Roger Fraser, others asked to take a pay cut by Ann Arbor City Council
The Ann Arbor City Council is asking City Administrator Roger Fraser and other top-level administrators to show leadership in tough times by taking a pay cut.
"In this time of budget challenges, City Council wishes to convey at the earliest time possible its desire for the city administrator and city senior management to take a leadership role in making budget reductions," reads a resolution on the council's agenda for Tuesday.
City Administrator Roger Fraser is being asked to show leadership by accepting a 3 percent cut to his base salary, which means about $4,361 for him.
File photo
The resolution asks that the base salary of both Fraser and City Attorney Stephen Postema be reduced by 3 percent, starting July 1. It also asks that the base salaries of all other non-union employees be reduced by 3 percent.
Fraser currently receives a base salary of $145,354, while Postema makes $141,538.
The resolution further asks that health benefits for all non-union employees - including Fraser, Postema, and other administrators - match those proposed in labor negotiations with the city's unionized workers.
Fraser declined to comment on the issue when contacted by AnnArbor.com this morning.
"Obviously I think this is an effort to pressure the city administrator into acting on changing the salary levels for the non-union staff," said Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward. "It's to get the city administration to lead from the top."
The resolution asks Fraser and Postema to report back to the City Council by April 1 on the listed directives.
The resolution is being sponsored by Council Members Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward, and Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward.
"The reason it's being brought forward now is to essentially give clear direction to Roger Fraser as he begins to develop his budget for this coming fiscal year," Rapundalo said. "I think at least Marcia and I firmly believe that we all need to be drinking out of the same cup here in so far as doing our part to make sacrifices for the budget. And I think it's hard for us to reach out to the bargaining units and ask them to consider being open-minded about various aspects of their contracts when the non-union folks haven't stepped up and demonstrated leadership in this regard."
Rapundalo said he expects there to be some discussion Tuesday about whether the council's resolution should serve as an advisory to Fraser or whether it should mandate that there be 3 percent cuts. But in any case, he said, Fraser should consider it a "very strong directive" that all city employees, even those at the top, need to be a part of the cuts being made to balance the budget.
Higgins and Rapundalo point out a majority of council members have vowed to take a voluntary 3 percent pay cut. A draft of the resolution asks that the remaining two council members who have not done so - Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, and Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward - give up 3 percent of their pay.
The resolution, if approved, also would move the City Council's $5,600 travel budget for the current fiscal year to the general fund, along with Mayor John Hieftje's $550 travel budget. And in next year's budget, there would be no allocation for travel for the council or mayor if the resolution is approved.
Briere said she applauds Rapundalo and Higgins for their effort to clarify what's expected of the city's administration during the budget process. But she thinks the resolution is premature and should be postponed until March 1.
Briere said she's concerned endorsing a 3 percent across-the board cut for all non-union employees is the wrong move. She thinks top-level administrators - the decision-makers who earn $90,000 to $150,000 a year - can absorb a greater reduction than the bottom tier of employees.
Tom Crawford, the city's chief financial officer, shared new information with council members this past week, showing what 5 percent and 10 percent salary reductions would mean for the top three tiers of management in the city.
A 5 percent reduction, Crawford said, would save the city $78,000 in the general fund and $138,000 across all city funds. A 10 percent reduction, naturally, would double those savings.
The city faces a $5.2 million deficit in the general fund heading into next year and is discussing ways to trim an $81.3 million expense budget to meet projected revenues of $76.1 million.
While reducing expenses has dominated the discussion so far, momentum is building around the idea of a city income tax, which could bring in more than $7.6 million a year in new net revenues to the general fund.
Council members also are taking a closer look at a Headlee Amendment override. According to Crawford, the question could go to voters in August with either a council resolution or a citizen signature drive. If approved, it would restore city millages - which are reduced each year under Headlee - to their approved levels, which could bring in more than $6.1 million a year starting in July 2011.
Briere, who says she is in the process of authoring a white paper on the city's budget proposals, has asked that - instead of staff reductions and layoffs - more consideration be given to the possibility of instituting furlough days. Crawford responded in a memo to the council that while furlough days are one way to reduce costs, they do not necessarily make sense in every organization.
"In the city’s case, it would not address the root economic issue the city is facing which is the need to permanently reduce its cost structure," he said. "Furthermore, furlough days would be very difficult to implement across the city because of the varying hours of operation, equipment deployment, and fixed staffing schedules. This makes the description of service delivery impact very difficult to articulate." Additionally, Crawford said, 75 percent of the city's labor force is represented by unions, so furlough days would have to be negotiated with each bargaining unit.
All contracts for the city's larger unions, except AFSCME, are open. Crawford said AFSCME has been asked to open its contract but is under no obligation to do so.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Really?
Wed, Feb 24, 2010 : 8:25 a.m.
Good ole snapshot with his anti union crap. Let's see... the mayor asked every city department, union and non-union, to take a 3% pay cut to help fix the deficit. The FD voted and took a voluntary 4% cut and only asked the city to stop closing fire stations. BTW, we originally offered Fraser 6% if he would not keep closing fire stations. Turned that down. So... we took a 4%. Still higher than what the mayor asked for. What of the other unions taken? Nothing. How about any of the non-union departmnt? Nothing. Fraser and city council? Nothing. But yet snapshot continues to bash the FD for taking a pay cut and wanting to keep fire trucks in service. Hey smart guy, where's all your anti non-union bashing for those that refuse to take a cut? Where's your bashing of Fraser and the council? Right... instead come down on the small workers that tried to help the mayor by honoring his request. You don't get it... attitudes like yours in management is EXACTALLY why unions exist. To protect workers against ignornace, you know, and leaders making bad decisions, then putting the burden on the lowest city workers.
snapshot
Mon, Feb 22, 2010 : 6:15 p.m.
