Russell Hanshue, with the city's IT services unit, describes how a sensor attached to a snowplow would record the plow's state as up or down. The city plans to purchase software to monitor remotely the on-board systems of its vehicles. (Photo by the writer.)

That business ranged from authorization of a coordinated human services funding approach to approval of new GIS software.

The coordinated funding approach to human services would extend the collaboration among the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and the Urban County to include two nonprofit funders – United Way of Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

The GIS software will allow remote monitoring of engine and system performance on board the city’s vehicle fleet. The vehicle monitoring software has the ancillary benefit of allowing residents to view a real-time map of snowplow activity during a snowfall. At Thursday’s meeting, the council also authorized the purchase of $330,000 worth of road salt that city trucks will, if necessary, spread on the roads this winter.

In other business, the council gave final approval to a new stormwater code, which requires some kind of mitigation any time more than 200 square feet of impervious surface is added in residential areas.

The council again took no action on a $160,000 request from the 15th District Court to purchase furniture. The request had been postponed at the council’s previous meeting, pending production of a list of items to be purchased. The list was not ready, and the issue was again postponed.

The council received a presentation on the installation of a new HAWK pedestrian crossing signal at Chapin and Huron, which was in substance identical to one the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had received the day before.

A range of topics were addressed during comments from the public, perhaps most significantly remarks from Nicholas Nightwine, who spoke on behalf of the Local 369 AFSCME union on the issue of privatizing the city’s composting operation. The city council is due to hear a presentation at a Monday, Nov. 8 work session on the proposal, which they may vote on as early as Nov. 15.

Coordinated Human Services

Before the council at Thursday’s meeting was a resolution to extend a model of integrated funding it currently uses to allocate human services funding to nonprofits. The approach, which currently includes the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, will add three more organizations to the mix: United Way of Washtenaw County, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF) and the Urban County.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners voted at its Nov. 3 meeting, the previous day, to approve the coordinated funding approach. The Urban County executive committee has discussed the issue and was expected to vote on the issue at its October meeting, but that meeting was canceled. The Urban County executive committee is now expected to vote on the issue at its Nov. 16 meeting.

Coordinated Human Services: Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen led off public commentary by observing that throughout the U.S., the public sector has over time been outsourcing the human services support network to the private sector. He likened human services funding to a coffee grinder: Money goes in the top and it gets ground through, and at the bottom is supposed to be the social safety net. He characterized the basic approach used by the city as “a pretty good process.”

Mogensen suggested that there should be bonus points for nonprofits that tried to serve the most challenging populations. He suggested that in his experience – working in the religious community trying to raise money for affordable housing – there’s a faulty assumption that there’s a vast amount of money that can be raised. He suggested that we think in terms of a “public balance sheet” – if we do not spend money on challenging populations now, we will eventually spend money on them anyway in the form of the prison system.

Hugh Morgan addressed the council on behalf of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation – he’s the chair of that organization’s board. He reported that the previous week, the AAACF board had unanimously approved the coordinated funding process – they’d worked on the proposal for the last year. He said that AAACF typically asked nonprofits it funded to collaborate, and now the AAACF was “taking their own medicine” by collaborating with other funders. One goal, he said, is to simplify and streamline the grant application process.

Lily Au appeared before the city council to speak against the coordinated funding proposal, as she has on several previous occasions. She criticized Washtenaw County commissioner Mark Ouimet’s participation in the county board of commissioners’ vote the previous day – Ouimet is vice chair of the local United Way board, and it’s a conflict of interest, she contends. [At the meeting of the county board, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger gave his opinion that Ouimet need not recuse himself from voting on the measure.] Au objected to the idea of tax dollars being administered by private entities. She contended that there had not been enough public participation on the issue. She cited the concerns about the coordinated funding approach that had been expressed by the Interfaith Council on Peace and Justice.

[Those include: 1) institutional gaps in coverage, 2) different costs for providing service to different constituencies – these should be recognized when evaluating outcomes, 3) money saved from this approach should be reinvested into human services programs, 4) new projects and small nonprofits should have access to coordinated funds, and money should be set aside for startup funding to help launch new projects that have potential for big results, 5) the proposed system would concentrate power over funding decisions in the office of community development – robust checks-and-balances are needed to provide accountability, and 6) community funding efforts should recognize the different roles of funders and agencies and maintain appropriate separation of duties. These issues are fleshed out in more detail on the ICBJ website.]

Au tried to address the council again during the time allotted for the public hearing on the stormwater ordinance, saying she wanted an assurance that there would not be co-mingling of funds.

During her communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) clarified an apparent misunderstanding on Au’s part about the potential for co-mingling of funds between the various funding partners. No tax dollars would be co-mingled with private monies, she said. What is being proposed is a shared set of policies. Each entity in the coordinated approach, said Briere, would continue to allocate its own funds.

City administrator Roger Fraser chimed in to say that up to now each entity had been making decisions without attention to what others are doing. The goal, he said, is communication.

Coordinated Human Services: Council Deliberations

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – who has helped lead the effort over the last few years to establish objective scoring criteria to underpin the city’s human services funding allocations – led off council deliberations. The key highlight was his characterization of the new coordinated funding effort as a way to fund actual programming, not redundant administrative overhead.

Mary Jo Callan, head of the city/county office of community development, described the coordinated effort as a further evolution of increased coherence in the approach to funding. She said it’s not an effort to figure out who not to fund. Rather, it’s a way to target the community’s investments to meet the needs of residents.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the nature of nonprofit organizations is that they have very specialized areas of focus, so he wanted to know how “maverick organizations” would enter the coordinated funding process.

Callan hesitated a moment, asking, “Did you use the term, ‘maverick organization’?” Once the usage was clarified, Callan explained how her office had worked with representatives from several organizations and one of the questions they considered was: What are the unintended consequences? She said they did not want to lose support for new, creative, innovative ideas. She said she felt that new organizations – Anglin’s mavericks – would have a better chance under the coordinated approach. That’s because one of the focuses of the coordinated approach is on “capacity building,” she said, which includes planning and training.

On the same subject of how a new nonprofit can get itself into the funding mix, Rapundalo mentioned that a brand new program had been funded last year by the city/county allocation program. Callan confirmed that they absolutely want to support innovation. At the same time, she said, there are 455 nonprofits in the county, which means 455 directors. For around 300 of those, there are paid staff, she said. As a former nonprofit director herself [at the Ozone House], Callan said there is a lot of effort that goes into just keeping the doors open.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Callan to address some of the fear that there would turn out to be more administrative costs as a result of the coordinated funding approach. Callan noted that from the point of view of the nonprofits who are seeking funding, there would be less time required to research funding opportunities, apply for them, and to report on outcomes.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what nonprofits themselves had to say. Callan described two “listening sessions” that had been conducted to get feedback. She described the feedback as “mixed.” Most people are afraid, she said. They have a relationship with their funder they fear could be jeopardized. But a lot of folks are also in support of the coordinated approach, she reported.

Briere described how in the old model, a nonprofit might have pursued funding from the United Way, AAACF and the city of Ann Arbor. Under the new model, she said, the nonprofit might not need money for “capacity building” – the resources to write grant applications – at all.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that a coordinated approach had been talked about for a long time. He noted that the city might get to a point where they need to do even more triage. Hieftje asked Callan if the coordinated approach would make that triage easier – yes, she replied.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the move to a coordinated funding approach for human services that would include the city, the county, the Urban County, United Way and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Winter: Salt, Plow Trackers

The city council considered authorization of around $500,000 spread across two items connected to the approaching winter weather. A purchase of $330,000 worth of ice control salt from Detroit Salt Company was authorized, with little deliberation. A clarification elicited by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) from the head of systems planning, Craig Hupy, was that the salt barn is about 3/4 full with salt left from last year.

In addition, the council considered authorization of a lifetime project budget of $200,000 for a vehicle location tracking system, which will allow GPS tracking of city field services vehicles like street sweepers and snowplows. It will be possible for residents to log on to a webpage and watch the snowplow activity in real time so that they can better anticipate the arrival of plows in their area and assure themselves that snowplowing is happening. Residents will also be able to explore archived data and historical analysis of past snowstorms.

However, in an email to The Chronicle before the meeting, director of IT services Dan Rainey wrote that the mapping capability is not driving the software purchase. What’s important to the city, he said, is the ability of the software to actively manage and monitor the operation and systems on a vehicle, by directly tapping into a vehicle’s engine codes. The system is expected to be operational sometime this winter, but likely not before the first snowfall. The source of the  proposed $200,000 was IT charges collected outside the general fund from water, sewer, solid waste, and major streets funds.

Plow Trackers: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the $200,000 proposed for the software system was for the lifetime of the project. She asked what the expected lifetime of the project is. Russell Hanshue, with the city’s IT department, indicated that the mobile data terminals had a lifetime of 7-10 years, while the “proximity sensors” – the magnetic sensors attached to the vehicle to measure, for example, whether a plow is up or down – had an uncertain lifespan. Later it emerged that such sensors are relatively inexpensive – less than $100. But the environment for the sensors near the plows is a “really rough environment.”

Hanshue described the mobile data terminals as modified to work with the Cityworks maintenance management system (MMS). It gives drivers the capability of putting in work orders and recording data, he said. Briere ventured that the system would cost about $20,000 per year, based on the lifetime of the data terminals. Hanshue indicated that the cost of the system for the city’s 100-vehicle fleet is around $62,000 per year.

Hanshue explained that the cost is somewhat contingent on the update interval, but they had been conservative in budgeting for a 10-second update interval, when realistically a 1-minute interval is probably sufficient.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) seemed skeptical, asking: What does this give us? Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, explained how residents would be able to see where the city is plowing snow with an aged trace of where the plows had already been.

Higgins wanted to know why garbage trucks needed the system, too. Hupy explained that if the city gets a call about a location with missed service, they can dispatch the nearest truck to do the collection. They could also monitor whether it is truly a missed service, or if the person simply set their trash cart out late. Drivers would be able to hit a button for “no can out” as they serviced a route. Drivers would also be able to log pothole locations as they were out on their routes, he said.

Higgins wanted to know why all the data entry the drivers would be doing did not count as “texting while driving.” Hupy explained that it would amount to a single-button operation.

Mayor John Hieftje wanted to know if the city staff had seen such systems work in other communities. Hupy indicated that they’d seen lesser systems work. He indicated that the city had collaborated with the vendor of the Magic Bus system used by the University of Michigan to track bus locations and looked at a solution that involved smart phones, but that it turned out not to be viable.

Hieftje wanted to know if it were possible to do a pilot program with just 10 vehicles. He noted that there’d been complaints for several years about the quality of the snowplowing done by the city, but that he felt it had been getting a bit better.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) described it as a “nifty idea,” but said she felt like it might be an extra bell or whistle that the city should perhaps not be spending money on at this point. She said the discussion to that point had not convinced her, and she challenged Hanshue and Hupy to change her mind. One example of a cost savings offered to Smith is that the city staffs a snow desk telephone line during snowstorms with a full-time employee. The new system would allow most of the questions to be answered through the city’s website.

Smith wanted another example – one not involving snowplows. Hupy returned to the example of being able to dispatch the closest vehicle for a missed trash pickup. He also discussed how the integration of the system with every vehicle’s engine data – including fuel consumption – would lead to cost savings. Hanshue clarified in response to a question from Smith that the city’s police cars are already equipped with a GIS tracking system.

Hanshue offered another example of potential cost savings: by monitoring road temperatures, the proper amount of salt could be dispensed. [Salt is effective only in a certain temperature range – it's less effective when temps drop below 20 F.] If a 10% cost savings could be realized due to more judicious spreading of salt, he said, that would reflect a $30,000 savings – based on the salt purchase the council had just authorized – paying for half the system in the first year, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also declared that he was not totally convinced – the city has made it this far without this kind of technology. He worried about disruption of GIS communications during snowstorms. He also wondered if closest-vehicle information could be determined simply by using a radio. Kunselman also questioned the funding source. From Dan Rainey, Kunselman wanted to know which of the funds the money had been collected from have projected deficits for the next year. Rainey told him that none of the funds – water, sewer, solid waste, and major streets funds – had projected deficits.

Higgins wanted to know if the system would be implemented this winter – yes, but not at the start. She wanted a resolved clause in the resolution that would require a report on the system’s success. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) allowed that there is a public relations benefit to the system, but he wondered about priorities, citing the possible closure of Mack pool and the senior center, which the council had considered in previous years – over smaller dollar amounts.

Hanshue then elaborated in somewhat more detail on the use of vehicle diagnostics by the proposed system. It’s not the same kind of system as a check-engine light, where you’re aware of an issue only when there’s a malfunction. The system to be purchased will allow integration with the fleet management system so that maintenance can be scheduled appropriately to maintain the city’s expensive assets.

Asked to price out what the budget would be to equip just the city’s snowplow trucks with the system, the arithmetic worked out to $88,000. Hieftje noted that it was still a “chunk of change.” Higgins proposed an amendment to reduce the project budget from $200,000 to $88,000.

Outcome: The amendment adjusting the dollar amount to $88,000 passed, with dissent from Tony Derezinski, Stephen Rapundalo and Stephen Kunselman.

Hieftje suggested that he was interested in having more time to dig deeper into the issue and asked that someone move for a postponement. Kunselman made the motion, and it was seconded by Smith.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked what the point of the postponement would be. Hieftje’s answer was that he wanted to make sure they were solid on the numbers. Smith said she wanted to see the specifics on the savings that could be realized, broken down in dollars. Anglin stressed that he wanted to see some kind of measurement of customer satisfaction.

Higgins put the question to Craig Hupy as to whether the city could implement the system yet this winter, if the council postponed the decision to the next meeting. Based on an earlier response from Hupy, she said, she didn’t think he was confident. Hupy himself alllowed, “You picked up on my hesitation, yes.” He said he was unsure what the vendor’s scheduling load was as far as the ability to do the installation and that he could look into it. He characterized the situation as not a “must have” for that night. He told the council, “I’d rather have you folks comfortable.” Higgins said that if postponing meant a delay in implementation that resulted in an inability to collect data on how the system worked this winter, then she would not support it at all. Briere echoed Higgins’ sentiment.

Kunselman asked how the public relations would be handled. He wanted to know if there is an iPhone application for the snowplow map. Hupy indicated that he was not sure if the city would be able to go live with the map this year – it would be later in the winter.

Outcome: The motion to postpone failed with only Carsten Hohnke, Sandi Smith, John Hieftje, and Stephen Kunselman voting for it.

Outcome: The approval of the amended resolution to authorize funds to equip just the city’s snowplow trucks with the new software was unanimously approved.

Stricter Stormwater Code Gets Final OK

On the city council’s agenda was final approval for a change to the city’s stormwater code. Under the new requirements, any time more than 200 square feet of impervious surface is added to single and two-family residential property, controls must be put in place to handle stormwater runoff from a “first flush” downpour. The “first flush” is the runoff from the first 1/2 inch of rain during any rainstorm. About 40% of land area in the city of Ann Arbor is zoned for single-family and two-family uses.

Stormwater: Public Comment

Joan Martin, who coordinates the Adopt-a-Stream program for the Huron River Watershed Council, urged the council to pass the ordinance. She noted that the city’s ordinance regulating the use of phosophorus-based fertilizer had helped water quality, but that the volume of water also needs to be addressed.

The Malletts Creek Association’s Jesse Gordon also weighed in to support the ordinance. The measure would help keep stormwater from flowing across lawns and streets, where it would pick up various pollutants.

Gwen Nystuen, a member of the city’s park advisory commission who spoke on behalf of the Mallets Creek Association, emphasized that the steps required of property owners who are adding impervious surface are not that big a deal. It’s a simple form to fill out, she said, and there are easy ways to satisfy the requirements of the ordinance.

Jim Mogensen stressed that communication is important for the success of the proposal.

Stormwater: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off deliberations by noting that the proposal had arisen out of a recommendation by the Mallets Creek Association and had been reviewed by the environmental commission. He described the proposal as asking property owners who add 200 square feet or more of impervious surface to their lots to remedy that addition in some way. He characterized the ordinance as “highly useful” and urged everyone to support it.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) contended that he’d had an opportunity to “dig into” the ordinance as a city council representative to the city’s environmental commission. He described the land in the city as consisting of 50% commercial properties, 25% residential and 25% public right of way. Commercial properties currently are regulated by Chapter 63 of the city code on stormwater. The public right of way is also covered by various regulations and is within the control of the city to make stormwater improvements, like adding swirl concentrators when Liberty Street or Stadium Boulevard were reconstructed. The residential area, which the ordinance addresses, is currently a gap, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje then stated that when there is a heavy amount of rainfall, when it falls in a wooded or forested area, the ground is able to absorb the influx, but this is not the case for streets and rooftops. The flow can result in a surge of water into creeks and storm sewers.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked her colleagues Taylor, Hohnke and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – who also serves as a representative on the city’s environmental commission – to give an example of how the new ordinance would affect a residential property in the Allen Creek area. In the ensuing conversation it emerged that Briere simply wanted to establish that the ordinance would apply citywide, not just in the Mallets Creek area.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who lives on Mallets Creek, noted that the Mallets Creek Association had been working on the proposal for several years. He asked Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain program coordinator, if a situation could arise where a homeowner could be denied a permit, if they could not meet the conditions of the ordinance? Hancock described how the ordinance required simply that a form be filled out. If a grading permit is required, he said, there already needs to be a grading plan. The grading plan would need to show how the new stormwater requirement is being met.

Hancock was skeptical that a situation could arise where someone has taken up literally all of the available space on the property that could be used for mitigation. He offered the example of planter boxes as one type of remedy.

Asked for a rationale behind the 200 square feet, as opposed to some other amount of area, Hancock explained that accessory buildings could be built smaller than 200 square feet without needing a building permit. It would be virtually impossible to monitor the new requirement for projects where no building permit is required, said Hancock.

Briere inquired whether a property owner could receive credits under the city’s stormwater utility charges for the mitigation required under the new ordinance. Hancock indicated that installation of, for example, rain barrels under the new ordinance would qualify the property owner for credits under the city’s stormwater utility.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know how many houses the ordinance would affect. By way of reply, Hancock said that in 2008, there had been 111 projects that would have needed to fill out the form under the new ordinance. Higgins wanted to know how many houses there are citywide to which it would hypothetically apply. Later in deliberations, Kunselman offered the number 19,000 based on some information he’d just looked up.

Higgins was concerned about the amount of public process that had taken place citywide. She said it was obvious that there was support for the ordinance on the city council, but wondered if there would be any negative impact if its enactment were delayed. Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, indicated that the only negative would be some uncertainly with the homebuilders groups about it.

Hieftje sought to establish that the required remedies for the additional impervious area were fairly inexpensive – two rain barrels might cost $250. Hancock listed off some other alternatives, which included cisterns – which he described as “a bigger rain barrel” – dry wells, rain gardens and planter boxes.

Higgins offered a motion to postpone the measure until March 1 to allow for more public process. The motion died for lack of a second.

Outcome: The council approved the new stormwater mitigation ordinance for residential areas, with dissent from Higgins.

Solid Waste

Two issues related to solid waste cropped up at the meeting. The first was an agenda item, which allocated $102,000 for costs related to the facility upgrade at the materials recovery facility (MRF) – the destination for the recyclable materials that the city collects curbside. The amount covers two kinds of costs: One is for unplanned costs related to the MRF fire suppression sprinkler system.

The other is for costs related to an incoming materials tipping door and outgoing materials loading dock – which need to be upgraded to accommodate a 60% increase in materials since the facility began processing single-stream recycling. The increase does not stem from the city’s conversion to single-stream style curbside collection, but rather from an additional influx of materials from Lansing and Toledo.

The second way solid waste came up was in the form of public commentary on a proposal the city council will consider in the near future, on the privatization of its composting operation.

Solid Waste: Public Commentary  – MRF

During public commentary reserved time, Libby Hunter sang forth her remarks – as is her custom. The melody, she said, was from “It’s a Sin to Tell a Lie.” [For readers unfamiliar with the song, it's been recorded by several artists, including Slim Whitman.] Hunter’s lyrics altered the original to “It’s a cinch to tell a lie.” Her contention was that the city’s claim that the single-stream recycling program would save money is a lie.

Solid Waste: Council Deliberations – MRF

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) led off deliberations by noting that the single-stream program appeared to be successful given the increase in volume, but noted that the increase stemmed from outside the city. He asked about the previous investment the city had just made in the MRF.

Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste program manager, explained that the city makes money off the program – 30% of the revenue that is collected on non-city tons above the sale price of $54/ton. The increase in tonnage from outside the city, said McMurtrie, would reduce the projected payback period of 7.1 years for the city’s several million-dollar investment by approximately 0.2 years. Anglin wanted to know what the actual revenues were, not the analysis of the payback time. McMurtrie said he could provide the numbers, but he did not have them with him.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked why FCR, the company the city contracts with to operate the MRF, was not making a significant contribution to this expense. McMurtrie responded by saying that FCR is contributing to the building expansion project with around $500,000. Kunselman pressed the issue. McMurtrie explained that if the city wanted an additional contribution from FCR, then FCR would likely want to renegotiate the current 30% payment it makes to the city for any amount above $54/ton. In response to a query from Kunselman, McMurtrie said that the current market was around $80-$90/ton.

Mayor John Hieftje called the appropriation a “practical solution.” McMurtrie noted that the facility is currently running two shifts for five weekdays, sometimes for seven weekdays.

Outcome: The resolution authorizing the $102,000 for the MRF was unanimously passed.

Solid Waste: Public Commentary – Compost

Nicholas Nightwine spoke on behalf of the Local American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 369, noting that it is the largest labor group in the city, working a range of different jobs, from work in streets, solid waste, signs and signals, taking meeting minutes, community standards enforcement, and several other ares.

Nightwine said there is low morale among the work force, which is at least partly attributable to a city strategy of replacement of full-time positions with temporary workers and outsourcing work that should be done by city union workers. He cited a specific instance of outsourcing work to Beal Construction for a project related to Ann Arbor housing commission properties. He described how AFSCME workers were asked to “fetch supplies” for the Beal workers.

Nightwine spoke specifically against the possibility of outsourcing jobs at the city’s compost facility, which the city council will be asked to consider at its Nov. 15 meeting. [The council addressed the topic at a work session on Nov. 8.] The city had won awards for the quality of its composting product, Nightwine said, but now the city is contemplating awarding a contract to a New York company [WeCare Organics] to manage its composting operations.

Nightwine indicated that the union would take legal action on the issue. He noted that the union had not been involved in any of the discussions, and he criticized the city for essentially saying: This is what we’re going to do, and if you don’t like it, you can fight us on it.

By way of background, the AFSCME Local 369 recent litigation history with the city has been successful, winning a Michigan Court of Appeals case in 2009 over a me-too clause dating back to the early 2000s. According to a Crain’s Detroit Business brief, that ruling cost the city $400,000 in back wages.

Nightwine also addressed the city council back in the spring when the idea first formally surfaced – on a term sheet developed by the city and the Downtown Development Authority – to have the DDA take responsibility for the enforcement of parking rules. From Chronicle coverage:

Nicholas Nightwine, spoke on behalf of the Local 369 AFSCME union on the issue of privatization and the contracting out of work in violation of their union contract. Specifically, he addressed the possibility that parking code enforcement would become the responsibility of Ann Arbor’s DDA. It is community standards officers’ job to provide that enforcement, he said. He questioned why the council would give away union work.

Over the summer of 2010, the negotiations between the city and the DDA – via their respective mutually beneficial committees – have essentially taken off the table the idea of DDA enforcement of parking rules.

Later on Thursday evening, when city administrator Roger Fraser reported that the 2010 Pillar Award for Outstanding Government Agency had been given to the Ann Arbor Building Services Unit — by the Builders & Remodelers Association of Greater Ann Arbor – it elicited a quiet “Yay!” from the many AFSCME workers seated in the row behind The Chronicle.

Fixed Charges for Water Main Improvements

Pulled out of the set of consent agenda items for separate consideration was an item that established the fixed charges for water main improvements – it’s set every year by a council resolution as stipulated in Chapter 12 of the city code:

1.217 Definitions …”Water main improvement charge fixed charge” shall mean the charge per residential unit for water main improvements, set by city council annually by resolution and calculated on the basis of the city’s average actual cost per residential unit for the 10 most recent publicly constructed water main improvement projects preceding the date the fixed charge is set by city council, with the costs of said projects adjusted as needed to be brought current, using the most recently published Handy-Whitman Index for “Distribution Plant Mains, Average All Types.”

Sanitary sewer improvement charges are defined in a parallel fashion. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) pulled the item out from the consent agenda for separate consideration because she wanted to know why it was being considered now, instead of at budget time.

After an interaction with both city administrator Roger Fraser and project manager Elizabeth Rolla, it emerged that the timing stemmed from a request by the Builders & Remodelers Association to have the charges set by the beginning of each calendar year because that is how they plan their work. The charges for 2011 were proposed as:

• Water main improvement fixed charge: $14,539.00 per residential unit served
• Sanitary sewer improvement fixed charge: $22,530.00 per residential unit served

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the fixed charges for water main and sanitary sewer charges.

$160K for Furniture: Again Delayed

The council again delayed a modification to its FY 2011 budget that would allocate up to $160,000 for furnishings for the new municipal center. At the council’s Oct. 18 meeting, Keith Zeisloft, who is court administrator of the 15th District Court, was closely questioned by councilmembers about his reasons for not including a provisional line item for inclusion in the FY 2011 budget, even if exact costs were not known at the time. Councilmembers had voted to postpone the allocation, pending the provision by Zeisloft of a list of items to be purchased. The court needed additional time to compile the list.

Outcome: The $160,000 for furniture was again postponed.

HAWK Pedestrian Signal

At the start of their Nov. 4 meeting, the city council received a presentation on the installation of a high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) traffic signal at the intersection of Chapin and Huron. It was essentially the same presentation that the board of the Ann Arbor DDA had received the previous day. City traffic engineer Pat Cawley had given that presentation.

What drivers and pedestrians will see when a HAWK signal is activated. (Image links to .pdf with higher resolution images.)

He had stressed how the city had worked with the Michigan Department of Transportation on the project. It’s considered a pilot project, the first to be installed in Michigan on a state trunk line. He had stressed the need for pedestrians and motorists to know what to expect.

At the city council meeting, Cawley was joined by representatives from MDOT – Kerry Martin, a transportation planner, and Wendy Ramirez, a traffic and safety engineer. They walked the councilmembers through the phases of the signal.

When not activated, motorists will see three black balls – two on top and one on the bottom. When a pedestrian presses a button to activate the signal, Cawley said, there is some lag time for the signal to coordinate with other traffic signals. Then motorists see a flashing yellow, followed by a solid yellow, which is then followed by a twin-red solid stop beacon. Pedestrians get a seven-second white walking signal. That’s followed by flashing red for motorists and a 30-second countdown for pedestrians.

