Jo Mathis

My father, the quirky, crusty, and surprisingly sentimental Don Collins, went to bed the other night and never woke up.

At 84 and in failing health, he was set to move to an assisted living facility in two weeks, never again to enjoy my mother’s cooking or daily attention. Instead, he slipped away on the sunny Thursday between my daughters’ birthdays, reluctant, it would seem, to ruin their days.

My mother, siblings and I quickly drove to St. Joe’s, where our initial grief was gradually tempered by quiet acceptance. A social worker suggested we each spend time alone in the room with him. His hand was still warm as I said goodbye.

My father had asked for cremation, which took place that night. Nine days later, after the rest of the family had flown in, we greeted friends at the church immediately before the funeral, where his tearful grandchildren and great-grandchildren placed flowers beneath the chest containing his ashes.

A brief military service honoring my father’s service in World War II was followed by lunch in the church social hall, where my mother and brothers told funny “typical Don” stories. Then some friends and all the relatives came to my house for the rest of the day.

There was no embalming, casket, or sad music in an unfamiliar funeral home. We seven Collins kids never agree on anything. But we wouldn’t have changed a thing.

There’s no one right way to handle a death, or anything else. But this felt right to us.

People facing the death of a loved one should know there are options, said Merilynn Rush of Dexter, who believes after-death care has been taken out of the realm of normal experiences.

“We’ve handed it off to undertakers,” said Rush, a consultant to families interested in after-death home care. “Whereas everyone used to take care of their loved one at home – they’d lay out the body in the front parlor and they knew what to do and were involved in it. Now people die in hospitals and the body’s taken away and cared for by someone else. That’s not the most natural way to grieve or handle it.”

It’s not for everybody, Rush is quick to say. But for some, especially those who’ve been caring for a loved one at home while they’re dying, continuing that care after they’ve died for a few hours or days seems natural.

“Funeral homes discourage public visitation without embalming for aesthetic reasons,” said Rush, a former home birth midwife. “And so caring for the body at home – as long as you’ve cleaned and cooled the body – allows out-of-town relatives to get there. They can come and say good bye in the familiar surrounding and comfort of a home, rather than having to pay for a viewing at a scheduled time.”

It also allows for more personal expression.

“You can place photos, flowers, mementos, make the atmosphere in your own home the way you want,” she said. “People can gather around and share stories, laugh or cry, share food. Kids can be around. It’s a very natural setting. Not a generic, impersonal environment of a funeral home.”

The funeral home personnel are required to sign the death certificate and transport the body to final disposition, either a cemetery or crematorium. The total cost can be as little as $700 for cremation, said Rush, comparing it to at least $8,000 for typical funeral home care involving embalming, a casket, and viewing hours.

So far, Rush has helped one local family with after-death home care.

“It was just so natural,” she recalled. “When the grandchildren came by, they were able to see the body and get it – that she had died. It wasn’t traumatic for them. They’d touch her, then they’d go out and play. It was familiar, and the family was all together.”

Sharon Bailey in her bed at her daughter's home, a few weeks before her death. Her grandsons are in the room with her. (Photos courtesy of Beth Barbeau.)

That family belonged to Sharon Bailey, 72, who died of bone cancer Nov. 2 at the Ypsilanti apartment of her daughter, Laura Bailey. Laura, along with her sister, Beth Barbeau of Dexter, had been caring for Sharon in their homes for several months.

After Sharon died, Rush gently guided Barbeau and Bailey in what steps to take next. The sisters washed their mother’s body, then applied fragrant salve and dry ice to strategic parts to help preserve it.

Over the next two days, friends came over, brought food, shared stories. Sharon’s body was in the living room, resting in the same bed she’d shared with her husband as a newlywed. The grandchildren wrote love notes which they tucked in her hands. The Threshold Singers visited, as they had before Sharon’s death.

On Thursday morning, the family finally felt ready to say goodbye.

“We looked at each other, and realized we’ll never be done grieving, but we don’t need her body to do it,” said Barbeau, a home birth midwife.

Because they didn’t want her body out of their care, they then accompanied the body to the crematorium two miles away. And stayed til the end.

A memorial was held a month later at the Webster United Church of Christ. Afterwards, friends and family gathered for a potluck at Barbeau’s natural family store, Indigo Forest in Scio Township.

The sisters agree the entire process was much more natural and healing than the death of their father eight years earlier in Illinois.

“By the time we got there, he was already at the funeral home, embalmed and naked under a sheet,” said Bailey. “It was so unnatural; so weird. It put it into perspective for me as to what I didn’t want for myself.”

Bailey said having hospice care for her mother meant home care after death was a natural progression, and she credits Rush for helping them through the grieving process, and knowing what to do, when.

“It was an amazing experience,” said Bailey, who works as a doula. “We didn’t know we were doing something so different that would affect so many people, but it seems to, and we’re really grateful.”

Barbeau believes that being with her mother’s body for a “winding down” period after death allowed her to come to terms with her passing.

“People think they’ll be protected from the rawness of death if they create distance,” she said. “But we were less hurt, less disabled from my mom’s death because we were so close.”

Merilynn Rush is forming a local support group for people interested in after-death home care. For information, contact her at her website. You can read more about the after-death care of Sharon Bailey here.

Merilynn Rush guided the family in caring for their mother's body at home. After washing her, they oiled her skin with a fragrant rose salve made by their friend Annie Elder of the Community Farm of Ann Arbor.

Laura Bailey holds the hand of her mother, Sharon Bailey, after Sharon's death.

Love notes for Sharon Bailey from her family, tucked into her hands after death.

From left: Merilynne Rush, and sisters Beth Barbeau and Laura Bailey.

About the author: Jo Mathis is an Ann Arbor-based writer.

Tom McMurtrie, left, is the city's solid waste coordinator. Jim Frey, right, is CEO of Resource Recycling Systems, a consultant for the city on recycling.

The two separate resolutions correspond to the two facets of the new recycling system for Ann Arbor, which will be deployed in July 2010.

One resolution revised the contract with Recycle Ann Arbor (RAA) for curbside recycling pickup to reflect the single-stream character of the system. Residents will no longer place paper and containers in separate 11-gallon stackable totes to be hand-emptied by RAA drivers.  Instead, residents will put all their recyclable materials into a single rollable cart with a lid. Drivers will operate a robot arm from inside the truck to lift and tip the single cart’s recyclable contents into the truck.

The other resolution approved by the council authorized a contract with RecycleBank to implement an incentive program for residents, based on their participation in the recycling program and the average amount of materials recycled on their route.