BornNraised, you mean I'm not as objective and persistent in my beliefs as you are? Independent says you guys are just frustrated with management trying to steamroll over you all the time. You've got to take a firm stand so they don't take advantage of you. But I should lay down and let unions steamroll over me? Not a chance. I'm going to keep calling them like I see them. Unions just aren't use to management not having any taxpayer money to give out. I'm taking advantage of that forced position to help give them some backbone to take a hardcore approach to any union negotiations. There are folks making 7.00 dollars and hour who are glad to be employed and unions are screaming over 4% cuts.
AlphaAlpha
Sat, Feb 20, 2010 : 12:46 p.m.
Mr's Stanton and Cahill - Will you please provide additional details regarding the postponement of the resolution to cut pay? Council members "had received a variety of concerns"? No doubt they did - likely from the very folks who brought us this fiscal emergency. Our budget crisis is worsening daily; it is worse than official numbers suggest. Compensation levels need to be reduced, starting at the top. It seems there is substantial popular support for this measure. What happened? When can we expect the resolution to be re-introduced? Also, please, the key metric is total annual compensation.
snapshot
Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 12:39 a.m.
It's good to see some real discussion starting instead of insulting commentary by individuals. There seems to be somewhat of a "reaching out" for understanding. I'll buy into that type of discourse. Here's a couple of perspective issues that need to be on the table. 1. 4% is nothing in terms of a pay concession compared to what's happening in the non union world. And it is temperary to boot. 2. Not every safety worker is a hero. It seems society has contributed to this attitude. A single mother working in a restaurant for 2.60 per hour plus tips while keeping her children fed and clothed is a "hero". She'd run into a burning building for her children without union representation. 3. The constant union bashing of Fraser's position serves no purpose particularly when it is obvious there is a lack of understanding in budget principles in the critisizm. 4. When Fraser's position becomes available I want to see how many saftey folks apply for his position. I would suspect not many would meet the required qualifications. I know I don't and I have dgrees too. 5. There seems to be a total disregard for the common taxpayer by these safety folks. It's like nothing matters but the "brotherhood" but yet you fault others for voicing their principles and values when in conflict with your own. 6. I think your salary are "inflated" by common standards. I find these salary comparisons are dependent upon other government salaries and not "civilian" equivalents. I'm sure saftey workers will disagree but I was a professional and I didn't make 60-85 grand a year. I dindn't have a defined pension plan either. And when my company ran out of money I was out of job. No outplacement, no buyout, no job bank, no taxpayer bailout, and you guys think you gave up the world with a 4% concession? It's a joke to me and comes off as being really arrogant and blind to what's really happening in the world around you. In my mind you are insulated from reality and have been "institutionalized" through your employement opportunities at taxpayer expense. 7. That unions fails to even recognize these issues is insulting to the "heroes" who are weathering a real storm in a rowboat while you guys are on a cruise ship watching them struggle. 8. There is a growing disparity between "Haves and Have Nots". Government workers are "haves" being supported by many "have nots". Look how upset you guys are at 4% reductions. Just imagine how those unemployed taxpayers feel who still have to pay taxes on their unemployment stipend, their properties, and don't forget the city charter that calls for 2mills of property taxes going to YOUR pensions. I think you guys need to be very grateful for what you have and not condencending.
AlphaAlpha
Wed, Feb 17, 2010 : 8:10 p.m.
"City Council postponed action on this resolution indefinitely last night." Can you please elaborate on this? If the numbers provided are accurate, our city deficit is growing at a rate of over $14,000 per day; the true rate is likely much greater. Watch for city officials to soon be 'surprised' by a dramatic increase in red ink.
David Cahill
Wed, Feb 17, 2010 : 9:34 a.m.
City Council postponed action on this resolution indefinitely last night. Councilmember Rapundalo said he and Councilmember Higgins, the co-sponsor, had received a variety of concerns. There is no way of knowing when, if ever, this resolution will reappear.
Independent
Wed, Feb 17, 2010 : 2:45 a.m.
Retired Detective Kinsey - may I choose the topic of your next article? The wear and tear that police and firefighters have on their minds and bodies over the course of a 25 year career? Stress, back problems, post traumatic stress disorder, burns, smoke inhalation, vehicular crashes, foot chases, fights with intoxicated or high individuals, lack of sleep, needle sticks, being shot at, being attacked or charged by groups of people who outnumber us by 50-1, or being struck on I- 94 while assisting an accident victim. Please - no levity in that article. The public that we protect needs to know what the many trade off's are for our "average pay." Again - I am NOT complaining - I love serving the public! But, please enlighten the readers on the inherent risks and wear and tear that come with the jobs. Perhaps some of the bloggers here will realize that we do much, much more than polish fire trucks and write speeding tickets!
Independent
Wed, Feb 17, 2010 : 2:25 a.m.