It’s hoped that the ribbon cutting can take place on Nov. 17.

There was minor discussion among council members. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) tried to elicit from Martin a statement that the HAWK signal is nearly as effective as a full traffic signal. Martin responded to Hohnke’s gambit by saying that she was not aware of any studies comparing a HAWK with other traffic control devices that cause motorists to stop for pedestrians. A full signal was not warranted at that location, based on traffic and pedestrian volume, she said.

Hohnke followed up by saying that he recalled from a Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) policy meeting that a HAWK signal was nearly as effective as a traffic signal – better than a yield sign. [Hohnke is the council's representative on the WATS policy committee.] Martin indicated that MDOT would be undertaking a before/after study of pedestrian experiences and motorist behavior at the crosswalk.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know if side street traffic turning onto Huron across the pedestrian crosswalk would be able to see the HAWK signal. She felt that the city’s new pedestrian ordinance would help ensure that motorists actually stopped at the HAWK. [It's an ordinance in which she played the key role in strengthening. On the night that the council deliberated on the ordinance she was successful in persuading the sponsors of the ordinance – Hohnke and mayor John Hieftje – as well as the rest of her council colleagues, to change the language to make it clear that motorists are required to "stop" for pedestrians in or approaching crosswalks.]

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) compared HAWK signals to roundabouts – perhaps they were at first controversial, but once they were installed, people came to accept them.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expressed appreciation to MDOT for their assistance. He was told that the MDOT grant, which had helped to fund the installation, had been worth around $102,000.

Communications and Comment

There are multiple slots on every agenda for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about important issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Living

Addressing the council during public commentary reserve time was Kermit Schlansker – on the topic of sustainable living. [Schlansker is a retired engineer, who served on the city's energy commission back in the early '90s.]  He suggested construction of an apartment building on a parcel of land that could run off of power generated only on that parcel. The project would depend partly on reducing the energy consumption of the building to 25% of what is typical for an apartment building. The plan included solar energy, windwills, and a bio-digester that would convert sewage, manure, paper and leaves into compost.

During his communications time, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) mentioned in connection to Schlansker’s remarks that the oldest Net Zero home is now in the city of Ann Arbor on Seventh Street. [It's the home of Kelly and Matt Grocoff – Matt Grocoff is founder of Greenovation TV.]

Comm/Comm: Dam Maintenance, Drinking Water Fund

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated that he and Margie Teall (Ward 4) would be bringing a resolution forward that would move the funding for maintenance of Argo dam out of the city’s drinking water fund. He contended that the planned repairs of the earthen embankment could be undertaken without using the drinking water funds. [See Chronicle coverage of the Argo embankment repairs, which includes the year-long history of discussion by staff and elected officials about the intent to move dam maintenance out of the drinking water fund: "PAC Recommends Argo Dam Bypass"]

Comm/Comm: Rehabbing of Houses

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that two houses on Springbrook were now being re-habbed.

Comm/Comm: Design Guidelines Extension

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that the design guidelines committee – charged with completing the final piece of the A2D2 initiative to rezone Ann Arbor’s downtown – would likely be asking for an extension of its Dec. 3 deadline. There would likely be a January 2011 work session on the subject. Higgins noted during her comments that it was nice to have city administrator Roger Fraser back. [Fraser has been ill.]

Comm/Comm: Stadium Bridges

During his communications, city administrator Roger Fraser noted that the city had now received a total of $17 million in funding – counting federal and state grants – for the $23 million East Stadium Boulevard bridge replacement project. The 75% of the project that’s being funded with non-local money, he said, compares to 53% for the Broadway bridges project. He allowed that when construction starts, “it’s going to be a mess down there for a while,” but concluded by saying, “We’re on our way.”

Comm/Comm: CIP Survey

City administrator Roger Fraser announced that a capital improvement plan survey represents an opportunity for public input. The survey is being handled through SurveyMonkey.com: [Link to city of Ann Arbor capital improvements survey]

Comm/Comm: Golf RFP

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) announced that the city had received two proposals in response to the RFP it had issued for Huron Hills Golf Course. [Chronicle coverage in more detail: "Two Huron Hills Golf Proposals Submitted"]

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Nov. 15, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

AAPS Superintendent Todd Roberts, flanked by members of his staff, begins presenting his administration's proposed 2010-11 district budget. Behind him, from left to right, are two members of his cabinet: Robert Allen and Randy Trent, and the three administrators of instructional services: Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley, Larry Simpson, and Joyce Hunter. (Photos by the writer.)

However, multiple budget factors are still unknown: the state has not yet set the per-pupil funding amounts for next year; contract negotiations between AAPS and its teachers, bus drivers, and custodial/maintenance workers unions are still ongoing; and a possible countywide transportation consolidation plan is in the works, but has not yet been solidified. Depending on these outcomes, an additional 39 teaching and three administrative positions could be eliminated, and support services could still be outsourced. If layoffs are made, teachers will be notified by the end of April.

Though the board will hear an update on the proposed budget from the administration on April 14, board president Deb Mexicotte described that second briefing as a time when the board is “looking to have a general consent that this is the direction we are going, with the idea that we have legal obligations related to the budget that we are approving in June.” Two public forums are set for April 12 and 13, and a public hearing on the budget will be held before the board in late May. The district’s fiscal year begins July 1, 2010.

Wednesday’s meeting also covered a variety of other business: the second quarter financial report; a discussion regarding the necessity of maintaining the district’s fund balance; unanimous approval by the six trustees present to welcome “schools of choice” students to the district; and a special briefing which expedited the district’s ability to lease antenna space on the top of three district buildings to a wireless broadband Internet service provider.

2010-11 AAPS Budget Proposal

Roberts began his budget presentation by explaining that this year the budget process started earlier than usual, because of the complicated and uncertain funding scenarios that face the district. He reviewed how his administration had begun looking at ways to find savings last November, brought information to four budget forums in January, collected ideas from the community at those forums, and then returned to work at the district level. He thanked the many forum participants, as well as those who took the district’s online survey.

Roberts had given a preview presentation of the proposed budget to all AAPS staff on Wednesday afternoon, so many of the speakers during the first two hours of the meeting – before the budget presentation – made reference to various specifics of the proposal. In general, administration and board members referred to the budget proposal as having two parts – some called them part one and part two, while others referred to plan A and plan B.

The part one/plan A terminology refers to the vast majority of proposed cuts and new revenue options, resulting in a total budget reduction of $15.9 million. This core proposal would come close to balancing the 2010-11 budget (leaving a deficit of only $550,000), if there are no additional cuts to the state foundation allowance for the next school year.

However, because the state’s budget is not yet set, and because it is anticipated that the state may cut the school aid budget by an additional $200-$300 per pupil, AAPS administration has also put forth a second, complementary plan – part two/plan B – outlining an additional $4.1 million to $4.5 million in reductions that would be necessary to ensure a balanced budget regardless of what the Michigan legislature does.

This article organizes the budget presentation, interspersed with board members’ questions and comments, into the following main sections. First, there are seven sections on the core proposal: (i) how the AAPS budget is funded and allocated; (ii) proposed budget reductions to district-wide, non-instructional support services; (iii) proposed budget reductions to district-wide, instructional support services; (iv) proposed budget reductions to elementary programming; (v) proposed budget reductions to middle school programming; (vi) proposed budget reductions to high school programming; and (vii) proposed district-wide general savings and increased revenue. The budget reporting concludes with a separate section on additional options that were presented for addressing the remaining $4.4 million projected deficit.

2010-11 Budget: How the AAPS Budget Is Funded and Allocated

Robert Allen, AAPS deputy superintendent of operations (and chief financial officer), began by defining the foundation allowance as the per-pupil funding received from the state of Michigan. He then defined the blended membership count – the number of pupils in a district eligible for the foundation allowance. The blended count is determined by adding 25% of the student count in February of one school year to 75% of the student count in September of the following school year. Allen also explained how the recent loss of “20j” funding has resulted in a decrease in the AAPS foundation allowance – down to $9,490 per pupil.

Enrollment in the district has been declining since 2006-07, said Allen, and part of the proposed budget plan is to increase enrollment. He pointed out that the loss of funding expected in 2010-11 would take the foundation allowance back to 2001-02 levels, resulting in a roughly $20 million deficit for the coming year.

Allen then gave a brief overview of how AAPS spends its money. The majority of the general fund budget (82%) is spent on instruction and instructional support. The rest is spent on operations and maintenance (10%), transportation (4%), and central administration (4%). Allen echoed his refrain from the community budget forums: “The driving cost in our district is people.”

Before walking the board through three possible budget scenarios, Allen enumerated the assumptions underlying his revenue and expenditure projections. The projections assume:

• an enrollment increase of approximately 200 students;
• flat state funding or a decrease by as much as $300 per pupil;
• a slight decrease in interest income;
• a slight increase in local funding sources;
• an increase of 8% in health benefits over the next three years;
• an increase in the employer retirement contribution from 16.94% to 19.41%; and
• wage increases based on negotiated settlements.

Therefore, Allen stated, without budget reductions, if the state foundation allowance is kept constant, AAPS would end up with a $15.4 million deficit for the 2010-11 school year. If per-pupil funding is cut by $200 per pupil, Allen projects a $18.7 million deficit. And, he said, a $300 per-pupil cut would lead the district to the worst-case scenario: a $20 million shortfall.

Allen also walked the board through the details of that shortfall’s impact on the fund equity balance. This year, the opening balance in fund equity was $27 million, but nearly $5 million of that will need to be used by the end of this fiscal year to make up for mid-year reductions in state funding. That means the fund will open the 2010-11 year with a balance of $22 million.

If the district did nothing to reduce costs, it would need to spend its fund equity down almost completely next year. According to Allen, that would cause a number of cash flow and other problems for the district. [A longer discussion on the effects of spending down the equity, or "rainy day fund" took place during Allen's presentation at this meeting of the second quarter financial update, reported later in this article.]

Roberts then stepped to the podium. Before inviting administration officials to begin listing proposed cuts, Roberts highlighted the guiding principles that had been considered when developing the budget: that any changes were aligned with the district’s strategic plan; that a focus on academic excellence was maintained; that the district continued to offer a variety of programs, even if they were provided differently; that new revenue was sought instead of just cost reductions; and that non-instructional and administrative functions would be cut before cuts would impact instruction.

2010-11 Budget: Proposed Cuts to Non-Instructional Support

Allen, joined by Randy Trent, AAPS executive director of physical properties, then enumerated the following proposed budget reductions, totaling $4.4 million:

• Eliminate the facilities renovation support, emergency management coordinator, and, through attrition, two clerical positions ($340,000);
• Better educate staff on energy savings strategies, and better monitor building energy usage ($400,000);
• Reduce pool usage at middle schools, including designating two pools for year-round community use ($100,000);
• Reduce transportation costs by consolidating with WISD, modifying the contract held with current employees, or outsourcing services ($1.5 million);
• Reduce custodial and maintenance costs either by modifying the contract held with current employees or outsourcing services ($2 million); and
• Reducing services for contracted maintenance services ($100,000).

Allen added that, in terms of transportation services, the preferred option is consolidating services with other districts in the county, which would save 20-25% of the cost of services. In a follow-up call with The Chronicle, AAPS director of communications, Liz Margolis, confirmed that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) transportation consolidation plan is “looking hopeful,” and that it could be implemented as soon as next fall. She explained that, if the plan comes to fruition, most if not all AAPS bus drivers would become WISD employees, and would remain in the state retirement system. Initially, parents in Ann Arbor would notice little difference in service at all, she said.

Margolis added that in April, the WISD will host a meeting of board members from all 10 districts in the county to explain the plan and gauge support. The WISD has been working with an outside consultant, and routers from interested districts have been involved in the planning process. At this point, Margolis said, at least five of the districts – Ypsilanti, Willow Run, Lincoln, Saline, and AAPS – are interested, and that may be enough to make the program work. Lastly, she added, the state has been pushing districts to find ways to consolidate services, so this transportation consolidation would meet that directive. A final decision is expected to be made on the possible countywide consolidation of school transportation services by mid-May, “a best-case scenario,” according to Margolis.

Margolis also updated The Chronicle on a recent meeting between AAPS and AATA in which the creation of a pilot program for high school students was discussed. The details of how the pilot program would work are still being figured out, but one possibility is that AAPS high school students within 1/4 mile of AATA bus services would be given a choice to either ride the AAPS bus to school, or receive a smart card allowing them unlimited weekday access to the AATA buses. Students choosing to ride the AATA buses to school would pay with their smart cards, allowing AATA to track each ride, and charge AAPS accordingly. Margolis stressed that the plan was still evolving, but that she was “very hopeful” it would be piloted next fall.

2010-11 Budget: Proposed Cuts to Instructional Support

Roberts, along with Lee-Ann Dickinson-Kelley, AAPS administrator for elementary education, presented the following proposed reductions to the budget for instructional support services, totaling $3.5 million:

• In special education services, eliminate 2.5 administrative positions, 10 paraprofessional positions, and eight teaching positions, such as school psychologists or social workers, in order to better align with contractual caseload limits ($575,000);
• In central administration, eliminate five positions, and add an administrator for curriculum and instruction ($390,000);
• Reduce textbook budgets by half, by moving from a five-year to a seven-year replacement cycle ($200,000);
• Reduce discretionary budgets, though with a more generous allowance given to elementary programming, since it uses more consumables ($400,000);
• Modify the delivery model for English as a second language (ESL) services, eliminating 3.5 staff positions, and assigning 75 ESL students per ESL teacher, as per their contract ($315,000);
• Reduce contract services for delivering professional development ($200,000);
• Limit district-funded conference attendance, and substitutes for professional development and clerical positions ($450,000);
• Reduce the general fund contribution to middle and high school extracurricular activities and athletics, including instituting pay-to-participate athletics, consolidating some sports teams between schools, and instituting a musical instrument rental/maintenance fee ($1.07 million).

