The board action came at its Aug. 21, 2014 meeting, to bring the AAATA’s pension policy into compliance with Internal Revenue Service Ruling 2013-17 and IRS Notice 2014-19. Those IRS rulings give guidance on how to implement the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 to be unconstitutional.

This brief was filed from the AAATA headquarters building at 2700 S. Industrial Highway, where the board held its Aug. 21 meeting – due to the closure of its regular meeting location at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library building was closed to due to the repair of the public elevator.

Currently, commissioners are paid an annual base salary of $15,500 plus $1,163 (7.5% of their salary) that the county contributes to their pension. [Officers of the board receive higher salaries: $18,500 for the board chair (Conan Smith), $16,000 for the board vice chair (Alicia Ping), $16,500 for the Ways & Means Committee chair (Rolland Sizemore Jr.) and the working session chair (Yousef Rabhi).] In addition, each commissioner has a $3,550 “flex” account, which they can tap for mileage and per diem. [.pdf of 2011 flex account expenditures]

Dan Smith’s proposal calls for a base salary of $16,250 per commissioner, but would eliminate the county’s pension contribution. Each commissioner would also receive $2,813 in optional benefits, including a county pension match of $813 (5% of their salary), $1,000 for education and training, and $1,000 for stipends to replace mileage and per diem payments.

Overall, the proposal would cut total compensation by 5.7% per commissioner – from the current $20,213 to a proposed $19,063.

Due to redistricting, the number of board seats will shrink from the current 11 commissioners to 9 commissioners, as of Jan. 1, 2013. Combining the proposed compensation cuts with the reduced number of commissioners, Smith calculated that compensation for the entire board would drop from $222,338 to $171,583 – a 22.8% decrease. These calculations do not factor in the higher salaries for board officers.

Smith noted that county employees have been asked to pay a portion of their pension contributions, and that his proposal would do the same for commissioners. Also, having stipends instead of flex accounts would make the paperwork simpler, he said – stipends could be calculated annually, based on each commissioner’s committee assignments.

The goal is to bring forward a formal proposal at the April 4 meeting for discussion and an initial vote. Smith said he hoped to get feedback on the proposal from commissioners, but there were no comments made during the meeting.

This brief was filed soon after adjournment of the March 7 county board meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

These were not, as the initially published version of this brief indicated, the changes to the pension ordinance that had been described in a resolution passed at the city council’s June 6 meeting.

Under the planned ordinance changes for the future, for new hires after July 1, 2011, the final average contribution (FAC) for the pension system would be based on the last five years of service, instead of the last three. Further, employees would be vested after 10 years instead of five, and all new non-union hires would be provided with an access-only style health care plan, with the opportunity to buy into whatever plan active employees enjoy.

The council will need to give a second and final approval of the technical changes to the ordinance change, after a public hearing, at a future meeting.

At its June 6 meeting, the council had passed a resolution directing the preparation of the ordinance change for non-union employees, and expressing an aspiration to eventually extend the same policy to union workers. At that meeting, chief financial officer Tom Crawford stressed that the potential savings to the city would not be realized immediately, but rather five to seven years in the future.

Also at the June 6 meeting, mayor John Hieftje attempted to head off potential criticism that such a policy should have been enacted sooner, by pointing out that the city had reduced the size of its work force over the last several years and had made few new hires in recent years.

In response to a request from The Chronicle, the city provided data on new hires made by the city since July 1, 2006. Of those 121 new hires, 49 are non-union positions; they would have translated into savings had the policy been enacted five years ago.

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