Both the conversion to the new system and its associated incentive program came under criticism  during public commentary. During council deliberations it was the incentive program that was given the most scrutiny by councilmembers – with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) voting against it. The contract with RAA was given unanimous support from the nine councilmembers who were present.

The arrangements with RAA for collection and with RecycleBank for the incentive program are separate contracts with separate entities – the single-stream system could be implemented without the incentive system. But it became apparent during council deliberations that the idea that the city council might opt for a single-stream system without the incentive program was not something city staff had planned for: The single-stream carts are already molded with labels “Earn rewards for recycling.”

Background on City Council History with Single-Stream

Monday was not the first time the city council had contemplated the single-stream issue. The council heard a presentation at its Oct. 12, 2009 work session on the approach, including the incentive program for residents to set out their new single-stream carts for collection.

There was some initial confusion in the community about how the carts equipped with RFI (radio-frequency identification) tags would factor into the incentive program. Trucks will not weigh each individual cart as its contents are collected. The RFI scan simply measures participation of a household on any given day, and that participation is then assigned the average weight of all participating carts when the truck is weighed at the materials recovery facility (MRF).

At its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting, the council authorized upgrades necessary for the materials recovery facility (MRF) – some additional processing will be required to separate the materials, given that items will arrive mixed together. And at its Dec. 21, 2009 meeting, the council authorized the purchase of four new trucks, plus 33,000 carts equipped with RFI  chips.

The authorized total of capital investments – around $6 million – was made with reserves from the solid waste fund, which receives revenues from a dedicated millage. The increased volume of recycling expected from the single-stream system is expected to benefit the city’s balance sheet in two ways.

First, every ton that can be recycled instead of landfilled will save roughly $25 in tipping fees at Woodland Meadows in Wayne, Mich., where the city buries its trash. Second, the more recycled material that the city can collect, the more material it can sell on the recycled materials market. The estimated payback period for the investment is contingent on how the market for recycled materials plays out. The city is projecting that if the market stays in the mid-range for performance, the payback period for the investment will be about six years.

Who’s Who in Ann Arbor Recycling

At the podium at different times during the city council meeting were a range of people representing various organizations. Tom McMurtrie is the city’s solid waste coordinator. He was joined much of the time at the podium by Jim Frey, CEO of Resource Recycling Systems, a consulting firm.

John Getzloff is the representative of RecycleBank, which will have the contract to administer the incentive program. RecycleBank’s parent company is called RecycleRewards, and reference by speakers at the meeting varied between these two entities.

Melinda Uerling is the executive director of Recycle Ann Arbor – its current contract for dual-stream collection was amended Monday night to accommodate single-stream recycling collection. Recycle Ann Arbor is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ecology Center, an Ann Arbor nonprofit.

Single-Stream Public Commentary

Kathy Boris spoke against the adoption of a single-stream curbside recycling system. She said that the true business of the city government is to provide services, which included collection of recycled materials, and that the current system is providing good service. She contended that the current two-stream system is working, and that she was not aware that it was deficient. The cost savings associated with a single-stream system, she said, were offset by the need to purchase new cards, trucks, and add staff at the materials recovery facility. The current economic down time, she said, was the wrong time to undertake this system.

She cautioned the council that the point of recycling is not to achieve great volume, it’s to be able to sell what you have collected so it can be manufactured into products that people will buy. She warned that even with additional processing of the material that is mixed through the single-stream approach, you will still get contamination. She questioned whether it was in the best interest of the city to sacrifice quality in the interest of increased volume – it jeopardized the city’s ability to close the recycling loop by selling the material.

Rita Mitchell began her remarks on the single-stream recycling system by saying that she had found some money for the budget – she asked the council to vote no on the two resolutions before them concerning single-stream recycling [One resolution authorized a contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to perform the curbside collection, while the other authorized a contract with RecycleBank, the vendor that will be implementing the incentive program.]

Mitchell told the council that they would save up to $6 million by voting no. She suggested using the funds instead for police services and park maintenance. Mitchell acknowledged that adding additional types of plastics to the set of materials that are accepted is a good idea, but not one that is worth the $6 million investment. She also asked what would happen to the batteries and the oil, which are currently picked up curbside. With the $3-per-car entry fee now imposed at the city’s drop-off station, she warned that batteries and oil would wind up going to the landfill.

Mitchell cautioned that the incentives offered through RecycleBank could lead to increased consumption of unnecessary things, which was counter to the goals of recycling. She also objected to the roughly $200,000 annual cost to administer the program. She characterized the incentive program as a marketing project for tracking consumer behavior. Comparing RecycleBank’s slogan of “recycle, redeem, reward” to the one that’s more familiar to recyclers, she asked, “What happened to ‘reduce, reuse, recycle?’” She cautioned the council that they needed to look at the entire waste stream picture and that the goal needed to be a reduction both in solid waste and recycling.

Responding to the idea that the time has come for single-stream recycling, Glenn Thompson allowed that it had come … and gone. After careful study, he said, Berkeley, Calif. decided to retain its two-stream system. The University of Colorado had also recently concluded that the negatives associated with a single-stream system outweigh the benefits and had made a decision to stick with the two-stream system.

Those decisions, he said, were made this year, based on the quality of the resulting materials. Thompson reminded councilmembers that Ann Arbor has a 90% participation rate in curbside recycling for its two-stream system and has a 50% diversion rate. At the same time that the council was planning to spend $6 million on a speculative program, it was considering canceling loose-leaf collection, eliminating holiday tree collection, and had already imposed a $3 fee to enter the drop-off station. Thompson, like Mitchell, characterized the RecycleBank incentive program as a “marketing campaign.” Thompson called on the council to make this the watershed issue, the one where the council says no to an unnecessary “pet project.” He asked the council not to spend $6 million to benefit consultants and contractors.

Lou Glorie during public commentary on single-stream recycling.

[Later, during council deliberations, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) would question the connection that was made by some speakers during public commentary between the elimination of the loose-leaf collection and holiday tree pickup on the one hand, and the implementation of single-stream recycling on the other.]

Lou Glorie made her remarks during public commentary reserved time in the form of a skit in which she played both roles. It was a household conversation about recycling after conversion to a single-stream system. She included a mixing bowl as a prop, into which she dumped various materials. She then mixed them together, symbolic of what would happen to materials in a single-stream system.