Regarding the modification of ESL services, Dickinson-Kelley explained that part of the reorganization would include increasing professional development services so that all teachers would be better able to meet the needs of English-language learners. Dickinson-Kelley said that the Read 180 program employed in grades 3-12 throughout the district has been shown to be effective with many learners, including ESL students. She said the district is also considering dual-language immersion classes as part of the revised approach to meeting the needs of ESL students. Trustee Simone Lightfoot asked about the number of eliminated positions that would result in layoffs, and Dickinson-Kelley responded that though there were some retirements, she could not guarantee that no personnel would be laid off. She is trying to consolidate across schools, and just collapse positions into each other.

The curriculum and instruction administrator position was one that the district previously had, but it has remained unfilled in recent years. Trustee Christine Stead asked who had been covering the responsibilities of the position in the meantime, and Roberts answered, “Ostensibly, I’ve been in that role, which was my background before coming to this position.” He added that leaving the position unfilled initially was the right decision for the district, but that “it is an important position to have in the district going forward.”

Roberts also acknowledged the extra responsibilities assumed by Dickinson-Kelley, as well as by Joyce Hunter, administrator for middle and high school education/director of career and technical education, and Larry Simpson, administrator for student intervention and support services (special education). Roberts added that in some ways, the lack of a supervisor has been very helpful, since Simpson, Dickinson-Kelley, and Hunter had to work more closely to get their jobs done.

Board president Deb Mexicotte said she was pleased that the administration had found a way to reestablish the instruction administrator position. Irene Patalan, the board’s vice president, thanked the superintendent, as well as the current administrators, saying they “really did take on more than expected because it needed to be done.”

Lightfoot asked about the salary range for the additional position, and Roberts answered that it was set at $117,000. Also in response to a question from Lightfoot, Roberts said that all but one of the five central administration positions being reduced by attrition are due to retirements.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding the proposal to charge summer school tuition. Trustee Susan Baskett noted she had a lot of concern about this idea. She asked what the average elementary tuition would be, and how the process would work for getting a scholarship to attend. In response, Dickinson-Kelley asserted that summer school is a high priority for her, as a means for students to increase their skillfulness and prevent regression. A four-week session would cost $200, she said, which was determined in part by looking at Rec & Ed fees.

Dickinson-Kelley then outlined the summer school scholarship application process as follows. Teachers make recommendations, which go straight to the central office. Working with food service directly, the central office will stamp “paid” directly on application forms for families receiving free or reduced lunch. Dickinson-Kelley said that principals would counsel eligible families to sign up for the free and reduced lunch program, and that she saw many “compassionate conversations” occurring.

Mexicotte was unconvinced, saying she was “very troubled about charging tuition for the [AAPS] summer school program,” and that the district strongly needed to consider “the amount of savings we get versus the potential harm to student achievement.”

Board secretary Glenn Nelson, too, expressed concern about charging for the summer program. Citing global warming, mass dislocations of people, and the debt crisis, he asserted that children need the best education possible because the world is “getting harder.” He noted the care put into this proposal by administration, but concluded that the bottom line was that the investment in education was decreasing: “This in my mind is a bad thing for the children of our community, and what it does to their future.”

Roberts emphasized that it was a goal for extracurricular activities not to prevent any student from participating. The cost to participate in high school sports would be $150 for the first sport, and $50 for every sport thereafter. In middle school, there would simply be one $50 athletic fee for any number of sports played over one year. Scholarships would be available, he said, for athletics, as well as to cover the musical instrument fees. Roberts also pointed out that students had already been paying $50 to keep instruments over the summer, and that this would extend the fee to the whole year.

Baskett confirmed that extracurricular funding comes from the district’s general fund, not the school booster clubs, and that instrument rental begins in the fifth grade, when every student studies instrumental music. Mexicotte commented that she was uncomfortable with charging a fee for musical instrument rental, pointing out that “music is ‘extra’ neither for our curricular needs nor for our graduation requirements,” and saying that it reminded her of a previous debate over funding graphing calculators.

2010-11 Budget: Proposed Reductions to Elementary Programming

Dickinson-Kelley proposed the following reductions to elementary programming, totaling $910,000:

• Restructure the elementary “specials” to maintain art, music, and physical education experiences, while better emphasizing the acquisition of technology skills, adding a humanities strand, and eliminating nine media specialist positions ($810,000); and
• Reduce teacher clerk hours by aligning to contractual obligations ($100,000).

Dickinson-Kelley then outlined the revamped elementary specials program as it’s proposed. First, she said, all students will continue to receive the “threshold” experience each week of: a 60-minute art class; two periods of vocal music; two periods of physical education (PE); two periods of information literacy and technology (ILT); and instrumental music (fifth grade only).

What would be new, Dickinson-Kelley continued, is aligning the ILT special with statewide Michigan Education Technology Standards (METS), and adding a humanities strand for kindergarten through fifth grade. According to Dickinson-Kelley, that alignment would embed the application of technology skills in social studies and science lessons.

Dickinson-Kelley described the new humanities strand as “a deliberate series of interdisciplinary lessons … taught by specials teachers that align with the [Grade-Level Content Expectations] GLCEs.” Some examples she gave included: lessons on sound taught by music teachers, art teachers teaching students how to draw in science journals, and concepts of force and motion being applied in physical education class.

Dickinson-Kelley described “the new 3 Rs … [as] rigor, relevance, and relationships,” and argued that “embedded learning” would benefit students tremendously. By keeping special areas teachers more involved, she said, students gain knowledge by having concepts reinforced from different perspectives, and by different instructors. She also pointed out that, with the exception of the addition of world languages, there have not been any changes to the elementary “special areas menu” in 40 years.

Patalan asked how far along in development the humanities strand was. Dickinson-Kelley explained that it was not a new concept for music and art teachers, and that PE teachers were having meetings about it. The only part that would be new to media specialists, she said, was aligning the technology outcomes they already teach to specific science and social studies GLCEs. She added that humanities increases the relevance of core concepts by highlighting their application in the arts. Patalan called the plans “joyful.”

Baskett concurred saying, “If this is what I think it is, it sounds wonderful,” and got confirmation that humanities would begin in the fall. Nelson expressed how he thought the addition of this new strand was an example of the cumulative nature of the district’s educational goals, saying “one doesn’t start with freshmen and produce excellence.” Mexicotte noted that while the restructured program is “excellent … it does come with a cost.” She also asked Dickinson-Kelley to put up a Q&A about the humanities strand to stem the flow of questions from parents about what will be offered, and Dickinson-Kelley agreed to do that.

Lightfoot questioned how many layoffs would be caused by eliminating the nine media specialist positions. Dickinson-Kelley answered that some layoffs would need to occur, as some media specialist positions would now be shared between smaller schools.

Roberts emphasized that eliminating positions does not translate directly to laying off people. At least some of the positions will vanish through attrition, he said, but there is no way to know at this point how many retirements there will be, nor how many of the remaining teachers have multiple certifications that would allow them to transfer to other open positions.

As an example, a teacher in an eliminated ESL or media specialist position could be reassigned to teach another subject for which he or she is highly qualified, such as English or a world language. Seniority also plays a part in teacher assignments and voluntary transfers, as teachers move to fill open positions.

In response to further questioning by Lightfoot, Roberts explained that the administration has some legal timelines it must meet regarding layoffs. All teachers facing potential layoffs need to be notified by the end of April, he said, and could then be called back if possible. Roberts added that he hopes to be able to confirm the number of layoff notices that will need to be issued at the next board meeting on April 14.

2010-11 Budget: Proposed Reductions to Middle School Programming

Joyce Hunter, AAPS administrator for middle and high school education, then came to the podium. She mentioned that there had been over 22 meetings with people affected by the changes, and then proposed the following reductions to middle school programming, totaling $928,000:

• Eliminate 8.2 teaching positions by increasing class sizes in electives, but keeping core class sizes averaging 28 students ($738,000); and
• Eliminate 3.4 teaching positions by staffing middle school planning centers instead with trained, non-teaching staff ($190,000).

Trustee Christine Stead asked for examples of elective classes that would be affected by the increase in class sizes, and why the core class sizes would be kept lower than the range in the contract. Hunter answered that some individual electives would need be cut to increase class sizes in others, but that no entire program would be wiped out, even if enrollment was low. Hunter also pointed out that the maximum class size allowable by the contract is 33, but that it was strongly preferred that the average core class size would be lower.

Trustee Susan Baskett prompted Hunter to explain the current role and staffing of the middle school planning centers. Hunter explained that the planning centers are used to work with students in terms of discipline, mediation, and conflict management. She also added that the five centers (one at each middle school) are better aligned now than in the past – all use the same central database, and have a common brochure that explains their services. The reduction would be only 3.4 FTEs because Tappan is already using a paraprofessional instead of a teacher to staff its planning center.

Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Deb Mexicotte each questioned the need for maintaining the planning centers at all. Baskett pointed out that paraprofessionals staffing the centers might not be qualified to help students with the lessons they are missing, and that when she came on the board seven years ago, some students at that time were calling the planning centers “blacks incarcerated centers.” Baskett concluded, “I think it’s time to look at getting rid of these things.” Lightfoot asked how hiring new people to staff the centers would save any money, and mentioned that the counselors are also available for conflict resolution. She, too, asked, “What about doing away with them all together?”

Mexicotte echoed these sentiments, and provided some history. She said the board had looked extensively at the planning centers over 10 years ago, when they were viewed solely as “disciplinary dumping grounds.” Back then, a decision was made to staff them with certified teachers in the hopes of increasing their effectiveness. In deciding to remove teachers from the planning centers, Mexicotte argued, “we are now moving back to the model that was seen as less good.”

Stating that she understood staff and principals’ needs for “something,” Mexicotte said that the mixed history of the planning centers led her to question if the district could find another way to meet the developmental and academic needs of these middle schoolers. She asked, “I can’t see that this is the best choice … What are our goals? Can we do this very differently?”

In response to the concerns stated by board members, Hunter mentioned that the principals did feel strongly that the planning centers be maintained, and that the hope would be that the district would receive enough applicants to staff them with qualified, certified, former teachers at a lower cost. Given the issues raised, Hunter said she would take the board’s concerns back and talk to the principals directly. She also agreed to collect feedback on the planning centers from parents and from school staff as a whole.

2010-11 Budget: Proposed Reductions to High School Programming

Hunter then continued with the high school portion of the proposed budget reductions, totaling $2.325 million:

• Eliminate two high school assistant principal positions ($260,000);
• Eliminate five teaching positions at the alternative high schools by reducing some electives and increasing class sizes ($450,000);
• Eliminate 11 teaching positions at the comprehensive high schools by reducing some electives, increasing class sizes, and providing less assistance for music classes ($990,000);
• Eliminate two counseling positions to better align student-counselor ratio ($180,000);
• Eliminate six clerical positions and lunchroom supervisors, having administrators and community assistants cover lunches ($320,000);
• Eliminate two community assistant positions ($80,000); and
• Reduce event security costs, such as police presence at certain athletic events ($45,000).

Stead asked how many of these staff reductions would take place through attrition, and Hunter answered that there would be some retirements, but also some layoffs.

Prompted by Baskett, Hunter defined the roles of the community assistants as follows – they monitor behavior in the halls and in the cafeteria, they assist with conflict resolution, and they also help during class time. Mexicotte suggested using community assistants instead of the student planning centers in middle school, since they are seen as such an asset at the high school level.

Lightfoot expressed concern that the community assistant positions “seem invaluable as it relates to discipline,” and said it greatly concerned her to reduce them. She said she would like to register her concern about losing the community assistants, who are the ones who “step in when other folks turn their heads.”

Baskett also asked about current event security costs and whether the district could get even more savings there. Roberts gave the example of Pioneer High School, saying outside security costs there were about $70,000 per year. You couldn’t eliminate that completely, he said, citing the importance, for example, of maintaining security at a Pioneer-Huron football game. Instead, he said, the reductions target those events that might not need an officer at all, or at least not two.

2010-11 Budget: District-Wide General Savings and Increased Revenue

Roberts pointed out some general savings the district anticipates, totaling $2.23 million:

• Savings built in to employee 2010-11 contracts ($1.2 million);
• Reduction in overtime costs, in part by passing the costs onto the activities/events occurring on the weekend, evening, or over the summer ($800,000);
• Savings by moving school board elections to November ($90,000); and
• Using Power School software to reduce printing and mailing costs ($140,000).

Also included in the budget plan, Roberts said, are the following new sources of revenue, totaling $1.648 million:

• Two additional cell antennas added to existing towers ($45,000);
• An increase in University of Michigan football game parking revenue ($75,000);
• Increased rental of school facilities and possible renting of school buses ($75,000);
• Providing management services for consolidated services in the county ($90,000);
• Increased enrollment of 20 students in the Options Magnet program ($135,000);
• Increased enrollment of 150 additional students through Schools of Choice ($780,000);
• Additional program support from the AAPS Education Foundation ($200,000); and
• Increasing enrollment at Roberto Clemente and Stone schools through cooperative agreements with other districts in the county ($248,000).