Mr. Stanton: I was not being flip in my last sentence of the last post. Since collective bargaining is at a standstill between the City and the Unions - perhaps you can be our negotiator? Please ask Mr. Fraser if he will reduce his salary to $85,000 per year + health care. No bonuses, no extra vacation time that can be cashed in etc. He has stated in many forums that safety services make too much money and cost too much to insure. If he truly thinks $60,000 - $85,000 is a large sum ora case being over paid- he should jump at the chance! If he accepts - I will personally present and push for our union members to take the voluntary 3% cut that the City wants. Yes- Mr. Fraser will say he is heavy with responsibility - but so are police and firefighters. Our split second decisions can mean life or death - literally. Mr. Fraser has the luxury of figuring, re-figuring and scratching numbers for months on end before a decision is made. So who really has responsibility on their shoulders? So, please, I implore you in all seriousness - propose this to him - we'll be waiting for his response!
Independent
Wed, Feb 17, 2010 : 1:10 a.m.
Having never posted here before- I will state that I am an Independent voter and a safety services employee. Snapshot - you may be right that Really turns people off with the rhetoric - but I see Really's point...it stems from frustration. The "City" who is run by Democrats are really Republicans in sheep's clothing when it comes to employees. Safety services workers i.e. police and firefighters in this community are well educated. Most have a bachelors degree at the minimum. Mr. Fraser does not like having educated, articulate employees because he can be challenged or in worst case "exposed" on his inconsistent values and management techniques. Therefore, he keeps public information at a minimum and feeds the press inaccurate items. Beyond that, the City Safety Services employees are forbidden to speak to the press unless they hold a top union position. Yes - the average employee is very frustrated. We know in advance when we choose these jobs -- that they are dangerous. But we become educated and trained to do the best we can-in the safest manner that we can. Our job IS to serve the public under the worst conditions. Not everyone can do that...it takes a different breed - if you will. And A2 Citizens...fires and gun play take place in Ann Arbor. Please don't fool yourself. Ann Arbor is not a Utopia. We have worked very hard at keeping this a safe community. With all that said - $60,000 -$85,000 a year (average firefighter and patrol officer wage) is on par with other professionals who have education and tenure or longevity in a job. We are not complaining about doing dangerous work - but do want to be compensated fairly for it. The City management makes sport out of making us look like bay guys for that. So, Mr. Fraser since you think that we are over compensated and overpaid - I propose that you reduce your salary to the average firefighter's or patrol officer's salary and I will be glad to take a decrease in my pay. Deal???
stunhsif
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 11:38 p.m.
@snapshot, You are 100% correct, it doesn't matter what the hidden FD or PD folks post here. Bottom line is this. Doesn't matter much what you and I think or the union folks think. This airplane is in a downward spiral that ain't gonna stop until it hit's the ground and blows up. The taxpayers will get there way sooner or later, hopefully sooner rather than later, but it will be sooner or later!
AlphaAlpha
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 9:42 p.m.
Our AAFD heroes deserve much credit for their offer of compensation reductions. Leadership? Responsibility? Absolutely. I'm quite embarrassed for our city's top management for not doing the same. Leadership? Responsibility?...Hello? It seems that city council members could gain much political traction by strongly encouraging their subordinates to accept an immediate compensation reduction.
CityFF
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 9:25 p.m.
@snapshot You are right, unions are here only to protect workers from management. Its to keep a good balance between management and the workforce. We see management making choices the negatively effect our membership as well as a potentially dangerous situation for the citizens. As far as the no lay off clause its for a reason. We asked management what kind of cut we needed to take to make up the budget deficit for the rest of the year. We took the necessary pay cut to keep staffing levels where they are. In return we ask for that they don't turn right around and cut staffing levels anyways. Without a no lay off clause they can take the pay cut from us and layoff staff anyways.
Lynn Lumbard
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 6:51 p.m.
"The Ann Arbor City Council is asking City Administrator Roger Fraser and other top-level administrators to show leadership in tough times by taking a pay cut." This article was about city administrators being asked to take pay cuts, how has it turned into being anti-union, anti-firefighter? The AAFD has already agreed to a 3% pay cut.
snapshot
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 6:28 p.m.
Really, you don't provide anyone with facts, only self promotion rhetoric with nothing substantial behind your rants and attack on those "evil administrators" your union can't put in their pocket. You are single handedly, with your insults, attitude of entitlement, innuendo, and holier than thou position, are helping turn more and more folks against union domination of our tax dollars. Even the weak administrators are growing a backbone to stand up against the unions. The union days are numbered and you are helping to expidite their demise with that condencending attitude of yours. You mention the increased fees but all you did was use acronyms and made unsubstantiated statements based on non public information and then arrogantly "told" me you were looking out for my best interest. Like I believe that! You still didn't address the "no layoff" demand. What are you afraid of? Get it out on the table. "Tell" me how that contract clause is "for my own good". Come on guy, get real. I mean really, quit trying to promote your self interest politics, inside information, lack of transparantcy, and personal attacks of anyone who doesn't share your "world according to union entitlements" as a public service. You need to spend some time in the "real" world without that union suit of armor. You keep ranting about all the money the city has and is spending on other things instead of your precious "entitlement" list. It's not going to wash anymore.
kkichikawa
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 5:05 p.m.
Perhaps Really? can correct me if I'm am wrong but I believe Act 312 ALSO prevents those affected from "going on strike?" So if that IS the case, we could get rid of Act 312 and then police officers, firefighters, solid waste collection workers could go "on strike" while "bargaining" their contracts i.e. auto workers. So if you have space to store your garbage and have time to wait for a police officer or firefighter to respond from another jurisdiction who has a settled contract, well then, be careful what you wish for!
Moose
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 3:59 p.m.
I venture that most people who bash unions wish that they had the rewards that come with collective bargaining. But even so, the power of collective bargaining is small compared to the economic and political power of any bureaucracy, be it corporate or public.
Awakened
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 3:36 p.m.
Good point, ed. Wouldn't that apply to all employees? You get what you pay for. I still think that reducing staff makes more sense than reducing wages and benefits across the board. Someday we'll need to hire and we will want top prospects; not just for administrators but for engineers, equiptment operators, cops and firefighters too. Reducing pay and benefits consonant with current market trends is appropriate to negotiate. Simply slashing to meet budget could be short-sighted.
ed
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 3:20 p.m.
Regarding Sabra Briere's comment; "She thinks top-level administrators - the decision-makers who earn $90,000 to $150,000 a year - can absorb a greater reduction than the bottom tier of employees." The compensation of the decision makers should reflect their level of expertise and experience as well as be competive with whom AA competes for such talent. To target them individually because they can "absorb a greater reduction than the bottom tier employees" is a step towards "From each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs". Perhaps Ms. Briere wishes to pay all employees the same?
Really?
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 2:58 p.m.
Snapshot, having an opinion is not why I have a problem with you. Creating false statements without knowing, or wanting to know the fact is the problem. You made the statement that we wanted to charge residents for services, then belittled us of that statement. Everytime I provide you with the facts behind your opinion, you fire off comments like the one above. Never "I wasn't aware of those facts", "Thanks for clearing that up." Instead tangents are generated. You made a statement regarding what we were trying to do and twisted it to fit your anti-union attitude. Why do I think you hate unions? You just said we should all be abolished. Gee, I think you may have answered your own question there sport. Have your opinions, it's a free country. But there's a different between opinion and lies. I'll keep providing the facts. You go ahead and keep providing your 'opinions'. It's entertaining for the rest of us, I just don't think you realize that yet.
snapshot
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 2:11 p.m.
Hey Really, you sure like to throw that "hate" word around a lot. Just because I have an opposing viewpoint and can defend it with facts that you refuse to recognize, twist, and not even address (no layoff policy) you throw out hate words, ignorance, unsubstantiated facts, while providing none of your own. Your only arguement centers on an attitude of union entitlement. Government unions now outnumber private unions. Why? Private corporations are profit motivated and dependent so unions have lost jobs in record numbers. Those are lost tax dollars that support government unions whose numbers are not being reduced because you are supported with tax dollars distributed by individuals who are not profit motivated or dependent upon eficient productivity for their monies. The monies come from tax coffers and are distributed freely. What these government managers call negotiations is a financial joke. You make it seem like I've got a "hidden" agenda. I'm not hiding at all. I think government unions need to be abolished. They serve no one but themselves, and we can all see what thats done for the citizens(think auto unions now supported by tax dollars). So since we're on different sides of the fence I will continue to voice my opinions in an objective, intelligent, educated manner. Not with "hate" or ignorance. If you can't take the heat, maybe you shouldn't be a firefighter.
Awakened
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 1:39 p.m.
Re Act 312. The last 312 in A2 was the (now expired) police contract. It is on the State website. Roger Fraser represented the City on the Arbitration Board. Here is the link: http://turf.lib.msu.edu/awards/pdfs/awards/r2265.pdf The City filed for arbitration, not the Union. The City won every issue except base wages. Why? Here's an excerpt from page 10 of the ruling: "This conclusion, as to the financial stability of the City of Ann Arbor, is based upon the fact the City, to their credit, has not relied upon an argument of its inability to grant wage increases to its Police Officers." Here are the results: Healthcare - City won - $500 deductable and increased co-pays, etc. Doubletime call back - City won - Officers no longer get double time when called back to work w/in 8 hours of their shift. Longevity Pay - City won - Longevity pay frozen at $500/yr after 5 years service Pension Contribution - City won - No change Wages- Union won - 8.5% over three years. The city's offer was 8.5% over three years. The only difference was whether the first year (2.5%) was to be a lump sum or a rate increase. So the big loss that Fraser and Hieftje complained about was that one year of wages was a pay increase instead of a lump sum. They filed 312...they won. They get to blame the Act for perhaps not asking for the right things. Politics. Know what kool-aide you are being served.
Really?
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 1:38 p.m.
@Snapshot, you've done nothing but bash the FD in every comment, but yet you have no facts behind what you say. Yes, the FD did want to be able to charge for medical services. INSTEAD of HVA. Have the FD transport patients. That way, the FD could charge residents a LOWER rate than what HVA charges. But more importantly, did you know HVA will ALWAYS charge for ALS (advanced life support) service, even if you need a simple BLS (basic life support) ride to the hospital? The FD is trying to provide a win-win. Change the revenue stream from HVA to the city and at the same time lowering the cost to the residents. Yet you wish to condem us for that. I know you hate unions. That's been clear from you whether it's schools, police, or fire. But put your hatred off to the side long enough to see what the FD is trying to do to HELP YOU! Lower your payments for medicals while creating revenue for the city. How can you possibly be against that?!?! Did you also know that when the FD extricates someone from a car, that the FD doesn't charge for that, but HVA will stand there and check their little box on their billing form and collect money form your insurance carrier for service they didn't perform. Your hatred blinds you to what people are really doing to help.
snapshot
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 1:30 p.m.
Firefighters were also the only city agency to recommend they charge residents more for their services and wanted a guaranteed no layoff policy. That kind of attitude is offensive and indicative of a union entitlement to be obnoxious. These union members just continue to bash city officials while not contributing in any practical way to help solve the problem because they are the problem. Unions have outlived their usefullness and are now stifling creativity, production, and economic responsibility in the workplace with their arrogant and abusive attitude towards the taxpayers who support them through the union welfare system.
ltpgb1998
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 12:29 p.m.
I would like to comment to "irritated" - would you really be upset to see that a police officer or fireman makes decent money - of which they do not - Fraser would never put his life in danger for you, but our respected police officers and firemen do - that is where I think this whole country is wrong. Why do we pay pencil pushers the big money when the people who really deserve the money never get it. Fraser should go to into politics - he knows how to screw people and get away with it.
AACity12
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 11:10 a.m.
The reason there are unions and Act 312 and unions ability to strike is so employers can't spend millions on unneed projects and then expect the employees to pay for it. Thats exactly what Fraser is doing here. Everything you would see on those W2's has been negotiated and agreed to by your elected officals. Keep that in mind when you vote.
irritated
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 10:29 a.m.
Fraser has a tremendous amount of responsibility and should be paid accordingly. Perhaps we need to look at the W-2's of the Firefighters who are about to get laid off, I would be willing to bet there salaries are higher than you think. Remember these are the fore runners in this pay cut mess, thats probably because they have the most to give....
Moose
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.
Act 312 binding arbitration does not apply to all municipal unions. Disputes between AFSCME and the City are subject to mediation, then arbitration and the results are rarely determined to be binding. In fact the City continues to appeal the decision of a state appointed arbitrator even though he decided, after lengthy negotiation, mediation and arbitration, that his decision was binding on both parties.
stunhsif
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 9:15 a.m.
Why the delay and all the "posturing"? The longer they "do nothing", the longer it will take to get the budget under control. They need to cut salaries and benefits for both union and non union to the point that the budget can be balanced or do it in conjunction with staff reductions. Not a difficult thing to do just no one has the guts to do it.
logo
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 9 a.m.
The city budget starts in July, they solved the problem for the current year, without layoffs so the budget is balanced. It's next years budget that needs adjustment. Local governments in Michigan are highly unionized and many can go to Act 312 binding arbitration where the govt. always loses. Lansing needs to change this. The city can't snap its fingers and have the unions fall in line.
AlphaAlpha
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 7:26 a.m.
Thank you to the Council members who sponsored this resolution. Right idea; but inadequate. 1. 3% of 'base pay' is not enough. 2. These reductions should be instituted today, not later. 'Base pay" is misleading. Total compensation is the key metric. Perhaps they meant 3% of total compensation? Why wait until July 1 to enact the reductions? Do we not face a crisis? Waiting will worsen the budget situation. Who wants that? The Council could direct the Administrator to reduce all compensation effective immediately - that means now. And all means all, every single earning from the City of Ann Arbor. The compensation reductions should be at least 5.8%, not 3%. A 5.8% cut now will put a hold on the crisis, buying valuable time. Once these reductions are in place, it will be far easier to institute the same reductions across the entire city worker population. Also, taking this action now should facilitate renegotiation with myriad city suppliers. If we show we've given up something, it will be easier for them to do likewise. But, that's for another discussion. We need to act quickly; we are at of the economic downturn continuing. If that happens, the current deficit will balloon dramatically, and the choices will become much less palatable.
belboz
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 6:49 a.m.
Lanlords pay property taxs. Students pay rent to the landlord. So, indirectly, they pay the taxes. The University does not pay taxes. That is the void. But, believe me - if the university was not here, Ann Arbor would be just anoher Michigan city that has been devestated by the influx of foreign vehicles in America. So, lets focus on having the city work within the means. Revenues of $350 million per year should be enough to keep things moving. If not, they need to go bankrupt.
racerx
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 2:31 a.m.
Oh, this should be some good drama! If Fraser does take a pay cut he'll figure out some way to get the lost money back. Thus, him not giving an answer. Lead by example? Yea right, good luck with that! Moose, you're (as always) spot on mate. Cut some of the bloat of managers who make over $75K and don't contribute to core functions of the city, nor to the departments they work in. For years, those union employees have had to learn skill sets of other duties to double up and become more efficent, but the same managers who've implemented these changes weren't. Even in the Utilities Dept., McCormick has a right hand girl that does nothing but stroke Sue's ego. Again, no core job function, just more bloat. The cuts should be based across a scale based on salary as Bellhelment outlines. Seems pretty fair. Though a Headless Admentment is best for the long term as oppose to a city income tax.
logo
Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 12:02 a.m.
You've done it again Karen. Used (some of) the numbers to make your point. But wait, aren't there 10's of thousands of students who live on campus and pay no property taxes? Wouldn't it make sense that with 40% of the land off the tax roles everyone who does pay taxes would have to pay more? Doesn't A2 have the highest school taxes in the state? And doesn't the city receive less than 30% of the taxes paid? Doesn't A2 have a huge parks system (what the people want) to take care of compared to other cities? None seem able to answer the question: Are all of the cities in Michigan that are struggling, mismanaged? As for the new buildings, except for the $275,000 for the police and courts building, they don't take money from the general fund.
irritated
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 11:28 p.m.
Born and raised stop exagerating and listen to Sandman, he has a valid point. Its time for restructuring in the public safety sector of the city. ( Fire/Police)
AlphaAlpha
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 10:41 p.m.
Alpha: What you are suggesting is a 5.8% reduction in salary AND benefits, which is effectively a much higher reduction for the workers. Although this is one way to balance the budget (I haven't run the numbers but assume you did your math correctly), do you think that it is fair to effectively tax just the workers to keep your current services the same? Perhaps the more fair way is a 6% across the board cut in the expense budget if politics gets in the way of eliminating programs/projects or other cost-cutting measures. Hi 1bit - Fair? No. Very little about the current situation is fair. A lot of things went wrong to get us here... I like your idea; I'd like to know more about it. Your 6% across the board would save more than 5.8% across wages would; we'd have a surplus then. Wages are an obvious choice only because it's clear that our city workers earn more than their peers do nationally. I don't like the thought of wage cuts at all; but it almost certainly will happen. By the way, salaries could stay unchanged if benefits were reduced appropriately. Probably the entire defined benefit plan should be changed to a defined contribution plan. This is another emerging trend nationwide, one we should probably prepare for. But that's another discussion...
AlphaAlpha
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 9:56 p.m.
the system is broken. its really broken, sad to see but the city dilemma of having less of a tax base to support them. this cut will need to be done for union and non union positions. Agreed. This is not about whether one is represented or not. Sadly, economic conditions are such that new taxes of any kind will likely be soundly rejected by voters. With income reduced, expenses must be cut. I believe most people would rather see wage reductions than layoffs. This is about addressing a very serious problem. So serious, nationwide, that a number of cities are actually preparing to enter bankruptcy. Should we as citizens steer our future? Or let a bankruptcy judge decide? I vote for the citizens...
AlphaAlpha
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 9:41 p.m.
Fraser currently receives a base salary of $145,354, Misleading? Is it misleading to claim a base salary of $145,354, when total compensation is $209,552? $209,552 is what the city pays; it is what it is: total compensation. Clearly shown on page 3 of the City of Ann Arbor Position Summary by Fund How about truth in compensation numbers? Please?
AlphaAlpha
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 9:32 p.m.
Hello Thick Candy Shell - Here you are: The 2010 Budget Book, page 105 (p. 117 of.pdf), lines 1 and 2, FY2010 column, shows: requested pay of $55,519,965, and requested benefits of $59,426,234; those lines total $114,946,199. From that, subtract the $25,432,710 for retirees shown on page 354 (page 375.pdf), line 2, column FY2010: $114,946,199 - $25,432,710 = $89,513,489 total 2010 compensation for current city employees. When that amount is shared by 766 city employees (per page 62/page 72.pdf), it provides $116,858.34 for each employee for 2010. Thanks for asking. If you can run the numbers better, please share...
bruno_uno
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 8:20 p.m.
the system is broken. its really broken, sad to see but the city dilemma of having less of a tax base to support them. this cut will need to be done for union and non union positions.
a2phiggy
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 8:08 p.m.
FOUR MONTHS of paid vacation? are you kidding me? Reinhart Realtors, here I come. This is simply ludicrous.
Thick Candy Shell
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 6:57 p.m.
@alphaalpha, Not sure what the average actually is, but where are you getting your number of around $116,000? I am not saying it is right or wrong, just trying to figure it out.
AlphaAlpha
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 6:38 p.m.
If anyone can run the numbers better than those shown: http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/income-tax/ please do. It would appear that the entire budget deficit can be eliminated without any layoffs by reducing the average total compensation of 766 city workers by 5.8%, from $116,858.34 to $110,069.83 per year. With that reduction, they would be still be paid 23.3% above the national average of state and local government workers.
brad
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 6:19 p.m.
Real savings come through reorganizationthe city likes consultants (Library Lot RFP, ZORO, A2D2, etc.). Why not hire the two Bobs, I ask with seriousness. Fraser oversees a city of 100,000 with a $350m budget; important jobs deserve important wages. Without knowing who does what and what they might do otherwise, its hard to say what the how much ought to be.
AlphaAlpha
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 5:56 p.m.
Instead of simply discussing pay levels, should we be discussing total compensation levels?
James
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 5:18 p.m.
@Sandman--I think your idea sounds kinda cool, like a superhero in disguise. Mild mannered city employee, weeding the parks...jumps into his John Deere mower, spins around in a blur and jumps out in his Ann Arbor Police uniform wielding a.357. I'd like to see that...do you need to remove the blades before speeding across town?
Karen Sidney
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 5 p.m.
Ann Arbor should be better off than most cities in the state because we get more taxes per person than other cities in the state, including those that have an income tax. The treasury page of the state website has audits for all Michigan cities, which include information on total taxes and population City administrator Roger Fraser claims to have saved 25 million from reduced staff but I have not seen drastic salary reductions in the reports filed with the IRS.
logo
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 4:38 p.m.
By the way, it is illegal in michigan to require employees to live in the city. If it were legal tomorrow, 90% of the fire fighters and police would have to move in.
logo
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 4:26 p.m.
The city did reorganize and if you were following the last budget session you saw that it is saving $25 million per year. Fraser does not make any more than city managers of other cities, not that much much more than the manager of Ypsi and it is way smaller. If you look at other cities you see that A2 is doing better than most cities in the state. And none of them have 44% of the land off the tax roles like in A2. The millage in A2 is still lower than it was 10 years ago, they have not raised taxes. Its the economy stupid. It stinks and all the schools and governments are hurting. I do not understand why the constant critics here insist there is some kind of mismanagement in Ann Arbor when most of the cities in the state are in worse shape. Grand Rapids, the shining Republican city of the west just cut 143 jobs, 59 in police and fire. Is Grand Rapids mismanaged? How about Troy, Kzoo, Holland, Lansing, Ypsi., etc. Are they all mismanaged?
James
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 4:13 p.m.
We all saw the result of taking concessions...right Ann Arbor Fire Fighter? It's easy to attack the one in charge and point out the lavish compensation package that he actually earned, along with comparing the city employees benefit package with the private sector. When times are good, no one wants a government job or government pay and now that times are bad, everyone is quick to pick at the government pay and benefits. The job is real and the compensation package is actually well deserved, so please look at cutting programs not wages.
Moose
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 3:39 p.m.
I applaud the work that community standards workers do, but the entire concept was a talking point proposed by Hieftje and council members up for election, and set up to be a source of revenue, not to actually clean up messy student districts or get people to shovel their sidewalks. Fraser, along with council and Hieftje, preferred increasing revenue by fines and fees instead of actually living within their/our means. The point remains. For all the financial problems the city has seen for the last several years (under Fraser's guidance), and even after he was given bonuses and extra paid days that calculate into his annual compensation, his pension and buy out package, Fraser had to be asked to take a pay cut. A real leader would have stepped up and done it themselves, without any fanfare and without being asked.
Moose
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 3:16 p.m.
The City has close to 30 employees making $100,000 or more. Some of them are unnecessary and bureaucratic "insulators" between Fraser and the front line workers. They're just another layer of highly paid bureaucrats that contribute little to the actual performance of vital city services. Eliminating just 10 of those positions could yield about $1,000,000 annually in real permanent budget cuts and not just reductions in wage and benefit costs. Janelle's right, just cutting wages and benefits will not fix the structural problems with the budget. The problems are caused by spending money we don't have, going into unnecessary debt and basing financial forecasts on rosy speculation. Chickens were counted before the eggs were even laid. But in Fraser's case, at least it's a start in getting rid of spiraling corporate CEO pay levels that have no place in public service. If anyone wants to make big dollars then go work in the private sector as a bank or insurance company CEO. If you want to serve the public, the place you live and call home, then do it for the right reasons and not have an attitude that perpetuates values and ethics that have no place in public service. Oh, and if anyone decides to work in public service, make sure you actually live and pay taxes in the city you serve. And really participate in being part of the city. It really makes it looks like you don't care and we all know that perception is reality. Ann Arbor folks place a premium on that kind of loyalty and dedication. Is Sue McCormick listening? NEXT!
Sandman
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 3:14 p.m.
@BornNRaised--that's why we would need the bare bones staff for instant response. When an emergency call is made, backfill the absence with a call to the lawn mower guy. Minimum staffing is a decision for higher, but we sure do not need a full staff of fire engine waxers and police officers writing speeding tickets to those actually earning money by hurrying to their next job. A good Community Standards Officer will generate more $$ than it cost the city to employ him/her and they are considering laying off a few.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 3:06 p.m.
3 percent raise retroactive... 3 percent raise retroactive... 10 extra vacation days...one-time payment of $8,479... lump sum payment of $4,361 and five extra vacation days.... lump sum payment of $3,634 and the ability to cash out 150 hours of vacation, sick or personal time.... an additional 120 hours of paid time off before June 30, 2010. and he gets a pay check too? I've been posting semi regularly here at A2.com. I think its time you guys gave me my first "lump sum payment". Where should I pick it up?
BornNRaised
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 2:46 p.m.
@Sandman, if you're having a heart attack, house is on fire, home was broken into, or had a minor fender bender on the way to work, do you want to wait for a FF or police officer to get out of a dump truck, plow, or zero-turn, get changed, get into the correct vehicle, and THEN come to help you? Believe it of not, there is a reason that the system is setup the way it is. "All units, all units, B&E in progress, subject armed."... "Dispatch, we're in the middle of the park mowing the lawn right now, tell the caller to get their description and we'll get there when we can."
BornNRaised
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 2:41 p.m.
A comment was made to the effect of "get ready for Fraser to get a job out of state". Per LinkedIn: City Administrator - Ann Arbor, Mi (2002 - present 8 years) City Manager - Blaine, Mn (1996 - 02 6 years 4 months) City Manager - Loveland, Co (1993 - 95 2 years) City Manager - Englewood, Co (1989-93 4 years) Doesn't have a long track record in cities. Wonder why that is.
Sandman
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 2:41 p.m.
Why not train existing existing employees (non-fire fighters) to be fire fighters, then you could lay off more fire fighters. Call on the volunteers when needed, in the mean time they are being productive in other parts of the city, waiting for the call. Do the same for basic police officers. Train a reserve staff from the existing employee stock and call on them when the need arises, then you could lay off more police officers. Do that with all of the jobs you can and shift them as often as you need. The only difficulty would be finding someone that could juggle the staff adequately. You tried that with the Solid Waste/Street Maint./Utilities (FOT-IS)jobs, but those jobs are needed all day every day; the emergency services are needed sporadically, so let them be productive somewhere else until you need them. Of course you'll always need the bare bones staff.
VelhoSorriso
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 2:30 p.m.
Briere is on to something: those who earn $90,000 to $150,000 a year can absorb a greater reduction than the bottom tier of employees.
kenUM
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 2:24 p.m.
Mr. Fraser, lead by example! This is your chance to put your money where your mouth is!! If you expect the rank and file to take this hit, then man up and start with your own pay check. Kudos to City Council for suggesting this. The fact that Mr. Fraser has chosen not to respond to the A2.com request suggests that he may not think this is a good idea. BTW, have you figured out how to operate a Fire Truck yet?
cook1888
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 2:18 p.m.
I am sure Mr. Fraser believes he deserves his salary, unlike the rest of us who are being forced to take cuts in income. Perhaps the taxpayers (who pay his, and the others of his ilk, salary) should just eat cake.
Sandman
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 1:45 p.m.
@Janelle--You've hit the nail right on the head. Do not reduce wages; re-organize and cut unnecessary staff.
Sandman
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 1:35 p.m.
Wage cuts are not the answer for funding this city's functions and services. Ann Arbor is known for providing city funded functions, great residential services that can be enhanced with a phone call(complaint) and human service funding; this is what the resident's want and who can blame them. It's time to pay the actual cost for those things and the residents do not wish to pay any more in taxes...here in lies the conundrum. Cutting employee wages is more of a outward appearing "Good Faith Effort", but not significant enough to make a difference. Maintaining current wage structures is important in maintaining morale and that equals a more productive workforce. Wages are a major portion of cost, but you can not cut someone's wages enough to make a difference without also cutting the person's desire to perform. The answer is to stop funding the unnecessary services and let some entrepreneurial spirit have a chance to provide that service on their own: golf, swimming, baseball fields, science projects, nature areas. Do we really need to own and maintain as many residential buildings as we do right now? Want to cut wages? Eliminate ALL supervisors and managers; let the hourly workforce do what they already know and let them work out any troubles on their own. The trouble employees always make themselves known, then you can get rid of them.
bear
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.
How can city council expect the leadership that they hired to lead by example when the entire city council can not do that. Until the complete council is ready to lead by example then they might as well jump in that millon dollar fountain.
Janelle Baranowski
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 1:22 p.m.
Pay cuts are nothing more than political posturing. Real savings come through reorganization leading to a reduction in employees.
MjC
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 1:11 p.m.
I can see where this one is going. Rather than take a pay cut Fraser will secure a new job out-of-state. Rapundalo and Higgins will then approve $30,000 to pay a consulting firm to conduct a replacement job search. The favored candidate will demand an annual salary of $150,000+ not to mention additional perks and the budget still won't get balanced. It's all good.
Moose
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 12:56 p.m.
Fraser's refusal to even mention, much less offer to cut his own pay before asking anyone else to do the same, tells us volumes about him as a person and how he views public service. He acts just like the billionaire CEO's we watched testify before Congress in the last year. His management style is right out of corporate America's playbook, something we've been experiencing for the last year. Cut jobs, cut wages, cut services, privatize, bust unions, play fast and loose with the budget, blame everyone and everything else while exempting himself and then, when it's crunch time, leave it to a timid Board of Directors to "suggest" he take a nominal cut. Don't forget to base the terms of his golden parachute on his new salary (if council actually has the guts to follow through).
Zwinka
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 12:52 p.m.
Council members are congratulating themselves because a few are taking a voluntary 3% pay cut? That's ridiculous. They should waive at least half of their stipends, if not all.
Andrew Thomas
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Frasier might learn a lesson from AAPS Superintendent Todd Roberts who, without waiting to be asked or pressured, took a voluntary pay cut of 8%. That's how you lead.
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 12:33 p.m.
For those keeping score, I outlined Roger Fraser's pay history in a previous article. Fraser was hired in 2002 with a salary of $133,000. In December 2004, he received a 3 percent raise retroactive to July 2004. In December 2005, he received a 3 percent raise retroactive to July 2005 and 10 extra vacation days, which can be exchanged for cash. In February 2007, he received a one-time payment of $8,479, plus a life insurance policy worth twice his salary. In November 2007, the City Council approved a lump sum payment of $4,361 and five extra vacation days. In October 2008, the council approved giving Fraser another lump sum payment of $3,634 and the ability to cash out 150 hours of vacation, sick or personal time. This past November, Fraser's contract was revised again to include a clause that allows him to cash out an additional 120 hours of paid time off before June 30, 2010.
Moose
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 12:19 p.m.
Because of the bloat of highly paid managers, their actual numbers and their wages, most of them instituted during Fraser's tenure, all wages cuts should be progressive with the highest paid taking the largest reduction.
belboz
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 12:15 p.m.
I thought they were looking for 7% savings from every department. So... Why not 7% from salaries? But, at least it is a start...
uawisok
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 12:13 p.m.
My white collar sister and fellow workers in the private sector have taken 15% pay cut and working omly 4 days a week....that's the benchmark for these 6 figure folks IMO....doubt they will do it though..LOL!!
Moose
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 12:09 p.m.
Finally! Now lets's see how long it takes and watch the posturing and pontificating by council and Fraser. Don't forget the perks and "bonuses"!