RecycleBank’s Incentive Contract

Councilmembers had several areas of concern – from the 10-year length of the contract, to the need to have an incentive program at all. From the staff memo providing the rationale for the incentive program:

Based on data collected from comparable communities around the country, it is estimated that the single-stream program without RecycleBank would increase recycling rates about 28%, from 357 pounds per household per year to 457 pounds. This increase will be due to both the convenience and higher capacity of the new single-stream cart, as well as the additional materials that will be collected in the program. For example, all plastic bottles and tubs (except #3 and styrofoam) will be accepted under the new program.

With the RecycleBank incentive program, it is estimated that those same recycling rates will increase from 357 pounds to 752 pounds, or over 200%. The attached chart compares that 752 pound figure with other similar communities that are currently enrolled in the RecycleBank program.

Even at 752 pounds per household per year– a 200% increase in volume compared to current levels – Ann Arbor would be a fairly middle-of-the-pack RecycleBank client.

Here's how Ann Arbor's recycling performance is projected to stack up against other communities after implementation of the RecycleBank program. Ann Arbor's is the leftmost column. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

A chart supplied by RecycleBank shows five other cities that collect more than 800 pounds per household per year.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) led off council deliberations with a question about the length of the contract for RecycleBank: Why was it a 10-year contract for something that’s a new program?

Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste coordinator, explained that it was based on the significant investment in technology and capital equipment required to install the RFID recognition equipment. Higgins also pointed out that the contract was for $200,000 per year over the course of the 10-year contract. She asked, “Why do we feel like we need to have this?” She put her question in the context of the already high rates of participation and recycling by Ann Arbor residents.

McMurtrie allowed that Ann Arbor residents did in fact have a high rate of participation. But he pointed out that communities like Rochester Hills and Westland, which had implemented single-stream cycling together with the incentive program associated with RecycleBank, now surpassed Ann Arbor residents – measured in terms of pounds of recycled material per household.

Jim Frey said that the length of the contract was related partly to the interest in cultivating the long-term loyalty of merchants who participated in the incentive program through coupon offerings. The idea was to use the incentive rewards to lower the cost of living for residents. The idea was also to have a longer-term relationship between residents and merchants.

In terms of Ann Arbor residents’ recycling performance, said Frey, they are no longer in the top 25% – “really not that great, to be honest with you.” The idea was to bring the performance, measured in terms of pounds per household, back into the top 90th percentile. He concluded by saying that Ann Arbor did have good participation rates, but that the performance was not as good as communities that had implemented incentives with RecycleBank.

Higgins asked if those other communities that had implemented RecycleBank, like Rochester Hills and Westland, had also converted to single-stream recycling. Frey confirmed that those two communities had implemented single-stream along with RecycleBank.

Higgins wanted to know if Ann Arbor’s recycling performance could be expected to bump up some anyway, just due to the implementation of the single-stream system, independently of any incentive program. She wanted to know what Rochester Hills’ and Westland’s performance in its two-stream system looked like before implementing the single-stream system, plus the RecycleBank incentive system.

Rochester Hills’ numbers for the two-stream curbside system were around a 30% participation rate, with around 150-200 pounds per household, Frey said. Now their participation rate was around 80%, with around 650 pounds per household. Westland, which previously had no curbside recycling, is now showing recycling levels of 800 pounds per household – roughly double the amount recycled in Ann Arbor, he said.

Higgins responded to an example from Frey of a community going from 30% to 80% participation through RecycleBank by pointing out Ann Arbor’s 80-90% participation rate with the two-stream system. Tom McMurtrie countered that it’s not just about participation but rather the amount of materials. Higgins asked when the 80-90% participation rate had last been measured for Ann Arbor in a two-stream curbside recycling program. McMurtrie told her it had been several years ago.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) focused on the idea that there will be an increase in recycling performance simply due to the conversion to a single-stream system, but there will be an additional increase from the RecycleBank incentive rewards system. McMurtrie confirmed that the conversion to single-stream itself – which included more kinds of materials (plastics), and increased volume of the curbside container – would result in some gains. But the incentive program, said McMurtrie, which really “gives it that shot in the arm.”

Noting that Ann Arbor was not the first to lead the way by implementing an incentive program like RecycleBank, Hohnke asked what that boost actually looked like. John Getzloff of RecycleBank reviewed the Westland and Rochester Hills program and added the example of Cherry Hill, N.J., which had increased its recycling levels from 600 pounds per year to 900 pounds per year. Getzloff told the council that RecycleBank operated in 20 states across the country, including large cities like Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Chicago.

Frey suggested that in analyzing Ann Arbor’s situation, they estimated that 500 pounds of recycling per household could be attributed perhaps to just having a bigger container. There were many communities that had implemented single-stream recycling with carts only, and generally they achieved between 450 and 550 pounds of recycled materials per household. Hohnke then concluded from that discussion that the city could be confident there would be some additional boost from having the RecycleBank incentive program.

But he noted that the incentive program came with a cost – $200,000 per year. Against that cost had to be weighed the savings in tipping fees for the landfill. Asked Hohnke, “If you do the math, how do they compare?” Frey indicated that for every additional ton of material that was recycled, a savings of $25 would be realized. Through the sale of the material, there would be a benefit, as well. They projected that over the next five years, the incentive program would cover its costs.

In addition to that, Frey said, the value of the incentive rewards to each household would average around $250 worth of rewards a year. With 28,000 carts, that reflected a $7 million benefit to the community, he said. Hohnke concluded from this that implementing the incentive program over the course of five years would save the city money.

Higgins wanted to know what the ratio of renters to homeowners was in the communities that had been used for comparison, noting that there were 45% renters in Ann Arbor. Getzloff explained that the benefit of the rewards program came to the resident, not necessarily the property owner. If people moved within the city of Ann Arbor, they would take their accounts with them.

Higgins also came back to the fact that it was a very long contract. What if, two years into the contract, it is not working for the city, she wondered? McMurtrie replied that RecycleBank had been around since 2004 and therefore they had a history. Higgins came back with the point that it was not as long a history as the contract the council was being asked to sign. McMurtrie noted that the city had the ability by the terms of the contract not to fund the program.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that on the chart that had been provided to councilmembers, curbside recycling levels increased dramatically but flattened out rather quickly over the five-year period that was estimated. Frey accounted for that by saying that there was a built-in conservatism in the estimates.

Smith asked about the possibility that utilization rates did not improve over time. Getzloff indicated  in that case, they would do additional outreach in the community. Frey pointed out that it could be a very targeted outreach because they would know exactly which households were not participating in the program. Smith elicited from Getzloff that the merchant partners for the incentive program would be a combination of national and local partners and that there would be a $540 cap on benefits to any one particular household. The cap is a way to prevent people from trying to cheat the system – by loading their carts with materials other than recyclables.

Mayor John Hieftje said he was intrigued by the incentive program and wondered if it would be possible for the community to use the coupons to support local nonprofits like Food Gatherers. Getzloff indicated that RecycleBank’s main focus was on their Green Schools program and other national charities. Support for local charities was not in the contract that the council was considering. Hieftje characterized the incentive program as a good investment.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked who collected the data on recycling tonnage. McMurtrie clarified that it’s collected by trucks and is then uploaded to RecycleBank’s system.

Kunselman reflected on the fact that the roughly $200,000 per year over the life of the 10-year contract represented $2 million. He established that the escape clause for not funding the program was slightly less than $200,000 a year – to cover the under-appreciated capital investment in the trucks. In light of that, Kunselman wondered why it was necessary to have a 10-year contract. Getzloff indicated that there were a variety of term lengths for RecycleBank contracts and that the best price came with the longest one – a 10-year contract.

Kunselman returned to the topic of Ann Arbor’s already high 80-90% participation rate. Based on the chart that had been handed out to councilmembers, Kunselman wanted to know how much of the doubling of recycled tonnage could be attributed just to the implementation of the single-stream system independently of the incentive program.

Frey went through a chart that showed how estimates of the current level of 5,084 tons – for single households in Ann Arbor – would rise to 10,708 tons in the second year of the program. Of those 5,624 extra tons, fully 4,201 were attributable to the incentive program.

Kunselman also questioned whether the city would in effect be paying twice for the educational efforts of both Recycle Ann Arbor and of RecycleBank. McMurtrie replied by saying that “We’re all in this together.” RecycleBank, McMurtrie indicated, is simply a new layer.

Kunselman then asked whether there were examples of RecycleBank in other college towns. Kunselman said that he was not sold on the idea that the city needed incentives as opposed to more education. Getzloff said that the incentive program educated people by keeping the idea of recycling foremost in their minds. Kunselman responded by saying that he had a difficult time believing that with a 80-90% participation rate by people who were conscientious about recycling, that a dramatic gain like Getzloff was describing could be possible.

Frey indicated that he’d been in the business of recycling almost 30 years and that communities spend millions of dollars in education, and that it’s different for each person and different for each household. What’s different about the incentive program, he said, is the common interest that it defines. He stressed that it works, and it’s amazingly effective.

Frey indicated that there were University of Michigan students who were really interested in doing a pre-test and post-test of the system. So Kunselman asked if it was possible to delay implementation of the incentive system for one or two years to see how well the conversion to single-stream worked with just the educational efforts of Recycle Ann Arbor.

McMurtrie responded by saying that the city council had already approved a purchase order for 33,000 carts and that the carts have in-molded labels saying that there would be rewards. Kunselman expressed his objection to the idea that they were putting advertising for RecycleBank on the carts. McMurtrie indicated that it was not advertising, but rather the phrase: “Earn rewards for recycling.”

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) clarified that the escape clause in the contract was designed to cover an investment that had not yet depreciated. He wanted to know how much that investment was. It boiled down to $20,000 per truck, plus installation of equipment at the materials recovery facility (MRF) – a computer that would download data to Recycle Ann Arbor. The cost of recruiting incentive rewards merchant partners, sending a team to educate people and funding the Green Schools program is just the cost of doing business, confirmed Getzloff.

Taylor then segued into a discussion of what exactly RecycleBank’s business model is. He wondered how they could offer $7 million in benefits based on a $200,000 per year payment from the city. Getzloff clarified that the $7 million reflected a co-spend, and that it was essentially costless to them. The parts of the incentive program that cost RecycleBank money are gift cards, movie tickets and the Green Schools program, Getzloff said. Taylor concluded from Getzloff’s remarks that the primary benefit to RecycleBank is from having the contract with the city. The heart of RecycleBank’s business model was the customer satisfaction of the city of Ann Arbor, Taylor said: “We are your customer.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) offered an amendment that stipulated that in three years after implementing the program, the city administrator would report back to the council on its effectiveness. Higgins’ amendment was unanimously approved.

Mayor John Hieftje asked McMurtrie if there was any reason to believe that the incentive program would cause people to buy more stuff. McMurtrie said he could not see that happening. He noted that there is a cap on how much you can earn from the rewards program. He stressed that the city’s first message was to reduce.

Outcome: The contract with RecycleBank for an incentive program for recycling in connection with the city’s new single-stream program was approved, with dissent from Stephen Kunselman.

Recycle Ann Arbor Contract

Also before the council was a contract revision with Recycle Ann Arbor, which currently collects recyclables curbside in a two-stream system. The key revisions to the contract are as follows:

The contract currently pays $19.30 to $102.58 per ton (depending on the annual tons), as well as $2.41 per service unit, with a total of 48,886 service units.

The proposed amendment modifies the provisions for compensation to RAA and extends the contract for an five additional years. The amendment will pay a revised rate of $18.74 to $30.00 per ton, as well as $3.25 per cart, which will replace the per service unit fee. The number of carts in the city will be lower than the number of service units because most multi-family service units will share carts. It is estimated that the new program will start with 32,800 recycle carts.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off the counci’s deliberations by reading a statement of support for the resolution from Margie Teall (Ward 4), who could not attend the council meeting.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) raised the issue of the connection that some of the public speakers had drawn between the implementation of a single-stream system and the possible elimination of the city’s loose-leaf collection program and its holiday tree drop-off. She asked for confirmation of her understanding that the leaf collection program was simply inefficient.

Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste coordinator, confirmed Smith’s understanding of the loose-leaf collection system. Sue McCormick, public services area administrator, said the loose-leaf collection system was something the city had talked about for a number of years – it generated a very large number of complaints, due to the fact that there were challenges inherent in timing the collection to coincide with the dropping of leaves from trees in any given season.

The unpredictable first snowfall was also a factor, said McCormick. Raking leaves into the street for pickup – a key feature of the loose-leaf collection program – in areas where there was on-street parking was particularly problematic, McCormick said. [At the council's budget retreat in December 2009, McCormick had said about the loose-leaf collection program: "We cannot do it well."]

A second reason for eliminating the loose-leaf collection program, said McCormick, was to contain costs – the city expected around a $450,000 reduction from the solid waste millage revenues in the coming year. It would be somewhat cheaper – by about $100,000 per year – to move to a containerized system for leaf pickup. Smith drew out the fact that the city would continue to pick up leaves, but simply require that they be placed in paper bags or in one of the city’s compost carts. McCormick said that some residents had found it useful to place leaves in the compost carts over several weeks, instead of the all-at-once approach inherent in the loose-leaf collection program.

The rationale for the single-stream system, said McCormick, was to provide a higher degree of service with a payback period of around six years for the capital investment. Each of the programs – loose-leaf collection and single-stream – stood on their own, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said the initial approvals for the switch to single-stream recycling [authorization for the MRF upgrade, for example] had come in November 2009, before he served on the city council, so he wanted to get a clearer understanding of the general issue.

How do we have employees of a private vendor driving a city truck with a mechanical arm to pick up recycling, and also city workers driving city trucks with mechanical arms to pick up solid waste, Kunselman asked. He said he was a former driver for RAA and just wanted to get a clearer understanding. Kunselman also wanted to know: When did the contract actually end, given the five-year extension?

Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste coordinator, said that until 1991, when he first began working for the city, the contract with RAA was sole-sourced. In 1991, the two-stream system was implemented – McMurtrie said he went out to bid for that system. In the time from 1991 to 2003, that contract was bid out three times. In 2003 they converted to the current performance-based contract, which ends in 2013. The extension for five years would put the end date in 2018.

The compensation for RAA drivers compared to city workers, McMurtrie said – once the better benefits for city workers were factored in – worked out roughly as follows: $19-20/hour for RAA drivers; $35/hour for city workers. McMurtrie said that the city was looking at the idea of privatizing the solid waste collection system as well. Melinda Uerling, executive director of RAA, confirmed McMurtrie’s information on lesser benefits associated with RRA driver compensation – there are health benefits, but no retirement system.

Melinda Uerling, executive director of Recycle Ann Arbor, and Tom McMurtrie, the city's solid waste coordinator.

Hohnke addressed the concern about the possibility that RecycleBank incentives would cause greater consumption, so he drew out the fact that RAA’s message continued to be to reduce, reuse, and recycle, with recycling one of a three-part strategy. Uerling confirmed that this was part of RAA’s message. They focused their message on recycling, she said, whereas RecycleBank would be focused on their rewards system.

Hohnke said there were financial, environmental, and quality-of-life benefits to the single-stream system and he would be supporting the move.

Prompted by Hieftje to explain the change in compensation in the RAA contract, McMurtie said that there was previously a rapid step-up in the per-ton compensation after 10,000 tons, with the idea that RAA would need to add staffing after that tonnage level. With the new single -stream system, he said, they will have already achieved those efficiencies, and it would not be necessary to ratchet up the compensation rate at such a fast rate.

Hieftje also elicited from Frey the fact that the market for recyclables was starting to recover and that Ann Arbor was able to move all of its collected material on the market.

As an example, Frey said, cardboard was in the low 100s [dollars per ton] before the market crashed, and now it was in the 150s.

Hieftje also elicited from McMurtrie and Frey the fact that batteries would no longer be collected curbside under the single-stream system. This is a function of the fact that drivers will no longer be climbing outside of the trucks to pick up batteries and oil.

Hieftje said that one of the advantages of the carts for recycling, as opposed to the two-stream totes, would be an improvement in the “clean look” of the city. He said that in his neighborhood, residents had started setting out their two-stream totes for collection that evening, and there was already cardboard that was starting to blow around.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked about the fact that around 35% of the materials that go through the MRF come from the city of Ann Arbor. The other 65% come from other communities. Frey indicated that in the future the city’s tons would amount to a greater percentage and that the merchant tons would need to find another facility. The MRF would continue to be a regional facility, Frey said, but the relative proportion of the city’s material would increase.

Kunselman asked if monthly data on the materials collected could be provided so that the city could “see how we’re doing.” McMurtrie indicated that more frequent reports on the data was an issue he’d been thinking about – currently the figures are reported annually as part of the city’s State of Our Environment Report.

At the conclusion of the deliberations, Kunselman and Hieftje engaged in a bit of recycling one-upmanship. Kunselman had previously cited his experience as an RAA driver. Hieftje cited his service on the RAA board. Hieftje then quoted an unnamed person who had helped to start RAA – to the effect that recycling needs to be as easy as putting out the trash. Kunselman noted that the unnamed person was his ecology student teacher at Pioneer High School – he’d been inspired by him at a very young age.

Outcome: The contract revision with Recycle Ann Arbor for curbside recycling was approved unanimously.

A Question To Be Recycled

Publication of this part of the meeting report was delayed while The Chronicle sought the answer to a question related to the incentive program – which is still not answered, but we plan to cycle back to it at a future date.

The question relates to how well Ann Arbor residents stack up against other communities that have a RecycleBank incentive program. While the 90% participation in Ann Arbor’s curbside program is high, Ann Arbor’s per-household figure of 357 pounds per year doesn’t stack up favorably with the more than 600 pounds that Rochester Hills residents are achieving.

What was not part of the council deliberations, or in the information that city staff provided to them, however, was the pounds-per-household data for material that goes into the landfill.

When comparing Rochester Hills to Ann Arbor, the 600 pounds versus 357 pounds is part of the story. The other part of the story is the X pounds per household that Rochester Hills throws into the landfill, versus the Y pounds per household that Ann Arbor throws in the landfill.

Our question, currently being handled by city staff, is this: What are X and Y?

To see that getting the answer to the question is not just a matter of diversion rates, consider two communities, City A and City B. City A recycles 500 pounds per household and throws 1,000 pounds into the landfill. City B recycles 750 pounds per household and throws out 1,250 pounds into the landfill. City B outperforms City A in terms of its pounds recycled per household (750 is more than 500) and also outperforms City A in term of diversion rate (37.5% is better than 33%).

Yet there is some sense in which City B is doing a “better job” with resource management – there’s only 1,500 pounds of material carted away from the curb in City A, versus 2,000 pounds in City B.

From Rochester Hills we obtained the roughly one year’s worth of data since April 2009, when the city implemented its RecycleBank program: 6,054 tons of recycling, 16,261 tons of landfilled trash, and 6,397 tons of compost. Those amounts are collected from 19,350 households.

In the most recent article for The Chronicle written by Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, on the city’s environmental indicators, the breakdown for Ann Arbor’s residential waste only was 28% recycled, 46% landfilled and 26% composted.

Based purely on that breakdown, it looks like Ann Arbor’s performance on diversion rates might be better than Rochester Hills, even though its pounds-per-household recycling numbers are not as good. What we’re still checking is whether the Rochester Hills data we have and the numbers from Naud’s article really reflect an “apples-to-apples” comparison. To the extent that Rochester Hills data might include commercial waste, along with the residential, its diversion rate would be skewed lower.

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

Absent: Margie Teall, Sabra Briere.

Mayor John Hieftje announced that councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were absent due to the flu. Later Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had to leave the meeting somewhat early to tend to a sick family.

Next council meeting: April 5, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

County commissioner Wes Prater, left, talks with Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber before the start of Wednesday's county board of commissioners meeting. Schreiber came to speak in support of the county's land bank. In the background is deputy clerk Jason Brooks. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners also got an update from their lobbyist in Lansing, who spoke of upcoming transitions in state government that will impact the county. Kirk Profit said the turnover in the legislature, governor’s office and other administrative posts could lead to opportunities for the county. Several commissioners raised concerns over the state budget and state funding for local programs, and are worried that the situation will get worse before it gets better.

Wednesday’s meeting also included two official farewells to long-time county employees: finance director Pete Ballios and Trenda Rusher, director of the county’s Employment Training and Community Services (ETCS) department. Both received standing ovations from commissioners, staff and others in the boardroom.

Land Bank Authority Dissolved

Despite an appeal from Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber to keep the county’s land bank, commissioners on Wednesday voted to dissolve the entity, which the board created less than a year ago. That decision led commissioner Ronnie Peterson to make a long, impassioned plea for help to aid communities with high foreclosure rates, especially on the county’s east side. Peterson represents District 6, which covers the city of Ypsilanti and part of Ypsilanti Township.

The land bank was championed by county treasurer Catherine McClary, who chaired the authority’s board. It was designed as a way for the county to take possession of tax-foreclosed properties, rather than auction them off to the highest bidder – often an out-of-state company. The intent was to rehab the properties and resell them to qualified buyers, or demolish the houses and use the land for other purposes.

Citing internal disputes and a lack of sufficient funding, some commissioners said they didn’t believe the land bank was an appropriate mechanism for the county at this time. They had discussed their intent to eliminate the land bank last week at a March 10 administrative briefing. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board to Vote on Folding Land Bank"]

Speaking during public commentary at Wednesday’s meeting, Schreiber reported that the Ypsilanti city council had passed a resolution of support for the land bank. It’s a tool that both Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township need, Schreiber said, adding that in his neighborhood alone, there have been four foreclosures in the last three years. He said the land bank could be used in conjunction with the Washtenaw Urban County, which he described as a “fantastic resource.” [Schreiber serves on the board of that group, which is chaired by county commissioner Leah Gunn.] The land bank is another option to help stabilize neighborhoods, he said.

Commissioner Discussion

Conan Smith, who’s been a supporter of the land bank, said he was saddened that they’d reached this point – it was a detriment that they’d have one less tool in their toolbelt. Kristin Judge asked for clarification about the funding – what had the county been hoping to receive to make the land bank more viable?

Leah Gunn explained that the county had applied for a second phase of funding from the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program, known as NSP2. About $5 million of those funds were to be used for the land bank, but the county did not receive the money. The land bank had also been allocated roughly $300,000 in NSP funds from a previous round that the county has already secured. Those dollars will now be used by the Washtenaw Urban County to rehab blighted properties, working with housing nonprofits like Avalon Housing and Habitat for Humanity.

County treasurer Catherine McClary, left, prior to the start of Wednesday's board of commissioners meeting. To the right is county commissioner Ken Schwartz.

Mention of the Urban County led Jessica Ping to note that her district wasn’t urban, and that from her district, only Bridgewater Township was an Urban County member. She wondered why other municipalities weren’t participating.

Gunn clarified that the Urban County is a partnership of the county, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and eight townships. The “Urban County” designation allows the group to receive and allocate funding through certain federal programs, including NSP. The requirements for NSP stipulate that the funds must be used on certain designated low-income census tracts – locally, those are in southeast Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Superior Township.

However, other federal funds – from the Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs – can be used throughout the county. Joining the Urban County allows local municipalities to be eligible for those funds. Gunn said they’d like for others to participate, and the group has contacted leaders in communities that aren’t now Urban County members, like the city of Saline, which is in Ping’s district. “We’re kind of wooing them,” she said.

Asked by Ping how much it cost to join, Gunn said there is no cost: “We give money away.”

Ping indicated that the name “urban county” was confusing.

The term is a federal designation. From the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website:

Urban county means a county that was classified as an urban county under 42 U.S.C. 5302(a) for the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year for which emergency shelter grant amounts are made available. “(6)(A) The term “urban county” means any county within which- (i) is authorized under State law to undertake essential community development and housing assistance activities in its unincorporated areas, if any, which are not units of general local government; and (ii) either– (I) has a population of 200,000 or more (excluding the population of metropolitan cities therein) and has a combined population of 100,000 or more (excluding the population of metropolitan cities therein) in such unincorporated areas and in its included units of general local government … ” (42 U.S.C. 5302(a))

Returning to the topic of a land bank, Jeff Irwin said he too was disappointed, but that he would reluctantly support dissolving the lank bank authority. He said the board had lots of questions that went unanswered, and that they’d asked the county treasurer to return to the board with specific strategies for how the land bank would be used. That never happened, he said. When the funding fell through, the land bank’s viability as a tool became less clear.

Irwin said he’d encourage the treasurer to come forward in the future with strategies, and answers to questions like what metrics would be used to judge the land bank’s success, and how long would the county hold property that was put in the land bank.

Noting that he’d had a lot of questions about the land bank, Ronnie Peterson said he never questioned the treasurer’s motives in trying to help the community. He described the devastation that the economic downturn has taken on his district, saying that there are certain neighborhoods where you’ll find stretches of five to ten houses “sitting naked” because they’ve been foreclosed on and abandoned. The county is losing the stability of its neighborhoods, he said, and that stability depends on home ownership.

Both Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township had appealed to the board in support of the land bank, Peterson said, and he urged commissioners to table the resolution that would dissolve the entity. He said if they couldn’t work something out by June, he’d support the decision to dissolve it.

Gunn reiterated her point that the Washtenaw Urban County was working on the same issue – rehabilitating homes and working to find qualified buyers, not renters. “That is precisely what commissioner Peterson wants, and that is what we are doing,” she said.

Ken Schwartz weighed in, saying he’d been enthusiastic about the program when they approved it last July. [See Chronicle coverage: "Banking on a Land Bank"] But over the past few months, the board had difficulty working through things like who to appoint to the land bank authority’s board – no appointees were made. Schwartz described the situation as too much “taffy pulling,” but said that if they do more research and analysis, a land bank might be possible in the future, using a more coordinated approach with other tools to address similar problems.

Outcome: At the board’s Ways & Means Committee meeting, the resolution passed with dissent from Smith and Peterson. At the regular board meeting, which immediately follows Ways & Means, only Peterson voted against it – Smith and Schwartz were not in the room during that vote.

Report from Lansing

Kirk Profit – director of Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing-based lobbying firm – had been asked to give the board a briefing on state funding, which has a direct impact on programs and services provided by the county. Profit and two GCSI staff members – Ken Cole and Adrian Hemond – described some of the legislation they were tracking and attempting to influence, specifically as it related to funding for local municipalities.

Profit, a former state representative, described the situation in Lansing as challenging, though he praised the work of legislators representing Washtenaw County. He noted that the state faces a roughly $1.4 billion budget deficit. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has proposed closing that deficit with $500 million in cuts, $500 million in new revenue and $400 million in federal stimulus funds, Profit said, but both the House and Senate have said no to new revenues (tax increases).

Local governments have already seen an impact from the state’s budget crisis in the form of decreased state revenue-sharing and lower transportation funding for local roads, Profit said. With more cuts to come, he added, the state budget will encroach even more on quality-of-life issues.

Cole and Hemond both described work they’re doing to track legislation working its way through the House and Senate appropriations committees and subcommittees. There wasn’t much good news to share, with potential cuts in jail reimbursements, public health, the state police budget – which would affect local secondary road patrols – and other areas.

Kirk Profit, whose Lansing-based firm is a lobbyist for Washtenaw County, talks with county commissioner Barbara Bergman before the start of the March 17 board of commissioners meeting. Profit and two of his staff members gave an update on state legislative issues.

Profit mentioned a range of other projects that GCSI is pursuing, including legislation related to the Detroit Region Aerotropolis – the county is a partner in that project – and an effort to eliminate unfunded state mandates. He also said that outgoing county administrator Bob Guenzel will be working with GCSI on a project aimed a restructuring local government.

Though Profit described this year as a time to be engaged, he cautioned that because of the upcoming elections and a change in leadership at all levels in Lansing, it’s likely that a lot of issues won’t be resolved. There’s not much incentive for current legislators to make structural changes, he said. However, he added, “with a new government comes opportunity.” As a transition occurs and appropriations are made, it’s time to promote the county’s agenda, he said – or someone else will promote a different one.

Commissioner Discussion

Several commissioners had comments and questions for Profit and his staff. Leah Gunn called the news out of Lansing “very discouraging,” and said her concern is that the county doesn’t have many options in terms of raising revenue. She noted, for example, that Washtenaw County is the only one in the state that levies a tax to support indigent veterans. [The 1/40th of a mill is expected to raise $393,616 this year for services to indigent veterans.] There aren’t many options like that available to local governments, she said.

Profit said that Washtenaw County is the economic engine for the state. “We have political juice, we have political power,” he said – and now’s the time to turn it up a notch. The tax code needs to be restructured so that local governments aren’t stuck with capped property taxes, he said. There also needs to be changes to the gas tax – the roads are bad. Profit said he refused to accept the current situation, and expressed optimism that a change in government leadership could bring fresh ideas. But in the interim, it will be difficult, he acknowledged – especially in budgeting for next year, when things will be in flux.

Barbara Bergman asked about the impact of state cuts on the county’s public health budget, which could be as high as 20%. Dick Fleece, director of the county’s public health/environmental health department, came forward and said that as soon as they get the budget figures from the state, his staff would let the board know what their alternatives are. He said they hoped that grant funding might be available to offset state cuts.

On the issue of unfunded mandates – services that the state requires, but doesn’t providing funding for – Profit urged the county’s department heads to alert GCSI if there are any that “run afoul of the constitution.” There might be ways to challenge those mandates, he said.

Adrian Hemond also noted that there would be opportunities after the November election, in what he expects to be a “raucous” lame-duck session. “Literally everything will be up for dealing,” he said.

Profit also told commissioners and county staff that it would be helpful to hear examples of ways in which state funding decisions make a direct impact on county services. That’s useful in making a case to preserve funding, he said.

Ken Schwartz said it “sounds like this is the lost year of the lost decade.” He asked for details on state legislation related to the aerotropolis. A bill that would allow the aerotropolis to form a separate economic development zone has been stalled, Profit said, adding that they shouldn’t wait for state action. [A March 18 article in Crain's Detroit Business reports that executives in Oakland and Wayne counties have reached an agreement that could result in action in the state legislature.]

Kristin Judge asked for an update on indigent defense legislation. Profit noted that Washtenaw County’s public defender, Lloyd Powell, had been an advocate for state funding of trial-level public defense. [Powell outlined his position in a January 2010 column in the Washtenaw Legal News, outlining his position.] Profit said there’s a recognition that it would be very expensive, and that the debate hasn’t been resolved.

Jeff Irwin asked about the JPORT program – the county’s Justice Project Outreach Team, which provides mental health services for people in jail and after their release. The county had asked GCSI to check if the state would fund a pilot program, using Washtenaw’s efforts as a model. Irwin noted that Michigan is one of only five states that spend more on corrections than on higher education, and that programs like JPORT are one way to do something about that.

Profit said that his firm likes to “play offense,” and if the county wanted them to work on it, they would. Hemond pointed out that GCSI has made attempts in the past two years to get a pilot program started, but that wrangling between two different committee chairmen in the legislature had started to generate ill will, so they hadn’t pushed it further. However, the lame-duck session offered an opportunity to get something through appropriations, Hemond added. Profit cautioned against funding something that might be cut by a new administration, but Hemond said there might be creative ways to pursue it.

Public Health Update

The board heard two updates from county public health administrators on Wednesday.

H1N1 Update

Diana Torres-Burgos, the county’s medical director, reported on how the county responded to the H1N1 flu outbreak. She reminded commissioners that it was less than a year ago – in mid-April, 2009 – when the first cases of the flu were confirmed in California. Locally, the first outbreak peaked in June, with another peak in November.

This chart shows the geographic location of H1N1 cases in Washtenaw County, based on 80 residents who were hospitalized. Ypsilanti residents accounted for nearly half of all cases. (Links to larger image)

Torres-Burgos gave a roundup of Washtenaw County data related to the outbreak. There were 80 hospitalizations – of those, 49% were Ypsilanti area residents and 26% were from Ann Arbor. Looking at the cases by race/ethnicity, 69% were Caucasian and 19% African American.

Two adults in Washtenaw County died as a result of H1N1, Torres-Burgos said, but there were no pediatric deaths.

Torres-Burgos recalled the difficulty that the county had in getting adequate vaccines from the federal government. By mid-October, they had an extremely limited supply – an initial shipment of 3,400, all in nasal-mist form, out of a total order of 250,000. [See Chronicle coverage from an Oct. 28, 2009 briefing: "County Revamps H1N1 Vaccine Strategy"]

Based on limited supply, the county initially distributed vaccines based on priority groups. In October, the public health department held three clinics for first-responders, as well as a clinic for priority populations and a mass vaccination clinic. Six additional vaccination clinics were held in November and December. From October 2009 through January 2010, the county administered nearly 13,000 H1N1 vaccines. Through other health care providers, about 163,000 doses were given countywide, according to Torres-Burgos.

Vaccines are still available, she noted. There is no charge for getting them through the public health department.

In describing lessons learned from the outbreak, Torres-Burgos said it was clear that communication was crucial, both through traditional means as well as through social media like Facebook and Twitter. Partnerships were also critical, she said, with health care providers and other key stakeholders like Eastern Michigan University, which let the county use its convocation center for mass clinics.

Funding and staffing are challenges for emergencies like the H1N1 outbreak, Torres-Burgos said. Without federal stimulus funds and the collaboration with partners in the community, the county would have been unable to provide the response needed, she said.

Following her presentation, several commissioners praised the public health department’s response to the H1N1 crisis. Kristin Judge noted that while 400 schools closed throughout the state, there was only one school closing in Washtenaw County. She attributed that to the county’s response in averting a crisis. Barbara Bergman said that the department has laid a strong foundation for responding to future public health crises.

Washtenaw County Public Health Rankings

Dick Fleece, director of the county’s public health/environmental health department, gave a report on how Washtenaw County ranked in a recent study by the University of Wisconsin. The study looked at health outcomes and health factors in counties throughout the U.S. In the first category, Washtenaw ranked 7th in Michigan, looking at outcomes like mortality and morbidity, including low birth weight and quality of life.

Washtenaw County ranked 1st in the state in the health factors category, which measured health behaviors (including smoking rates, obesity rates, binge drinking and teen birth rates), access to health care, social and economic factors, and physical environment. Some highlights:

• Washtenaw ranked highest in the state for the number of primary care providers – 283 per 100,000 population.
• The county’s adult smoking rate is 13%, compared to a statewide rate of 23%. Fleece noted that new state ban on smoking in bars and restaurants takes effect May 1.

A chart of showing the number of grocery stores and restaurants per capita in Washtenaw County from 1950 through 2008. (Links to larger image)

• In the category of access to healthy foods, 58% of the county’s zip code areas have a grocery store, farmer’s market or produce stand, compared to a statewide average of 51%.
• The county has an estimated 15% rate of uninsured adults under the age of 65, compared to the overall state average of 12%.
• In Washtenaw, 46% of chronically ill Medicare patients were enrolled in hospice care within their last six months of life, compared to a state average of 38%.
• Measuring the birth rate to teen mothers, the county had 14 births per 1,000 females aged 15-19, compared to a state average of 36.

Fleece said that while the county is doing well in many regards and has much to be proud of, there are still problems – as well as areas of disparity. For example, the percentage of adults who smoke varies widely by region, from 9.8% in Ann Arbor to 24.9% in Ypsilanti. Obesity rates are significantly higher in the Ypsilanti area – at 24.9% – compared to 11.2% in Ann Arbor. And looking at adults diagnosed with diabetes, there are large disparities based on race and income, Fleece said.

Another area of concern is the county’s chlamydia rate, at 300 per every 100,000 people. Though it’s lower than the overall state average of 370, it’s far above the target goal of 50, Fleece noted.

The county has a 7.3% rate for low-birth weight – measuring the percent of live births for which the infant weighed less than 5.8 pounds. The state average is 3.7%. Fleece thanked the board for its approval Wednesday evening of a grant – $27,390 from the Genesee County Racial & Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) – that will be used to address that issue.

The full study results are available at the County Health Rankings website. [.pdf of report to commissioners]

After Fleece’s presentation, Conan Smith said that the ranking bodes well for both residents and for the economy. Having a healthy environment makes the county a place that people want to live and that businesses want to locate. It’s something to brag about, he said, to businesses that might want to invest here.

“And remember to invest in our department as we go forward,” Fleece quipped.

Contract Approved for Next Administrator

With no discussion, commissioners approved an employment agreement with Verna McDaniel to be the county’s next administrator, effective May 15, 2010 with a salary of $155,000. McDaniel, the county’s deputy administrator, was the only person interviewed to replace retiring administrator Bob Guenzel. Guenzel, who has been in that post since 1994, currently earns $159,424.

In addition to her salary, McDaniel will also be provided with a county-owned vehicle, health insurance, travel expenses and other benefits. The agreement states that she’ll be reimbursed for up to $3,000 in other job-related expenses, as needed. [.pdf of employment agreement]

McDaniel has worked for the county for 28 years, including 18 years as executive director of human resources. [For previous Chronicle coverage of McDaniel's selection, see "McDaniel Pledges to Lead Washtenaw."]

Regional Energy Office

Without comment, the board voted to join the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, with commissioner Conan Smith abstaining. Smith had addressed a potential conflict of interest on the issue at the board’s March 3 meeting – he is executive director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, a Ferndale-based nonprofit that will be managing the energy office. [See Chronicle coverage from a Nov. 24, 2009 administrative briefing and Dec. 2, 2009 county board meeting.] Commissioners also had received a briefing on the energy office at their March 4 working session.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Jeff Irwin, Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet, Ronnie Peterson, Jessica Ping, Wes Prater, Ken Schwartz, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith

Next board meeting: Wednesday, April 7 at 6:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

Trenda Rusher, outgoing executive director of the county's Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS) department, gave an emotional speech after receiving a plaque of recognition for her nearly 30 years of service to the county. In starting her own consulting business in the Washington D.C. area, she promised to be the county's "little leprechaun" and help find "pots of gold" – referring to grant funding from the federal government and other sources.

Pete Ballios was recognized by county commissioners for 37.5 years of service to Washtenaw County. He retired as finance director at the end of 2009. To his right is his wife, Theanne Ballios. Commissioner Jeff Irwin said he appreciated the fact that Ballios was someone who could enjoy the "fun moments."