There was no discussion on the general savings or suggested revenue options.

2010-11 Budget: Options to Address the Remaining $4.4 million Deficit

Roberts then gave an overview of the proposed reductions to this point – the “core proposal” – resulting in $15.9 million in savings. Of the 80.6 positions proposed for elimination, 9.5 of them would be in administration, 50.1 would be teachers union members, nine would be office professionals, and 12 would be paraprofessionals. This, Roberts pointed out, was consistent with his stated goal at the beginning of this process to focus cuts on non-instructional and administrative functions instead of instructional services. The core reductions overall represent a 17% cut to administration and a 5.5% cut to instruction.

However, Roberts then placed the bulk of the remaining deficit of $4.4 million primarily on the teacher’s union to resolve. He explained that it was his hope that teachers would agree to reduce their salaries and benefits instead of cutting positions, but that if they would not, the administration would propose moving forward with the following reductions:

• Eliminate 14 elementary teaching positions, increasing average class sizes to 26, and increasing the number of split classes ($1.26 million);
• Eliminate eight middle school teaching positions by increasing class sizes ($720,000);
• Reduce or eliminate some middle school counselor positions ($270,000);
• Eliminate 14 high school teaching positions, including at the alternative high schools, by increasing class sizes, and reducing the number of elective sections ($1.26 million);
• Not add the Chief Academic Officer position, and eliminate a clerical position ($200,000);
• Eliminate two additional maintenance and custodial administrative positions ($160,000);
• Reduce supplemental pay, and eliminate some extracurricular paid positions ($180,000); and
• Further reduce substitutes for professional development ($100,000).

Roberts said that when he comes back to the board on April 14, a decision would have been made on covering the remaining $4.4 million deficit. He reminded the board of the district’s legal obligation to let teachers know by the end of April if they are being laid off, and said that by the next board meeting, “we’ll be closer to knowing how many layoff notices we may need to send.” In a follow-up phone interview,  district spokeswoman Liz Margolis confirmed the district’s position: “Unless something magical happens at the state, there is an anticipation that pink slips will be issued.”

Roberts also pointed out that one of the main issues affecting the outcome of negotiations between the AAPS administration and its teachers union is the effect of a possible increased employee contribution to the state retirement system. If teachers are forced to cover an additional 3% of their retirement costs, as Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget suggests, they may be less willing to reduce their pay locally. Other legislation being considered – on health care, consolidation, and contract services – could also impact the budget, according to Roberts.

Nelson asked Robert Allen a question about his calculation of the base educational expenses in the budget scenarios, and Allen acknowledged that the estimates were conservative, and based on changes in the budgeting of capital needs. Nelson commented that he was “very comfortable” with this conservative approach, saying he agreed with the adage, “Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.”

Nelson also pointed out that a millage provided a large amount of the support for special education services. Roughly two-thirds of the $30 million needed for the district’s work with special education students is locally provided, Nelson said, thanking the local community for providing this support. He reminded the board that “these millages expire” and asserted, “We need to take responsibility locally – there is a big part of this that is under our control.”

Roberts closed by recognizing and thanking the work of his administration, the bargaining units, principals, and staff. He acknowledged, “It’s been a stressful time, for newer staff especially,” and assured the board and public that AAPS was committed to maintaining a high quality of education for all students.

Public Input in Strategic Planning on AAPS Proposed Budget

At the end of the budget presentation, Roberts commented that AAPS would continue to face funding challenges over the next few years, and invited all interested members of the community to participate in the next phase of the district’s strategic planning process, beginning in late April. After reviewing the plan and updating its goals, the strategic planning team will be forming action teams in May. These teams will then develop recommendations regarding the district’s programming, services, and facilities usage, and bring them to the board by December 2010.

Roberts also announced that the district would provide detailed budget information on its website, as well as hold two additional “budget forums” to review the proposed budget plan with the community before it comes to the board for a second briefing on April 14. On Thursday, these public meetings were announced on the AAPS website, along with a composite of the proposed budget numbers presented to the board, and FAQs about the proposed budget. The public budget presentations will be held on Monday, April 12, and Tuesday, April 13, in the Little Theaters of Pioneer and Huron respectively, and each begins at 6:30 p.m.

First Briefing: Second Quarter Financial Report and Fund Balance

Nancy Hoover, AAPS director of finance, began the second quarter financial report by requesting the board’s consideration of three resolutions: an amendment to the general fund; an amendment to the millage and capital needs fund; and approval of second-quarter disbursements. These resolutions, she explained, would make necessary adjustments to reflect changes in revenue and expenditures. Revenue to the general fund decreased overall by $2.7 million in the second quarter, as increases in some areas were offset by greater losses in other areas:

• Lower interest rates (-$250,000);
• Loss of 20j state funding (-$3.737 million);
• Lower enrollment than projected, resulting in a lower foundation allowance (-$470,000);
• An increase in Scio Township DDA excess capture (+$1 million);
• A transfer from the Millage and Capital Needs fund for textbook adoptions (+$500,000); and
• Receipt of 2004-07 Smart Zone capture from the City of Ann Arbor (+$200,000).

Hoover added, “When you look at the declining fund balance, less money earns less interest,” and noted that the AAPS finance team tries to be conservative in what it budgets, but was off this time. “We had thought it would come back,” she said, “but it did not.” Hoover also pointed out the following increases to general fund expenditures, totaling $1.8 million:

• An increase “due to the establishment of the budget for the transfer to the Millage and Capital Needs Fund,” which represents a change in accounting ($1.5 million); and
• An increase for textbook adoptions ($300,000).

Trustee Glenn Nelson asked if there was anything particularly significant at the state level that would cause a major shift in numbers in the third quarter. Hoover answered no, saying that the third quarter projections include the state of Michigan’s receipt of the second portion of state fiscal stabilization funds, and that there should be no impact on the fund balance.

Trustee Deb Mexicotte asked for clarification on the reason for the lower foundation allowance. Superintendent Todd Roberts confirmed that the lower amount of per-pupil funding received did not reflect a loss of 49 actual students, but rather 49 fewer than projected students: “There was a lower enrollment than had been projected.”

Nelson then mentioned how he had gone back and looked at the 2001-02 audit, which was the first he had reviewed as a board member. Per his review, he said, he calculated that state funding has dropped from 56% of the total AAPS budget to its current 42%, without even adjusting for inflation. Nelson argued, “This reinforces the point that we do need to be politically active at the state level.”

Trustee Susan Baskett noted that her committee was very grateful to Hoover in terms of her diligent attempts to acquire the Smart Zone money owed to the district.

Fund Balance Discussion

Allen then connected the second quarter’s losses to the effect on the district’s fund equity – or “rainy day fund,” as he acknowledged it is sometimes called. Allen began by showing a slide from the 2008-09 audit that broke down the fund equity by use. The majority of the fund balance (62%) is used to manage cash flow, primarily in the eight weeks a year when the district does not receive state aid payments, but must still issue paychecks. The remainder is designated as follows: 15% is for compensated absences; 7% will be used to make up the 2009-10 budget shortfall due to mid-year state funding reduction; 5% is saved for risk management expenses; 1% is reserved for inventory, or other expenses that cross fiscal years; and 10% is undesignated.

Allen expressed concern about using fund equity – as has been suggested by some bargaining units – as a way of covering the projected 2010-11 shortfall. He displayed a slide showing the district’s fund balances over the past six years, from $27,568,571 in 2004-05, up to $31,145,180 in 2007-08, and down to $19,400,000 for this year. He pointed out that the fund balance is supposed to be used for unforeseen things, such as roof repair that was not part of regularly scheduled maintenance. He also pointed out, “this year, when funding was cut mid-year, we did not have to do mid-year layoffs like other districts.” Roberts asserted that having fund equity “buys us time,” and had given the district choices to be able to weather the tumultuous changes in state funding.

Trustee Christine Stead asked if the $19.4 million fund equity balance shown for 2009-10 was what the district has right now, or if it was what was projected for the end of the fourth quarter. Allen said he expected the district would end the year with the balance at that amount. Nelson asked whether or not the current 2009-10 budget reduction plan would indeed save the $2.6 million it was intended to save, and Allen said it may be a challenge. “We continue to monitor that … There is a possibility we may not get there by the end of the year.” [The expected opening balance for the fund equity in 2010-11, as noted earlier in the article, is $22 million, and assumes the intended $2.6 million savings.]

If the mid-year budget reduction plan does not save as much as anticipated, the remainder will need to be taken from fund equity to balance the budget, along with the $4.9 million already being withdrawn this year. Though it is board policy not to allow the fund equity to drop below 15% of the overall budget, Allen acknowledged, “This year, we are going to be below that.”

Baskett asked how the retirement incentive being considered by the Michigan legislature would affect compensated absences, and how the new federal health care plan’s provision to allow coverage to minors up to age 26 would affect the district’s health care costs. Allen answered first that the district currently covers dependents through age 25, so it would cost one more year of coverage for those young adults. He then confirmed that the district’s current fund equity would be sufficient to cover any pay-outs resulting from an increase in retirements, but projected that many retirements would be rescinded if the legislation to increase the retirement multiplier does not pass.

Stead added that the federal health care legislation, passed that week, phases in over time, and that the district should expect some major changes by 2014. She argued that AAPS needs to be “very conservative” when it comes to health care, and warned that health care plans may increase rates up to 45%.

Nelson asked for confirmation that approximately $16.7 million of fund equity had been needed to cover cash flow in 2008-09, a number he had calculated roughly by taking 62% of the total fund balance. Allen agreed with Nelson’s calculation, and pointed out that the lower the fund equity balance, the higher the percentage needed to cover cash flow, such as summer payroll.

Patalan asked what would happen if the district couldn’t make payroll due to a fund equity shortfall. Allen explained that the state maintains a low-interest bond fund, and allows districts to borrow against their future state appropriations at a favorable interest rate. But, as Nelson had pointed out earlier, “those interest payments are true costs.” And, Allen, added, if a district borrows money to make payroll, the state considers it “insolvent” and requires it to submit a deficit reduction plan, losing some local control. Nelson concurred, pointing out two “sister districts” to AAPS that had a negative fund balance at the end of 2009. Nelson warned: “Study Willow Run and Ypsilanti to see what happens when you start out the year with a negative fund balance.”

First Briefing: Policy Updates

All board policies are periodically reviewed in a five-year cycle, according to board bylaw #1520, named “Sunset Provisions.” The administration is charged with reviewing the policies, and presenting any suggested changes to the planning committee. After planning committee review, the policy updates are brought to the board for review and adoption. Before the board on Wednesday was the first briefing of policy updates for review by the full board. These updates will be considered for adoption at the April 14 board meeting.

Irene Patalan, chair of the board’s planning committee, presented minor changes to seven policies, in order to better reflect procedures already in place in the district, and asked the board for any feedback.

Susan Baskett suggested standardizing references throughout the policies that refer to the position currently held by Robert Allen. It is sometimes referred to as “deputy superintendent of operations,” and other places called the “chief financial officer.”

Simone Lightfoot asked if bullying falls under the “safety, injuries, and emergencies” policy under review, and Todd Roberts answered that there is a separate bullying and harassment policy in the district. Lightfoot asked that the district’s bullying and harassment policy be reviewed, in light of a recent lawsuit in another district resulting in a large payout by the schools. She argued, “We need to be sure our policy is as current as it needs to be to prevent a revenue hit.” Patalan answered that her committee had been charged only with reviewing policies which were on the verge of expiring, but that it would add the bullying and harassment policy to its list of policies to be examined, given Lightfoot’s concern.

Deb Mexicotte asked board secretary Amy Osinski to list each policy separately on the consent agenda for the next meeting, in case a trustee would like to remove a single policy from it, and Osinski agreed.

Special Briefing: Cell Tower Leases

A special briefing is an item that is new to the board, but that eschews the first and second briefing process. It allows the board to take action on an item immediately.

Randy Trent, AAPS executive director of physical properties, made a short presentation, asking the board to approve the installment of three wireless broadband antennas on existing cell towers or chimneys, one each at the AAPS transportation building, Skyline High School, and Slauson Middle School. He explained that the lease with Clearwire Inc., an internet-service provider, would be for 20 years, and would bring in an additional $45,000 of revenue each year of the agreement, and a one-time $45,000 fee for improvements to these three buildings. Trent pointed out that increased revenue by leasing cell towers was a potential revenue source identified and encouraged by the community during the budget forum process.

Baskett challenged Trent on a number of fronts. First, she asked whether Trent had invited local residents to discuss the new antennas, and he confirmed that while he had invited all residents within 300 feet, only one family had shown up. Baskett then disputed many aspects of the proposed leases: their duration, their cost, and the timing of their approval.

Trent defended his proposal, arguing that it was beneficial for the district to lock a company into a 20-year lease, as “cell phone towers are going away … the market is decreasing.” Regarding the payment, Trent pointed out that the district’s contract gives companies a price break if they install multiple towers; it costs $25,000 for one tower, $20,000 each for two, and $15,000 each for three installations. He said that AAPS works with the companies to increase the number of sites, and asserted that the district is “very well-priced for the market.” Lastly, in terms of the timing, Trent maintained that market competition was the driving force behind asking for a quick turnaround: “If it takes three months to get through process with us, but 12 months with others, they come to us.”

Mexicotte supported Trent’s professional judgment about “what these companies like about [AAPS],” but Lightfoot also expressed concern about both the length of the lease and its price. She suggested that using “we’ve always done it that way” as a rationale was questionable and that AAPS should try to get as much as it can without chasing away clients.

Baskett asked that the lease agreement be moved off the consent agenda, and discussion on the item continued. When pressed by Mexicotte about whether she had any further questions for Trent, Baskett answered that no, she did not want to belabor it, but that she “didn’t hear a satisfactory answer.”

Stead and Nelson each expressed support for Trent’s proposal. Stead pointed out that getting requests each year to reduce contract prices – as Trent had described happening – proved to her that securing a longer lease seemed “fairly astute” on the part of AAPS administration. Nelson added that “we have our administration so busy right now,” that it’s not the right time to ask them to do further market research.

Baskett closed by saying that she was bothered by the inconsistency in process, and that she “would have expected the staff to do a little more homework.” Essentially, she said, she was looking for a second briefing.

Outcome: Approved. Nelson, Mexicotte, Lightfoot, Patalan, and Stead voted yes. Baskett voted no.

AAPS Now “Schools of Choice” for Washtenaw County

Superintendent Todd Roberts reviewed the Schools of Choice resolution with the board. If approved, he said, it would open 170 AAPS seats to students from other WISD districts. Applications would be accepted beginning April 1, through April 30. Trustee Glenn Nelson asked why the budget proposal only listed 150 seats, and Roberts confirmed that administration was being conservative in case there is less interest than anticipated from out-of-district families.

Trustee Irene Patalan asked for confirmation that the Schools of Choice program as presented was only a one-year program. Jane Landefeld, director of student accounting, confirmed that was correct. If it doesn’t work out, the district does not have to offer the program again, but any students already admitted will be able to continue in AAPS until graduation.

Patalan also asked what the effect would be if the majority of the open seats get filled with special education students. Landefeld reiterated that the district cannot discriminate in any kind of way, and that all the seats being filled with high-needs students was “a chance that we take.”

Landefeld argued that, overall, the program would still be a financial benefit, even if some students who enter AAPS cost more to educate than the foundation allowance they bring with them. Glenn Nelson added that special education students would bring additional state and county funding with them, and only a fraction of the additional costs would be borne by the district’s general fund: “The finances work fine, if that’s the root of the question.”

Outcome: The Schools of Choice proposal was passed unanimously by trustees as part of a consent agenda that also included approvals of meeting minutes and gift offers.

Public Commentary

In addition to members of the Skyline High School robotics team, described below, nine additional speakers contributed to public commentary, all opposing the district’s consideration of privatizing custodial and maintenance workers, from different angles.

AAPS custodians hold signs outside the AAPS board meeting on Wednesday night.

Two of the speakers were parents – one expressed appreciation of her daughter’s bus driver for bringing order to the bus. She also gave the example of how private workers would put more wear and tear on the buses, since they would not be as invested in their maintenance. The other parent mentioned that he was invited to the meeting by his daughter’s custodian, pointing to that as an example of the community ties that would be broken by privatization. He pleaded with the board to reconsider giving up their control over who is coming into contact with his kids.

The remaining seven speakers were either union staff or workers from the district service areas being considered for privatization. Their comments fell into two main categories: the state of collective bargaining between AAPS and the local custodial and maintenance workers union, and reasons not to privatize.

Public Commentary:  AAPS & Custodial/Maintenance Collective Bargaining

Custodial/maintenance staff and union officials spoke up regarding the current contract negotiation process between AAPS and their bargaining unit. They made several claims: that the district was being unreasonable in not working with them on the issue of using furlough days to save money; that the district did not furnish documents they had requested, which hampered their ability to find the savings necessary to preserve their jobs; that the district was being obstructionist in terms of not allowing access to board members; and that the district had not formed a quality assurance committee when it should have. Still, the closing note of one speaker was positive: “Hopefully, we can iron this out and continue to have a good working relationship.”

Public Commentary: Reasons Not to Privatize

Multiple speakers mentioned the lack of accountability shown by the board to the public on the issue of privatization, one asking, “Why is the board not listening to the public?” Another speaker praised AAPS parents for their “forceful rejection of privatization,” and accused the board of “defy[ing] the will of those they are entitled to represent.” Still a third speaker echoed this concern, arguing that the district had woefully misrepresented the views of community members regarding privatization expressed at the community forums, and saying that administrators were “ignoring public sentiment.”

Some speakers made personal appeals, saying they just could not afford higher benefits co-pays, and that the cuts being considered by the board would “lead some workers into poverty.” Instead,  it was suggested that the administration look at ways to decrease management costs instead of workers’ salaries and benefits.

Multiple speakers also referenced safety issues with outsourcing custodial, maintenance, and transportation workers. One suggested that if the board outsources, “[it] will have more problems than [it's] currently experiencing.” Another suggested that the responses to the RFP’s question on litigation by the two companies with bids under review by AAPS were paltry at best, deceptive at worst. The general message was: “If you choose to outsource, you are choosing to risk the safety of all of our kids.”

Association Reports

The board receives regular reports from the Youth Senate, the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). The Youth Senate and BPSSG did not report at this meeting.

Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee Report

Maria Huffman reported for the AAPAC, describing the disability awareness workshops as being “in full swing.” These workshops are an opportunity, she said, for fourth graders throughout the district to develop “an empathetic understanding of physical, developmental, and learning disabilities … [as well as to] spread the message that disability is a natural part of the diversity of all communities.” She also pointed out that this year is the first time AAPS has not had to rent the equipment to do these workshops, and thanked Steve Swartz for his work in making the workshops a success.

Also, Huffman announced that AAPAC would be presenting a free workshop to parents, staff, and caregivers about assistive technology (AT), and how some students could benefit from having an AT plan. The meeting will be Wednesday, March 31, at 7 p.m. at the WISD.

PTO Council Report

Martine Perreault, chair of the PTOC, used her report as an opportunity to praise parent involvement in the district, and to issue a call to action for all parents to educate themselves about school funding and consider joining the PTOC. Currently, the PTOC has representatives from 73% of the district’s PTOs and PTSOs, but the goal is 100%, she said.

Perreault then updated the board on the work of the PTOC’s newly-formed advocacy committee. The committee, she said, has developed talking points and identified priority groups to receive basic presentations on school funding, including all school PTOs, and community mothers’ groups. Perreault urged parents to get involved, join the advocacy committee by contacting Donna Lasinski at 734-997-7265 or by e-mail at ptoc.a2advocacy@gmail.com, and/or contact their legislators about securing stable school funding.

Ann Arbor Administrators Association Report

The AAAA representative began her report by concurring with AAPAC that the disability awareness workshops were a truly amazing experience for students. She then spoke “with mixed emotions” about the upcoming budget cuts, saying that plan A and plan B differ substantially. She applauded her colleagues who have had difficult conversations with their staffs, acknowledged the “tireless work” of the central administration, and valued Todd Roberts’ leadership.

Ann Arbor Education Association Report

Brit Satchwell, president of the AAPS teachers union, began by saying he was pleased at the increased political activism coming from the PTOC and the board: “I’m very encouraged that we’re starting to talk about increasing revenue – you fish where the fish are.”

Before continuing with his prepared comments, which were quite positive, Satchwell said, he wanted to comment on some of the public commentary heard from fellow union members. He suggested that the district dig deeper into fund equity, and then lead a united front to Lansing to look for longer-term solutions. He disagreed with asking people who are already at the bottom of the pay scale to give up their retirements, resubmitting the idea of “going to the well beyond your comfort level,” and acknowledging that while some fund equity can’t be touched, some of it can. He also asserted that he would poll his members, asking them how low they’re willing to go on pay and benefits.

Satchwell then picked up his prepared comments, saying that the AAEA and AAPS collective bargaining process has made progress, but has been hampered somewhat by uncertainties at the state. He thanked Roberts for giving his members a preview of the proposed budget, and credited Robert Allen, as well as AAPS assistant superintendent for human resources and legal services, Dave Comsa, and AAEA’s executive director Paul Morrison as being “creative thinkers, fair bargainers, and enjoy[ing] each other’s trust.” He said the downsizing that was necessary could be done “without major disruptions or draconian measures” and encouraged the board to maintain its political leadership, and “lead us to Lansing.”

Board Committee Reports

The board has two standing committees, where many items on the board’s agenda get a first look – performance and planning. Each board member except for the president is assigned to one or the other – Susan Baskett, Glenn Nelson, and Randy Friedman sit on the performance committee, and Irene Patalan, Christine Stead, and Simone Lightfoot sit on the planning committee. In their reports, both committee chairs – Baskett and Patalan – mentioned welcoming a large number of high school students to each of their most recent meetings. The students were there as a part of a class assignment. All performance and planning committee meetings are open to the public.

Performance Committee Activities

Baskett reported that the performance committee had reviewed the second quarter financial report [which was presented to the full board at Wednesday's meeting], as well as a series of policies that were sent back to administration to amend in light of Race to the Top legislation. The committee, she said, is also looking at a variety of issues: the potential impact of becoming a School of Choice on the children of non-resident employees currently attending school in the district; questioning the role of board members as political advocates, both individually and as a unit; and “reimagining” AAPS alternative programs.

Planning Committee Activities

Patalan noted that, in addition to reviewing the policy updates, and cell tower lease agreements, both of which are described earlier in this article, the planning committee had a conversation about how the new term “college and career-ready” could be helpful to the district.

Items from the Board

Baskett called for increased community activism, and support of the AAPS Education Foundation campaign being launched soon. She suggested, “All these elected officials in primaries should be asked what they are doing to stabilize education funding … Let’s keep the pressure on.”

Lightfoot reported on a community meeting she had attended the night before hosted by the Ann Arbor Citizens for Responsible School Spending (A2CRSS), which The Chronicle also attended. Lightfoot described A2CRSS as “the folks on the opposite side of the millage.” Saying the room was full of “smart, passionate, and experienced people,” including many AAPS administrators, Lightfoot summarized the bulk of A2CRSS budget suggestions as “not as feasible [as other options].”

Lightfoot credited Allen and the instructional services administrators in attendance with doing a good job of explaining the district’s position – at one point, Allen had questioned whether A2CRSS was “comparing apples to apples.” Lightfoot said AAPS should continue to lead public discussion about the district’s budget. Lightfoot closed with “I can say ‘we’re transparent,’ but if we keep getting the same critique, we need to lead in this area.”

Awards and Accolades

A number of awards are typically presented at board meetings, and Wednesday’s meeting was no different.

Michigan Social Studies Award

Leon Pescador, a student at Clague Middle School, was at the meeting to accept an award for being named Middle School Student of the Year by the Michigan Council for Social Studies. A representative from MEEMIC insurance company was on hand to present Pescador with a $250 check for Clague, in addition to his award certificate. Pescador thanked his principal, teacher, and the other “people who run [his] school.”

Leon Pescador accepts his award as Middle School Student of the Year from the Michigan Council for Social Studies, and a $250 check for Clague Middle School.

Board members Baskett and Nelson asked Pescador about his social studies accomplishments. Pescador described the Social Studies Olympiad as, “like the Olympics, but for social studies and not as popular. You get to hear about people from the UP griping about the drive [to the competition].” With some prompting from his mentors, he also mentioned how he had crafted a map about current events in Zimbabwe, and a PowerPoint presentation about renewable energy in Michigan.

Skyline Robotics Team

Two students from the Skyline Robotics Team spoke during public commentary, announcing that they had won the Ann Arbor district competition and that they were hoping to win the Rookie All-Star award at the upcoming state competition. The students closed by soliciting sponsorship from local area businesses to support the team’s trip if they are invited to the national competition.

Later in the meeting, Baskett praised Robotics Team Day, which she attended, as wonderful and “hard to leave.” She echoed the team’s appeal for funding, saying that if everyone just gave a little bit, it would help them should they be chosen to continue competing.

Bands in Review & Choral Cavalcade

During items from the board, Nelson mentioned his recent attendance at the district’s “Bands in Review” performance, which brings together middle and high school bands, as well as the Choral Cavalcade North at Skyline. He pointed out the arts excellence in AAPS is impressive, and that it develops over time: “it does not happen in one year.”

Challenge Day

Nelson’s closing meeting comments also touched on Challenge Day, which he described as “really moving.” Nelson thanked those who support this day, which he described as “building a community of support and understanding for all of us in the room.” One of the things, Nelson said, that really hit him as a Challenge Day participant is that the recession is really affecting the district’s students on an emotional level, but that these students are receiving support from administration, teachers, and other students.

Superintendent’s Report

AAPS superintendent Todd Roberts began his report after midnight, noting the time but saying he would not defer his report, and that it was important to him to share the many good things going on in the district.

He went on to list many awards received by schools, as well as individual staff and students, many of which are detailed in his weekly “This Week” column on the district’s website.

Roberts mentioned that Ann Arbor’s selection as one of the top 10 college towns was due in part to the quality of public education here. He also praised students at Huron, Clague, Forsythe, Community, and Skyline for various accomplishments. He mentioned that Pioneer bands would soon be performing in China, and that a host of AAPS schools have achieved “emerald green” status through the Michigan Green Schools initiative.

The meeting was adjourned by president Deb Mexicotte.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Irene Patalan, secretary Glenn Nelson, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Christine Stead. Also present as a non-voting member was Todd Roberts, AAPS superintendent.

Absent: Treasurer Randy Friedman.

Next Regular Meeting: April 14, 2010, 7 p.m., at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library’s fourth floor meeting room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

At the board's study session, Robert Allen, deputy superintendent for operations of AAPS, reported the effect of a state mandate to increase AAPS contributions to the state's public school retirement system – an additional $1 million budget shortfall.

That activity was punctuated with continual references to funding fluctuations at the state level. “There is incredible uncertainty,” stated board president Deb Mexicotte. “Ideas change daily, weekly, hourly.” Even though state-level gyrations may end up changing how the Ann Arbor Public Schools moves forward, she asserted, “We are faced with the facts on the ground, and we have to operate from that position.”

And one of those facts on the ground is a state mandate that has already been put in place. It increases by 2.47% the employer contribution rate to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System. The mandate adds momentum to the idea of privatization of certain services: If district employees can be replaced with workers who are employed by private contractors, the cost of MPSERS contributions would be saved.

At the study session, trustees also discussed community responses to the district’s budget surveys.

A study session is an opportunity for board members to receive information from AAPS administration, ask questions, and discuss issues in a less formal setting. The public is welcome to attend.

Although only three people spoke during the official public commentary time, a dozen people stayed to ask questions and offer comments throughout the meeting. A trend from the last two BOE regular meetings was continued at the study session – most of the public commentary addressed the negative aspects of privatizing transportation, and custodial/maintenance services.

State Budget Proposal

Todd Roberts, AAPS superintendent, reported on how Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed state budget would affect AAPS, if it is accepted by the legislature. Her budget proposal can be read in its entirety on the state’s website.

Tax Changes Would Fund School Aid Budget

Roberts explained how the governor is proposing to stave off an additional per-pupil funding reduction of $255 by shoring up the School Aid Fund’s (SAF) deficit with additional tax revenue. Granholm has proposed broadening the state sales tax to include services, Roberts explained. The governor’s proposal includes lowering the overall rate from 6% to 5.5%, as well as phasing out the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) over three years.

Roberts said he would be pleased if per-pupil funding stayed at this year’s level, but pointed out that “the tax plan has received a cool reception during its first week in the legislature.” Trustee Susan Baskett clarified that the rate change would be reduced “to 5.5%” not “by 5.5%.”

Primer: Funding the MPSERS

At the study session, Roberts described proposed changes in the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS). We consider first a bit of background on how the retirement system is funded.

MPSERS has been a “defined benefit” plan up until now – retirees are promised a steady monthly pension and health insurance. [It might change to a "defined contribution" plan for future employees, depending on pending legislation.] Employer contributions fund the bulk of the system. Interest accumulation and employee contributions round out the balance. Recently, due to market conditions, little interest has accumulated.

The number of employees in MPSERS is decreasing, in part because of an increased number of earlier retirements. Outsourcing in other districts in the state also reduces the number of MPSERS employees. Yet health care is getting more expensive. Because the system is “pay as you go,” and a smaller number of MPSERS members are now supporting a larger number of retirees’ pensions and health insurance, the employer contribution rate rises.

The amount that school districts contribute to MPSERS is determined as a percentage of their total salary costs. This percentage has been steadily increasing on average over the past decade, from 10.77% of gross salaries in 1998-99 to the current rate of 16.94% of gross salaries.

At Wednesday’s session, deputy superintendent for operations Robert Allen announced that the MPSERS employer contribution rate has just been increased by 2.47%, bringing it up to 19.41% of total salary costs for the upcoming year.

Also at Wednesday’s study session, trustee Glenn Nelson expressed concern that the mandated increase in employer contributions, along with the proposed 3% increase in employee contributions to MPSERS, would still not be adequate to finance the cost of a large number of retirees. Referencing some math he had just quickly done, Nelson declared, “These numbers should be checked, [but] this is a very expensive retirement incentive.”

Retirement Reform

Roberts described Granholm’s proposed changes to MPSERS as a “carrot and stick approach – mostly the stick.” Currently, annual lifelong pension payments are determined according to a three-part formula – multiplying a retiree’s final average compensation (FAC) by his/her years of service to public education, and then by 1.5%.

Key features of the planned reform were described as follows:

• all employees retiring after Oct. 1 would lose subsidized dental and vision coverage
• an employee’s FAC would be averaged over nine years instead of three
• new employees could not retire until age 65 (currently, any employee can retire with 30 years of service to the district)
• employees would need to contribute an additional 1.9-3% to MPSERS.

Roberts pointed out that this increase in employee contribution really has an impact on AAPS budget planning, because employees would be much less likely to agree to a wage decrease locally if they must contribute additional money to MPSERS per the state mandate.

The “carrot” part of the plan, according to Roberts, would be an increase in the retirement multiplier. For all employees who commit to retirement between April 15 and May 15, their retirement salary multiplier would increase by 0.1%, resulting in a 6.6% increase in lifelong pension payments. Originally, Roberts explained, the cost of this 0.1% increase was to have been borne by the districts, but it has now been decided instead that the extra cost burden would be covered by the state. Baskett asked if years of service would be capped at 30, and Roberts clarified that the cap would only apply to other state employees, not public school employees.

Roberts explained that the state projected a savings to school districts of $650 million if Granholm’s budget passes, but that the plan assumes that 75% of eligible employees will retire, and that not all of them will be replaced. Lightfoot asked how many employees would be eligible to retire this year, and Roberts answered, “I don’t know off the top of my head,” but did offer that 71 teachers had already submitted an “intent to retire.”

Roberts mentioned that Granholm’s plan also allows for retirees to return to work part-time for the three years after retiring. A community member questioned whether the part-time retirees would be district employees or contractors, and Roberts confirmed they would still be employees of the district, and still pay into the retirement system. Lightfoot asked if AAPS could re-hire district employees as contract employees, and Roberts answered that yes, that can and does often happen for administrative positions.

Timing of Legislation

Roberts pointed out that the state budget fluctuations have “created a lot of uncertainty.” He praised Granholm’s suggestion that the budget be set by July 1, and be written for two years, saying “it would be very helpful” if that occurred. But he joked that “hopefully it will be [set] before next December,” referencing the delay in the passage of this year’s state budget. Roberts also pointed out how the legislation approving Granholm’s budget would need to be signed into law very quickly in order to allow for employees to opt into the retirement incentive beginning April 15.

Revised Budget Projections

Todd Roberts presented a series of budget scenarios based on three variants of state funding: (i) no additional cuts to the foundation allowance, (ii) an additional $200 per pupil cut, and (iii) an additional $300 per pupil cut.

First, he pointed out two factors that have changed since the community budget forums – an adjustment in the student count number from 16,489 down to 16,440, which currently translates to a $476,427 loss of per-pupil funding. The second factor is the increase in employer retirement contribution rate described earlier in this article.

Robert Allen reiterated that the AAPS projected budget had allowed for a 1.5% increase in retirement contributions. However, he said that the new state-mandated increase of 2.47% will translate to an extra cost per public employee equal to 19.41% of employee’s salaries.  That means an additional $1 million in payments to MPSERS during the 2010-11 fiscal year.

That’s an additional million-dollar budget shortfall.

Roberts said the best case scenario would be if the state is able to keep the foundation allowance constant, as Granholm has proposed. If this happens, he said, AAPS would have a 2010-11 deficit of $14.7 million, lower than originally projected. In the worst case scenario, the state would proceed with the additional $300 per pupil foundation allowance cuts, resulting in a 2010-11 deficit of $19.67, which would be closer to original AAPS projections. In response to a community member’s question, Allen confirmed that the deficit numbers are cumulative from this year through 2010-11.

Glenn Nelson asked how the capital needs budget relates to the foundation allowance. Allen answered that, as of the 2nd quarter of 2009-10, capital needs allocations have been put back into the revenue and expenditures: “The capital needs budget is really a part of our operating budget.”

Roberts reiterated that the 4% salary and benefit reductions initially proposed by AAPS could be significantly affected by state level budget decisions, and that the board will need to plan for alternatives “since negotiations are not nailed down.” He reported that he will come to the board in March with a range of options outlined.

During her public commentary, Kathy Griswold requested that AAPS release its raw financial data and its check register “so the public can analyze it, and make informed decisions.”

Review of Privatization Bids: Transportation

Robert Allen, AAPS deputy superintendent of operations, reported on two bids received in response to a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the district to privatize transportation services. The RFP had asked companies to include the cost of regular routes, field trips, bus aids, and fleet maintenance in their proposals, in order to be comparable to the $6,053,298 that AAPS spends on those services. Allen said both companies offered savings to AAPS: a proposal from Durham would save $840,433, and a proposal from First Student would save $726,683.

Allen then reported that in addition to these two base bids, a number of “alternative bids” were submitted and are still being reviewed. The parameters of a base bid, Allen explained, are to “keep wages consistent, and match as closely as possible the benefits we currently have.” Alternative bids, on the other hand, offer additional savings, usually by offering lower wages or less robust benefits.

When questioned by trustee Simone Lightfoot, Allen confirmed that, per the RFP, the base bids do not include costs associated with management, mechanics, route supervisors, fuel, or additional costs related to special education needs. But the bids do give an “apples to apples” comparison with the district’s costs.

Lightfoot, along with BOE secretary Glenn Nelson, also asked about indirect costs. Lightfoot defined those as “costs that we did not put in the RFP that could come back to haunt us.” Allen responded that his best estimate was that transportation services cost the district around $200,000 indirectly – that included legal, finance, and human resource management costs.

Trustee Susan Baskett asked if the countywide consolidation plan was on schedule. [She was referring to a developing program being spearheaded by the Washtenaw Intermediate School District, which would increase efficiency and share transportation services across the 10 public school districts in Washtenaw County.] Todd Roberts, AAPS superintendent, answered that the final report of the committee reviewing that program is not due until the end of April, but that AAPS would know if that was a possibility by the end of March.

Public Comment on Transportation Bids

Kathy Griswold – a former BOE trustee and one of the founders of the non-partisan political action committee (PAC) Coalition for Responsible Schools for All Students – asked whether either of the transportation bid companies will provide retirement or health care. Allen replied that employees working for Durham or First Student would receive the same wages and comparable health benefits, but would no longer be “tied to” the state retirement system.

During earlier public commentary time, Griswold had argued that privatization is racially-biased and a distraction. She contended that there is no financial reason to outsource, and that it is not in the best interest of students, adding: “I believe it [privatization] is being championed by a board member who is not here tonight, and who for all intents and purposes, does not live in our district.”  [Griswold was alluding to trustee Randy Friedman.]

One community member asked where the bidders were from. Allen did not know, but thought that one might be from Illinois. He did confirm that neither of the companies is local.

Another public commentary speaker said he had worked for AAPS for 28.5 years, and asked if there was “anything in there to help people who are close” to the 30-year point – at which state employees can retire with a full, lifelong pension. Mexicotte responded that the BOE had discussed when certain employee groups will be vested, and that they would talk more about it.

A third speaker asked if the board expected a high number of transportation workers to be rehired, as was the case when AAPS fully privatized its food service to Chartwells in 2008. Allen confirmed that minimizing staff turnover is a goal, and explained that the key factor to getting staff to stay – according to other districts that have privatized – is maintaining the rate of pay.

The most contentious community voice came from a man who took issue with Allen’s assertion that wages and health care benefits would remain the same. Also using the district’s food service as an example, he asserted that food service workers are not in fact paid the same across the board. He contended that new hires are paid $9 per hour, and given health insurance with co-pays that cost $3,000 per year rather than $500 per year.

Allen allowed that while the food service workers were paid exactly the same wage at the time they transferred from AAPS to Chartwells, the district’s contract with an outsourced company does not extend to new hires: “They [Chartwells] are a company … they have a right to do that.” The public commentary speaker concluded with, “You should not be misinformed about what happened to the health care of these employees … Basically, at $9, they cannot afford the health care plan.” Mexicotte’s response was, “That’s often what happens with outsourcing … It’s not a perfect world.”

Review of Privatization Bids: Custodial

Randy Trent, AAPS executive director of physical properties, explained that AAPS was entertaining both separate and combined bids for custodial and maintenance services. He then introduced the six base bids received for custodial services.

Base bids – bids that keep wages and benefits comparable to those currently offered by AAPS – were received from Midwest, GCA, Fastemps, Aramark, GLES, and Omni. The spreadsheet presented to the BOE by Trent was broken out into the following categories for each contractor: lump sum, exception cost, adjusted lump sum, benefit cost, and lump sum less benefits. Trent explained the reasons for the breakdown. The lump sum is the final amount bid by each company. But some adjusting needs to be done, Trent said, to understand those bids in the context of how they compare to the current AAPS custodial costs, as well as to each other.

The bids of two of the companies – Fastemps and Aramark – do not include pay for substitute custodians if employees are absent, so the “exception cost” is how much it would cost to add the substitute costs to those companies’ bids. The other four bids do not have exception costs. Therefore, the best column to use to compare to the total amount AAPS spends on custodians, Trent explained, is the adjusted lump sum, which is the lump sum plus any exception costs. AAPS total custodial costs are $6,955,697, and the adjusted lump sums for custodial services ranged from $5,893,071 to $8,170,560.

Trent then focused on the “benefit cost” column – the amount each company would spend on benefits. The benefit costs submitted by the six companies range widely from $130,894 to $2,298,618 for the 140 positions bid out. In the interview process with each company, Trent explained, the district can negotiate the details of the benefit package offered to employees.

Trent explained that the best way to compare the companies to each other is to subtract the benefit costs they gave from the adjusted lump sums, since a new benefit package could be built during negotiations: “All of [the companies] are very flexible in putting together a benefit package that is acceptable to us.”

With the benefit costs subtracted, the bids look much more comparable to each other, with a “lump sum less benefits” range of $5,329,440 to $6,000,831. Trent stressed in order to compare this column to the AAPS custodial costs, one would have to add in the cost of benefits, which prompted a question from trustee Glenn Nelson: “Of the nearly $7 million district [custodial] costs, how much is our benefit cost?” Allen replied that he did not have the number off the top of his head. Nelson responded that the number should be easy to get.

Trustee Susan Baskett asked why another firm, Du-All, was not included on the spreadsheet. Trent responded that it did not offer a reasonable bid, saying “We want 100% of our workers to be able to transfer.” Lightfoot asked for clarification on the exception costs for some of the potential vendors: “We pay for subs? So, we’re technically responsible for their employees?” and Trent confirmed that yes, if they don’t show up, AAPS would have to pay for subs for Fasttemps and Aramark employees.

Trent then briefly introduced the 15 alternative bids for custodial services, describing them as reflecting “how much the market could bear.” He said that AAPS would be continuing to analyze them. He also pointed out that most of the alternative bids saved money through wage reduction strategies.

Public Comment on Custodial Bids

Darryl Wilson, president of the local custodial and maintenance workers union, mentioned that the current AAPS employees already have an established sub pool that pays $9.85 an hour with no benefits. Deb Mexicotte responded, “Your comment has been taken and acknowledged.”

Another community comment centered on the scope of work performed by current employees, saying that the typical area covered by a custodian has almost doubled since 1994, and that AAPS custodians are uniquely positioned to keep up with the workload: “If a machine breaks, we can fix it. You’re not going to see savings [from private companies] with areas twice as big.”

Review of Privatization Bids: Maintenance

After a missing Powerpoint slide was located by Amy Osinski, secretary to the board, Randy Trent continued with a review of the bids received for privatizing maintenance services. Trustee  Simone Lightfoot asked whether AAPS maintained responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of related equipment, and Trent confirmed that it would.

AAPS received base maintenance bids from seven companies: Aramark, Fasttemps, Midwest, GCA, GLES, Omni, and Barton Malow. Three of them had exception costs for hiring substitutes. The adjusted lump sums range from $1,398,600 to $2,149,175, and can be compared to AAPS annual maintenance costs of $1,902,619. As with the custodial bids, Trent pointed out the wide range in benefits costs included in the proposals – from $23,375 to $410,468 for 25 maintenance positions. And when benefit costs are subtracted from the adjusted lump sums, the range of “wage and overhead” costs narrows from $1,227,400 to $1,859,175, making the bids more easily comparable to each other.

Trent also briefly introduced the 12 alternative bids, for which the adjusted lump sums ranged from $730,000 to $1,551,263. Almost all of the alternative bids include lower wages as the cost-savings measure. He stated that the alternative bids would be reviewed by AAPS administration in more detail.

Susan Baskett then asked Trent if he would like guidance from the board on whether to consider the wage reductions presented in the alternative bids, but before he could answer, board president Deb Mexicotte shut down the discussion, interjecting, “That’s something for closed session.”

Baskett then pointed out that two bidders, GLES and Barton Malow, are using unionized workers, and that it might be possible for employees to maintain their union if enough of them are rehired, or to join a new union already working under the chosen contractor. Superintendent Todd Roberts clarified for Baskett that the board would next discuss the bids on March 10 – the next regular BOE meeting. Baskett thanked the administration for “weeding stuff out and figuring out what’s left to do.”

Public Comment on Maintenance Bids

In response to two questions from community members present at the meeting, Mexicotte confirmed that the alternate bids were not comparable to AAPS costs in terms of wages and benefits.  She also confirmed that the scope of expected maintenance coverage was delineated in the RFP. Another question about the inclusion of significant others in the benefit packages led Mexicotte to reassert that the district is committed to maintaining comparable benefits for any employees who transfer to the contract company, if AAPS decides to privatize.

There was a question about the length of the potential contracts, if a bid is accepted. Trent, Mexicotte, and Allen each confirmed that it’s flexible – the base bid is set originally for three years, but can be canceled annually, and is reviewed by the board officially every five years.

Darryl Wilson, president of the local custodial and maintenance workers union, followed up their responses by asking, “And, how long would wage retention stay in place – for the duration of the contract? For three years?” Trent, Allen, Mexicotte, and Baskett all reassured Wilson that a company would not be able to lower salaries right away. Baskett offered, “Once you’re hired on, your salary is locked in for the length of the contract.”

Members of the public who were present expressed lack of trust in the good faith of the potential outsourcing companies: “With no union, they could make us go down to $6 an hour,” and “I’ve heard other districts dropped wages to $9 an hour.” Trent again tried to clarify, saying that companies have to honor the salary negotiated in the contract, and argued that in other districts, wages were low because they started out that way. He again reiterated that AAPS insisted that base bids include comparable wages and benefits.

Other members of the public against privatization included a plumber for the district, who shared a description of his work with the pools, and said, “On behalf of all of our best interests, I don’t see privatization being the answer.” He mentioned that in 1994, when outsourcing maintenance workers was considered, the union and administration worked together on a coordinated plan to save the jobs, but that this time it was different: “I don’t see any alternative plan on the table at this point, and it scares me. … We could try to tailor a plan out of the situation we’re in.”

During his public commentary time, Wilson said he was “here to review.” First, he asserted that data proves privatization is unsafe. He reminded the board that the company that hired a felon accused of sexually harassing a student still works for AAPS, and that two more contractors have been invited to the district since then with the same background check procedure.

Then Wilson addressed quality issues, saying that when he took time off to come speak to the board, there were three complaints about the subs covering for him while he was away. He reminded the board that a quality assurance committee was supposed to be set up two years ago, but that despite repeated attempts on his part, no one has approached him to set it up. Lastly, Wilson pointed out that privatization has failed in other places it’s been attempted, such as in Illinois, where a school district recently canceled its contact with a private company, and hired back its bus drivers.

Wilson closed with, “Ann Arbor’s always been a leader – why are we following?”

Community Responses to Budget Survey and Forums

Liz Margolis, district director of communications, and Jane Landefeld, director of student accounting and administrative support, presented the results of two community surveys conducted by AAPS . One was an online survey presented on the district website, and the second was a survey completed by community members who attended one or more of the budget forums held in January. The surveys were used to get community feedback on suggested budget reductions, as well as to collect additional input and new ideas.

Margolis began by cautioning that the surveys were “unscientific” because a single responder could have submitted multiple responses, or completed both surveys. Further, not all respondents commented in every are making the “total” number different for each category. The online Zoomerang surveys garnered 338 responses, and 519 surveys were completed at the budget forums.

Of the budget forum responses, 96% of them “supported” or “somewhat supported” the cost-saving and revenue-building options that had been presented at the forums. Margolis explained that all responses had been grouped into the following seven categories: instructional/academic programs, administration, facilities, extracurricular activities, transportation, new revenue, and other.

Instructional/Academic Programs Responses

Half the responses in this category revolved around curriculum and programming: 35% thought that teachers should make contract concessions, and should be held more accountable.

About 30% of responses focused on reorganizing schools, such as restructuring the school week. Margolis pointed out one example of a 50-50 split in responses, regarding 7th hour classes – half of the responses said to keep it, and half said to cut it.

Susan Baskett asked for clarification about which responses were being included in this presentation. Landefeld explained that she and Margolis were summarizing themes on which many people had commented, rather than listing comments present on only one or two surveys.

Administration Responses

Regarding administration, the largest chunk of comments were about the number of high school principals: 20% of responses included questions about why AAPS needs so many principals and 10% suggested reducing number, salaries, and/or benefits of all administrative employees. Margolis said that Student Intervention and Support Services (SISS) was mentioned often as a place to look for efficiency and savings.

Todd Roberts clarified for Glenn Nelson that SISS administrators are reimbursed by the state. Nelson then pointed out that the public needs to recognize that eliminating certain positions will not save AAPS money, due to reimbursement structures.

Facilities Responses

Fully half of the responses regarding facilities mentioned concerns with the number of schools currently being operated by AAPS, and suggested some closures, particularly Community High. Many suggestions were also made for ways to maximize schools’ energy efficiency. A greater percentage of forum participants were concerned with privatization than those who responded to the online survey.

Margolis told trustees that 31 of the forum surveys showed support for privatization of custodial and maintenance services. But Simone Lightfoot indicated that the number seemed high based on what they’d heard people say at the forums. Margolis responded that the reporting out heard at the forums was based on the group survey completed at each table, and that she was now offering summary data from the individual surveys completed. In response to the notion of closing Community High, Nelson commented that the board’s performance committee had discussed how people want the smaller, more comfortable environments often associated with charter schools.

Extracurricular Activities Responses

Margolis mentioned that a majority of responses support “pay to play” – that is, charging students a fee for participating in extracurricular activities, including but not limited to athletics. One-third of responses mentioned wanting to ensure the existence of scholarships for students who could not afford the fee. There were also many additional suggestions made to increase revenue, such as charging higher event fees, increasing fundraising, and seeking more corporate sponsorship.

Baskett clarified that “pay to play” really should be called “pay to participate,” since parents were not buying playing time for their kids. Deb Mexicotte pointed out the importance of delineating which programs should be considered “extracurricular,” giving the example that “music is actually academic.” Landefeld confirmed that the issue of distinguishing between academic and extracurricular came up in the surveys too, and that AAPS administration needs to make that clear. Margolis added, that “as a parent, we already pay.”

Transportation Responses

Around 40% of responses encouraged the use of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) to transport students. Discussions about that have already been initiated, according to district administration. Margolis reported that 25% of responses asked the district to increase the efficiency of bus service, 15% supported increasing walk zones, and 10% suggested charging fees for all busing outside of regular school hours.

Regarding privatization of transportation, the online survey results were fairly split. Of the 214 completed surveys that mentioned transportation in response to open-ended questions,  21/214 mentioned being in favor of privatization, and 17/214 mentioned opposing it. The forum survey responses were more opposed to privatization overall, but “not as black and white,” according to Margolis. Forum survey respondents cited concerns about liability, loss of role models, and ability to demonstrate cost savings. Landefeld said that overall, the comments on transportation services centered on being more efficient, and mentioned getting parents to commit to ridership as an example.

New Revenue Responses

Half of responses suggested charging for or increasing the fee for extracurricular events, school supplies, or textbook rental. About 40% suggested increasing the rental fee for school use outside of school hours, and also increasing the number and types of these rentals. Around 30% suggested working to increase “school of choice” students. Other suggestions made were to work for change at the state level, and use more parent volunteers.

Other Responses

The most common additional suggestion was to reduce salary and benefit costs, followed by re-examining high school programming options, and reducing or eliminating some schools.

Board Discussion on Community Responses to Surveys

Todd Roberts said that some of the community feedback reflected options that AAPS is already exploring. He also pointed out that the question of the number of schools would be part of a conversation conducted by the strategic planning committee, which is due to resume its work in April.

Glenn Nelson thanked the administration for pulling together the report, and said it would be very useful. He also mentioned that two of the suggested ideas that resonated with him were having an earlier start to the elementary school day to accommodate working parents, and to be in touch with Washtenaw Community College regarding setting up additional room rentals. Irene Patalan agreed that there were pieces of the report that “tap you on the shoulder.” She also pointed out the diversity of ideas presented, and that many of the responses conflicted directly with others.

Simone Lightfoot also thanked the AAPS administration for its work, saying “These online results were clearly different from what I saw at the town hall meetings.”

Susan Baskett asked Roberts to clarify for what activities AAPS can and cannot charge a fee. Roberts clarified that AAPS cannot charge for basic transportation to and from school, but that the district could charge for field trips. Similarly, Roberts explained, the district cannot charge for any supplies that students are required to have to do the work for a class.

A community member commented that she did not remember the online survey asking specifically about privatization, and Margolis allowed that it did not. However, she explained, at the forums, the community was asked to comment directly on the options presented, including privatization. Margolis also reiterated that the forum group survey and the forum individual survey were not the same, and agreed that the online and forum individual surveys did not line up exactly in their wording.

Final comments on the survey responses came from a community member concerned with what would happen to the children of district employees who currently attend AAPS if those employees are outsourced. He estimated that this situation would affect approximately 70 students. Some students are able to attend AAPS schools based a parent’s employed with the district, not residency in the district.

Deb Mexicotte answered first, saying that the question was interesting and that the board should take note. Roberts then began to answer, saying that there was nothing that would prohibit the board considering the issue, but before he could finish, Dave Comsa, assistant superintendent for human resources and legal services,  jumped up from his seat on the side of the room and asserted: “We [AAPS] should take a further look.” Baskett asked for clarification of board policy on the issue, and Roberts answered that currently in that situation, the student would leave with the departing staff member.

The meeting ended with Mexicotte thanking AAPS administration for the information it presented, and everyone who attended. She reminded community members that they were welcome to contact the board by e-mail with any follow-up information they wanted to share.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice-president Irene Patalan, secretary Glenn Nelson, trustees Susan Baskett and Simone Lightfoot. Also present as a non-voting member was Todd Roberts, AAPS superintendent.

Absent: Treasurer Randy Friedman

Next meeting: The next public meeting of the BOE will be a study session on March 8, at which the board will interview the eight candidates who have applied to fill the board vacancy left by Adam Hollier, who resigned earlier this month. The interviews will begin at 5:30 p.m., and will take place in the main conference room of the Balas administration building, 2555 S. State St.

Next regular meeting: March 10, 2010, 7 p.m., at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 4th floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]