), the city of Ann Arbor farmers market in Kerrytown ($572,018.00), and a section along Stadium Boulevard ($702,335.00).

The Pioneer site is on the northwest corner of the school property, which gets used for parking on UM football Saturdays. The project will entail installation of giant underground storage tanks for storm water detention. The location is ideal, said Craig Hupy, manager of the systems planning unit at the city, because it sits downstream from a large portion (10%) of the watershed.

Councilmember Hohnke asked how the 93 pounds of phosphorus that the Pioneer project was expected to remove from the Allen Creek watershed would translate as progress towards the goal of 50% reduction. Hupy said that the 93 pounds was consistent with the 10% of the watershed that the area represented.

Hohnke also asked Hupy and Wade to address the concerns raised by a speaker during public commentary at the start of the meeting. The speaker was Glenn Thompson, who asked council to vote against the farmers market drain project. Thompson pointed out that if the Allen Creek storm water (which is currently contained in an underground pipe) was so polluted that this provided a rationale for why it can’t be day-lighted, it would, therefore, also not be appropriate for a market setting. He likened the envisioned water-based, educational sculpture that has been discussed for the farmers market to a fountain with contaminated water in the produce section of a grocery store. The vision for the water-based art was also something Thompson found to date poorly articulated, characterizing it as a “magic marker sketch.” Based on the small percentage of the watershed to be treated at the farmers market and the project’s cost, Thompson calculated the cost to treat the entire watershed at $2 billion dollars.

In response to Hohnke’s query, Hupy and Wade acknowledged that the main benefit of the farmers market drain project was in the potential for educational benefit: it drew people from outside who could be exposed to the educational message. Hupy said that he felt that the upfront cost to put the appropriate signage in place would pay off in the ongoing education message.

After the meeting, Wade clarified that the water to be used in the water-based sculpture at the farmers market would not be pumped up from the underground Allen Creek, but would be drawn from underground detention tanks filled from rainfall on the farmers market site.

Councilmember Smith asked if modeling of the drains would result in any relief from the phenomenon of manhole covers blown off by miniature geysers during heavy rains. Hupy said it was unlikely that residents would notice an immediate visual impact, but that the the impact would be positive.

Councilmember Anglin pointed out that modeling means measuring and monitoring flow rates and he encouraged moving forward on installing gauges in the drains.

Councilmember Rapundalo sought clarification about the financing of the projects, which will be paid for initially out of the parks millage fund and reimbursed from the storm water fund. “What won’t we be able to do?” asked Rapundalo. Hupy assured him that the short term for reimbursement (30-60 days) would not have a negative impact.

In light of the increased construction activity near the farmers market for other reasons (Fifth Avenue, for example) in the coming year, councilmember Briere asked if there was coordination with the DDA. Hupy said that the DDA had been at the table through the entire process.

Hieftje elicited from Hupy the fact that there are partners on the projects in the form of the township, the road commission, and state highway department and the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

All three projects were approved unanimously.

Sobriety Court Grant Program

The contract with Dawn Farm to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling and rehabilitations service to the 15th District Court totals $101,050. Councilmember Briere opened discussion by noting that the contract does not meet the conditions of the city’s living wage ordinance (which requires entities to pay their employees $10.33 an hour with health care, or else $10.96 without health care). But she asked that her colleagues consider the non-monetary room-and-board compensation as part of the equation. “I hope that we can bend the rules just a little bit on this one,” she said.

Councilmember Higgins noted that council had repeatedly adjusted the amounts with and without health care.

Higgins cast the lone vote against the contract. In her subsequent communications to council, she said that when we decide to bend our ordinances, we should think about changing the ordinance: “We should have an open policy discussion instead of bending ordinances.” Higgins noted that the issue of the living wage had come up in the last year in connection with summer festival grants.

Appointments

A council rules committee was appointed, which will consist of Derezinski, Higgins, and Briere.

Other council appointments included: Derezinski to planning commission; Hohnke to greenbelt advisory commission; Teall and Hohnke to the environmental commission.

Richard Beedon was appointed to fill Mike Reid’s unexpired term through June 30, 2009 on the Local Development Finance Authority (LDFA). Reid resigned over a disagreement concerning the amount and timetable that Ann Arbor SPARK, an economic development agency funded in part by the LDFA, would be required to reimburse monies it had claimed but was not entitled to.

Public Commentary

In addition to Glenn Thompson, whose commentary is summarized above, two other members of the public spoke.

Jim Northrup of Ann Arbor Hydraulics with a Stirling engine and a roll of lenticular lens material

Tom Partridge: Partridge called for access to jobs for Michigan residents, universal health care, universal affordable public transportation, and access to affordable lifetime public-supported education, not just in public schools, but in institutions of higher education. He asked council to pass a resolution calling on Michigan’s congressional delegation to address these things, which he said Michigan sorely needs.

Jim Northrup: Northrup, of Ann Arbor Hydraulics, brought a role of lenticular lens material, and a Stirling engine as eye candy for “show and tell.” But what he was before council to request was access to the city’s recycling stream for fresnel lenses from televisons. He wants to use the giant magnifying lenses for research. City administrator Roger Fraser asked Northrup to leave his contact information.

Update on Keys

The vehicle was gone by the time the meeting ended. Either Logghe or a tow truck operator achieved success.

Present: John Hieftje, Sandi Smith, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Rapundalo, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin. Absent: none.

Next meeting: Monday, Dec. 1 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave.