The leadership of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, from left: Felicia Brabec (D-District 4 of Pittsfield Township), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7 of Ann Arbor), and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8 of Ann Arbor). Rabhi is board chair. Brabec serves as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and LaBarre chairs the board’s working sessions. (Photos by the writer.)

Those priorities, listed in order of importance, are: (1) ensure a community safety net through health and human services; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for Washtenaw County residents; and (4) reduce environmental impact. [.pdf of budget priorities resolution] [.pdf of budget priorities memo and supporting materials]

The vote on the budget priorities resolution was 6-1, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2), who indicated that his No. 1 priority is long-term fiscal stability, followed by public safety and justice. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting before the vote, and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent. Although it was not part of the four priorities, a resolved clause was added during the meeting, stating that “the long-term fiscal stability of the county [will] continue to be of import throughout the budget development process.”

The resolution was brought forward by Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading the budget process for the board. It also laid out a framework for developing strategies to measure the effectiveness of county investments in these priorities.

Brabec described this approach as “both a policy and a paradigm shift” that can’t happen overnight, but one that’s critical for the county’s future. The board is forming work groups focused on each of the four priorities, as well as on the topic of human resources. These work groups will be meeting to develop as many as five “community impact” goals in each category, in work that’s expected to continue into next year and beyond.

The July 24 meeting also included an update from county administrator Verna McDaniel about the county’s current financial condition and preliminary projections for 2014. At her last presentation, on May 15, 2013, McDaniel told commissioners that the county needed to identify $6.99 million in structural reductions for the 2014 budget. The approach to addressing this $6.99 million target depended on whether the county moved ahead with a major bond proposal to cover obligations to retirees, she said at the time. That bond proposal was put on hold earlier this month.

Now, the projected general fund shortfall is $3.93 million on a roughly $101 million budget. McDaniel indicated that the shortfall will be addressed primarily with operating cost reductions ($3.83 million) as well as $100,000 in cuts to funding of outside agencies, including support for nonprofits. The lower shortfall resulted from revised actuarial data that significantly lowered the contribution that the county is required to make toward its unfunded retiree obligations. Other factors include: (1) a decision not to make a $1 million contribution to the general fund’s fund balance; and (2) $2.4 million in higher-than-previously-anticipated revenue.

McDaniel noted that if the county had chosen to bond, then operational cuts would not be needed, and the fund balance contribution could be made. She also reported that the general fund budget doesn’t factor in serious state and federal cuts to non-general fund programs. “Revenue is needed,” she said. “We need to figure that out.”

Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) both voiced interest in exploring possible new taxes. “I think it’s important that we strongly consider asking the voters of Washtenaw County if they’re willing to support some of the ongoing operations that we have,” said Rabhi, the board’s chair. “We need to pose that question at least to the voters in the form of a millage of some kind.”

Smith cited human services and public safety as areas that might gain voter support for a millage. During public commentary, representatives from SafeHouse Center urged commissioners to continue funding of that nonprofit, as well as for human service organizations in general.

The upcoming budget will be prepared without the major bonding initiative that until earlier this month was anticipated to occur later this year. The bonding was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The original maximum amount for the bonds had been estimated at up to $345 million, but updated actuarial data resulted in a lower estimate of about $295 million. During the July 24 meeting, commissioner Conan Smith said it’s unlikely that bonding could occur this year, although he’s still supportive in general of taking that approach.

McDaniel plans to present the 2014 budget to the board at its Oct. 2 meeting. Commissioners are required to adopt a balanced budget for 2014 by the end of 2013. At its May 1, 2013 meeting, the board had approved development of a four-year budget. However, commissioners have not yet decided whether to follow through by adopting a budget with that four-year horizon. And some commissioners – notably Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – have expressed skepticism about this longer-term approach. For the past few years, budget plans have been developed for a two-year period, though the board must confirm the budget annually.

Budget Priorities

One of the main agenda items at the July 24 meeting was a discussion of priorities that the administration would be asked to use as the staff develops the budget for 2014-2017. [.pdf of budget priorities resolution] [.pdf of budget priorities memo and supporting materials] Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading the budget process for the board, began by saying that this year, the board would focus on community impacts and creating a vision.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4 of Pittsfield Township) is leading the board’s budget process as chair of its ways & means committee.

In 2014, that work would shift to developing strategies and metrics related to the community impacts, she said. The board would ask the administration to report back on a more regular basis to talk about how the budget reflects community impacts and investments in the board’s priority areas. It allows for a fuller and more rigorous look at what’s typically been called the budget reaffirmation, Brabec said. [In the two-year budget cycle that the county currently uses, the board votes to "reaffirm" the second year of the budget, usually with only minor changes.]

Brabec noted that the board had held two budget retreats – on March 7, 2013 and May 16, 2013 – and a July 11, 2013 working session focused on the budget. She said she’s had follow-up conversations with commissioners, and these four budget priorities were her best attempt to synthesize that feedback.

“This is both a policy and a paradigm shift for our county,” Brabec said. It can’t happen overnight, she added, and there will be bumps along the way. But this model is an attempt to create a solid process that will help reach the county’s goals, she said. It also sets forth a model for transparency, responsibility and accountability to the community, Brabec noted. Her hope is that, by working with the administration, the board can achieve the community impacts that will be set as part of this process. The framework will allow the board and administration continuously to assess and adjust its investments, she said, assuring that they’re making choices that align with their priorities and vision. She described it as a strategic, longitudinal and dynamic process.

The four priorities stated in the resolution are:

1. Ensure a community safety net through health and human services;
2. Increase economic opportunity and workforce development;
3. Ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for Washtenaw County residents;
4. Reduce environmental impact.

The resolution on budget priorities also “directs the Administrator to lead a structured and transparent process by which the Board, representatives from throughout the organization, and community partners engage collaboratively to develop a balanced budget proposal that (1) aligns the organization’s programs and services with the Board’s four priorities, and (2) includes a summary set of ‘community outcomes’ that declares benchmarks related to the Board’s priority areas.”

The board has named the framework for this budget decision-making process: “Community Impact Investing.” Part of the framework includes six “decision-making principles” that commissioners are asking staff to use in developing the budget. Those principles are:

1. impacts and outcomes drive investment priorities;
2. services are delivered optimally by the right provider, social and financial returns are calculated and articulated;
3. programs are evidence- and performance-based;
4. mandates that support outcomes and impacts are better funded;
5. the excellence of the County’s internal workforce is foundational;
6. programs and services should be encouraged to achieve the triple bottom line of financial returns on investment, contribution to social equity, and reduction of environmental impact.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wondered when the board would actually discuss dollar amounts for this upcoming budget, especially for funding of organizations like SafeHouse and other human service programs.

Brabec described the priorities as the “big picture,” which will in turn determine allocations in the budget. It’s a huge shift in process, she said. Noting that the priorities are listed in order of importance, Brabec said the board will be able to look at the budget that the administration brings forward and see how the allocations are aligned with the budget priorities.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said it looked like the board was duplicating things they’ve already discussed. Why is the board spending time on this, he asked, when they already have a list of guiding principles that they’ve used for years? Is there anything different here?

By way of background, the “guiding principles” of the county are listed on the county administrator’s website:

1. Ensure long term fiscal stability for the County.
2. Reduce the cost of conducting the County’s business.
3. Enhance customer service.
4. Provide the necessary knowledge, skills and resources to County employees to carry out these principles.
5. Ensure adequate provision of mandated services.
6. Focus on the root causes of problems that affect the quality of life of County citizens by aggressively pursuing prevention strategies.
7. Provide leadership on intragovernmental, intergovernmental and intersectoral cooperation and collaboration aimed at improving services to County citizens.

Saying he didn’t understand the purpose of the proposed budget priorities, Sizemore asked Brabec to explain the difference between the current proposal and the existing principles.

Brabec said that in the past, the board would present its budget priorities, then the administration would develop a budget based on those priorities. The current proposal is an attempt to keep the board involved – not just during the budget development, but continuously as the county makes investments.

Sizemore said that as someone who is elected by residents, he already keeps the budget priorities in mind throughout the year. Although he felt it was duplicating a mechanism the board already had, Sizemore said he had no problem with it if the board is going to follow through on it. But if these priorities are just going to be put on the “back shelf,” he said, there are already plenty of reports like that. Brabec said her hope is that it will be a dynamic process.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) noted that Sizemore had spoken about the classic issue between the board and the administrator, who’s been hired by the board to present a balanced budget. Brabec is trying a different approach, Rabhi said – to involve the board in evaluating and benchmarking the priorities that it’s setting. Some of the priorities are carried over from the previous budget cycle, he noted, but a lot of it is new. The hope is that this process will be more dynamic than in the past, he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) highlighted the working groups that will focus on the budget priorities. This approach hasn’t been taken before, he noted. The working groups will be developing a list of “community impacts” for each priority. LaBarre asked for clarification about the timeline for that work.

Brabec replied that the work groups will be meeting in August and develop up to five community impacts for each budget priority. Those impacts will be delivered to the administrator as the budget is developed.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6 of Ypsilanti).

Peterson brought up the issue of long-term legacy obligations to retirees, and stated that it should be one of the priorities. “It’s not going to go away, and it should be something we should be talking about,” he said. The county made a commitment to employees, and has an obligation to meet it, he said. The board has discussed it for the past few months in terms of a potential bonding to cover those obligations, he noted, and the public should continue to be part of that discussion. He pointed out that the state legislation allowing the county to bond for this purpose doesn’t sunset until the end of 2014. The public should know that the board isn’t hiding this issue, he said.

Peterson added that he wasn’t trying to make it a controversial issue, but “money’s always controversial when you lack it.” He said if the topic became part of the budget document, “I will be quiet for the rest of the night.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked Brabec and Rabhi for their leadership on this budget framework. It’s important to know what your goals are when you’re developing a budget, he said. For a legislative body, the messiest part of doing that is creating the framework. Giving clear, good direction to the administration is the board’s job, he said. It’s essential to know what the board wants to achieve over the long-term with its investments. The document that the board is voting on that night doesn’t make any allocation of funds, Smith noted. However, he said, it builds on the “experiment” that the board has been undertaking to identify goals for the community, and then pursues those goals “very deliberately.”

Smith called Brabec’s proposal a “significant step forward.” The process calls for defining metrics and clearly articulating those metrics for each priority. In the past, the board simply talked about its priorities, he said, and that wasn’t sufficient. He also said he appreciated the “consistent accountability method” that’s being proposed. The board will be checking outcomes, not just funding amounts. Commissioners will be asking if the investments are delivering the change in the community that they really want, Smith observed.

Rabhi in turn thanked Conan Smith for his leadership in identifying the importance of metrics during budget discussions earlier this year. Rabhi also agreed with Peterson about the importance of addressing unfunded liabilities. A lot of other communities have ignored the issue of unfunded liabilities, he said. The fact that the county is evaluating its options is the most fiscally responsible thing to do, Rabhi said. He asked Brabec how that issue could be incorporated into the budget priorities document, perhaps by noting the importance of long-term fiscal responsibility.

Rabhi suggested taking a certain percentage of any increase in revenues above what’s been budgeted, and using that excess to help cover unfunded liabilities – or adding it to the fund balance. In order for that to happen, that goal needs to be built into the budget priorities, he said. Fiscal stability and workforce sustainability are really overlays to the budget priorities, he added – saying you need those things in order achieve the other priorities.

Peterson clarified that he wasn’t necessarily saying that he wanted to continue the conversation about bonding, but it’s more about the obligation to employees. He alluded to Detroit’s bankruptcy, noting that the issue of unfunded obligations are affecting many communities – but it’s especially affecting people who were promised pensions. He’s concerned that if the county borrows money but doesn’t meet its investment goals, the shortfall will be made up on the backs of county employees. The county doesn’t have a strong reserve, he noted. The state constitution is supposed to protect pensions, but the constitution doesn’t mandate that governments have to make payments to cover those pension obligations.

Peterson also expressed concerns about the proposed four-year budget process. He didn’t see how the county could be responsive to possible fluctuations in contributions to WCERS and VEBA, if a four-year budget was in place. Anything can happen in this country, he said, citing specifically the panic after Sept. 11, 2001. If the stock market crashes, the county would have to meet its obligations out of the general fund, he said. Peterson added that he might be the only one to vote against a four-year budget, if the county doesn’t have a plan in place that is fiscally sound. At one point, the retiree obligations were fully funded, but “we got off track,” Peterson said. Time has passed, he said, but now the issue is how to get back on track.

LaBarre echoed Peterson’s comments, saying the county had to meet its retiree obligations – from a moral and reputation perspective. He considered the budget priorities as a guide for the future, with the assumption that the county won’t be bonding. It will be a long, hard process to develop a budget with the current constraints, LaBarre noted. But the intent is to meet the county’s retiree obligations fully, he said, even though that won’t be handled through bonding.

Brabec described the budget framework and priorities document as separate from a discussion about bonding, or about any other strategies the county might pursue to meet its retiree obligations.

Conan Smith (D-District 9 of Ann Arbor).

Conan Smith suggested that one of the measurable objectives for the budget should be that the unfunded liabilities are addressed. He said his personal preference would be to fully fund it. [The allusion was to funding those obligations by borrowing the full amount through bonding, which Smith supports.]

Smith asked Brabec whether a separate budget work group could focus on employee issues. That’s possible, Brabec replied, but she also wanted to make sure that each of the work groups keep in mind the importance of employees.

Smith agreed, but said he still felt there should be a work group that addresses personnel issues. One example he cited is a “blurring” of compensation between supervisors and the employees they supervise. So the compensation of the leadership across the organization should be examined, he said. Smith also mentioned some commissioners want to revisit the “red circle” policy. [That policy authorizes the administrator to increase an employee’s salary above the position's pay range. If an assignment extends past six months, the administrator must provide a report to the board about employees on extended assignment.]

The county has been a place where people crave employment because of the expertise they’re surrounded by, Smith said. “Putting ‘Washtenaw County’ on your resume really meant something out in the world,” he said. It’s important to keep fostering that environment.

Rabhi described the budget as one of the tools to help address the unfunded liabilities, among other issues. He said he respected Peterson’s concerns about a four-year budget, but he felt the unfunded liabilities could be addressed during the budget process – even if the budget is taking a longer-term view. The county could be locking in that commitment to fund those liabilities for a longer period, he said.

Brabec pointed out that long-term fiscal stability is one of the county’s guiding principles. She proposed adding a resolved clause to the resolution that would highlight this point:

Be it further resolved that the long-term fiscal stability of the county continue to be of import throughout the budget development process.

Peterson said he’d be supportive of that.

Outcome: Brabec’s proposed addition was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Discussion continued. Peterson spoke at length about various impacts to county revenues, including cuts in federal and state funding. He didn’t understand how the county could develop a four-year budget with such huge legacy costs, as well as uncertainty related to state and federal grants. In four years, there will be a new president and possibly a new governor, he pointed out. The county also doesn’t know what the actuary will require in terms of contributions to cover unfunded liabilities for retirees. It’s setting the county administrator up to fail, he contended, if her budget projections are off. If her projections are wrong, the only thing that she could do would be to cut from the board’s priority areas, he said.

It might be different if the county were generating revenues that would offset its retiree costs, Peterson said.

Rabhi picked up on that idea, saying that without having “new dollars” on the table, the county will face similar struggles in the future. “I think it’s important that we strongly consider asking the voters of Washtenaw County if they’re willing to support some of the ongoing operations that we have,” he said. “We need to pose that question at least to the voters in the form of a millage of some kind.”

The county can’t rely on state and federal funding that has traditionally supported county-run programs, Rabhi said. Property taxes are constrained by various state laws and constitutional amendments, he noted. The problem of unfunded retiree liabilities was created over time and no single person can be blamed, he added, but it’s important to address it head on. So the voters need to be asked if they’re willing to keep the county’s commitments to employees while keeping the same level of programs and services. He noted that the liabilities are huge and will impact the budget for years to come.

Taxes are a sensitive issue, Rabhi said, but voters need to be asked. Are they content with shrinking county government to the point of maybe only providing the lowest level of mandated services? Given current realities, “we just can’t expect to continue the way we are,” he said, providing the current breadth of services. “I know that’s kind of a doom-and-gloom statement, but I think it’s the reality that we’re facing and it’s the challenge of local government.”

Conan Smith said he fully supported Rabhi’s suggestion to talk about new revenue. Regarding the funding for unfunded liabilities, however, he reminded commissioners of something that their bond counsel, John Axe, had told them: It’s perhaps a riskier proposition politically to fund those liabilities via a voter-approved millage, because that gives the board the unilateral authority to raise taxes if the funds aren’t sufficient to meet those obligations.

Smith also said he’d love to put a human services millage on the ballot, and is eager to have a conversation about that. A millage for police services is another option to discuss, he said.

Smith noted that the bonding scenario had been presented as a “tax neutral” solution. To cover the unfunded liabilities by bonding, the county wouldn’t need to ask for an additional millage, he said, “nor would we have to cut the general fund.” To him, the bonding question is “unresolved.”

Dan Smith (R-District 2 of Whitmore Lake).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) cited several concerns he had with the budget priorities resolution. His first priority above all else is the short-term and long-term financial stability of the county. It’s troubling to see that the county is contemplating putting $1 million less in its fund balance next year than originally contemplated, he said. A healthy fund balance is a critical part of financial stability. His second priority would be public safety and justice, and there are a lot of mandated and non-mandated services that fall under that category. A distant third priority would be roads, Smith said.

Conan Smith responded, saying he thought that public safety was a priority that was interwoven with the four priorities stated in the resolution. He cited sheriff Jerry Clayton’s focus on a “social justice” approach to public safety, and wondered if Brabec had talked to Clayton about his team’s role in the proposed working groups.

Brabec said she had talked to Clayton about the notion of a social justice campus, but hadn’t discussed it in the context of the budget work groups. She saw public safety as integrated into several of the priorities, primarily the priorities on creating a community safety net and ensuring economic opportunity.

Conan Smith also clarified with Brabec that roads would be part of the third priority – on ensuring mobility and civic infrastructure. He said he supported everything that Dan Smith had identified as priorities, adding that the board needs to ensure that the work groups tackle those subjects. “I think the framework allows for that,” he said.

LaBarre reported that the topic of the next working session, on Aug. 8, would focus on the budget. So commissioners can continue hashing out some of these issues then, he said.

As the discussion came to a close, Peterson again voiced his opposition to a four-year budget, saying he was “totally opposed” to that approach. Rabhi responded, noting that although an original draft of the resolution had mentioned a four-year budget, the most recent version had eliminated references to that. Brabec had made those changes in order to address Peterson’s concerns, Rabhi said.

Brabec added that the resolution is meant to provide a budget framework, regardless of the timeframe. The discussion about whether to develop a four-year budget will be addressed separately, she said. Peterson replied that “in front of all of these witnesses, I’ll take your word and hold you to it.” He indicated he’d vote for the resolution based on that assurance.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the budget priorities resolution on a 6-1 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting prior to the vote.

Financial Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel gave an update on the county’s financial condition, and a look ahead at the upcoming budget. [.pdf of McDaniel's presentation] She had previously given a report to the board on May 15, 2013, when she’d been advocating for a bond proposal. At that time, she had told the board that $6.99 million in structural reductions were needed in 2014, in order to provide a balanced budget for the four-year period of 2014-2017. If the county didn’t bond, she’d said at the time, all of that $6.99 million – including $5.06 million related to covering unfunded retiree obligations – would need to come from operational cost reductions.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

On July 24, she told the board that revenues would be $2.4 million more than previously projected. [That's based on information from the equalization report that was delivered at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting.]

She noted that many of the previous assumptions are unchanged. That includes projecting a 1% increase in property tax revenue each year through 2017, and getting $5.3 million per year in state revenue-sharing.

Her current analysis is that $3.93 million in structural reductions are needed, McDaniel said. In explaining the lower shortfall, she said the original estimated amount of $5.06 million in contributions needed to cover unfunded retiree obligations had turned out to be high, and was now estimated at about $2 million.

To address the $3.93 million shortfall, McDaniel said most of the reductions ($3.83 million ) will come from operational cuts. In addition, she’s proposing cuts of $100,000 to “outside agency” funding, which includes the county’s support of nonprofits. She also expects to eliminate a previously planned $1 million contribution to the general fund’s fund balance in 2014.

However, McDaniel also proposed that any additional revenues above the projected 1% increase in property taxes each year should be allocated to the fund balance as unearmarked reserves. Any surpluses at the end of each year would also be moved into unearmarked reserves, she said. The additions to the fund balance will be incremental, “as opposed to being baked in,” she said, “because baking it in will create an undue burden on the organization.”

McDaniel reminded the board that the county had made $30 million in reductions over two years in 2010 and 2011, and another $17.5 million in cuts during 2012 and 2013. With $3.93 million in proposed cuts next year, “we’re close to the finish line,” she said. “We think we can do this.” She plans to make a formal budget recommendation to the board on Oct. 2.

For the non-general fund portion of the budget, programs and services that are funded with federal and state grants face serious challenges, she said. Those issues were not addressed in her budget presentation, she added, but she wanted the board to keep it in mind. “Revenue is needed – we have to figure that out.”

Financial Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith noted that when the budget had factored in bonding, the structural reductions were originally estimated at $1.83 million. If bonding were to move forward now, he said, there would be no need for operational reductions and the county could make its $1 million contribution to the fund balance. By abandoning the bonding proposal, he added, it is forcing cuts on the organization and reducing the contribution to the fund balance.

Kelly Belknap, Washtenaw County’s finance director.

Smith then asked for an explanation of the relationship between the fund balance and the annual cash flow. Each June for the past couple of years, “we’ve cut it pretty thin,” he said.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, confirmed that the county had “dipped below zero” in the summer, in terms of its ability to meet payroll with cash flow. Each year, the county in May or June enters into a negative cash balance, she said, because property taxes aren’t collected until July. The county’s policy is to borrow internally from its fund balances that are outside of the general fund, she said. When tax revenues are received later in the year, those other fund balances are repaid.

Conan Smith clarified with Belknap and McDaniel that this is considered an acceptable practice, but not a best practice. He said he wasn’t trying to blame anyone, but wanted to make clear that there are “consequences of walking this particular path.” He noted that the other way to address it would be to make even deeper operational cuts to the general fund, which is not something that the administration is proposing.

Ronnie Peterson confirmed that the county was making actuarial-recommended contributions to both WCERS and VEBA. He noted that some employees are in the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan (MERS), a statewide system. McDaniel reported that most employees in the sheriff’s offices are in the MERS plan, though she didn’t have specific figures on hand. She noted that the county also makes required contributions to that system, in addition to WCERS and VEBA.

Peterson wondered if the county could expect large fluctuations in the amount of contributions it would need to make to MERS in the future. That should be part of the board’s discussion, he said. McDaniel replied that the amount fluctuates each year, and it’s been going up. Those figures are included in the budget projections, she said. Peterson wanted to make sure that MERS was included in the discussion about legacy pension costs, saying that it also impacts the budget.

Conan Smith noted that the MERS system is the healthiest fund – saying that it’s about 88% funded. But the challenge is that the county doesn’t control the assumptions for that system in the same way that it can for WCERS and VEBA, he said. So in 2010, there was a $600,000 increase in the contribution that the county was required to make for MERS, for example. He agreed with Peterson that it was important to be aware of the volatility of MERS.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Financial Update: Public Commentary

At the beginning of the July 24 meeting, Doug Smith – wearing a Washtenaw Watchdogs T-shirt – told the board that commissioner Conan Smith has repeatedly stated that the county has made its scheduled contributions to the retirement accounts, and that the county is therefore not responsible for underfunding those accounts. “He’s deceiving you – whether he’s deceiving himself is not clear,” Doug Smith said. In 2000, the WCERS account was overfunded by $4 million. Since then, it has been progressively underfunded until it became underfunded by more than $40 million in 2007. That was before the financial crisis of 2008, he noted, and before the pension plan was re-opened for new members. That means the county board watched the fund lose ground by about $6.5 million each year between 2000 and 2007, Smith said, and nothing was done to investigate or correct the situation. The county didn’t pay its annual contribution to VEBA in full until 2010, even though it was severely underfunded, he said.

From left: Conan Smith (D-District 9 of Ann Arbor) and Dan Smith (R-District 2 of Whitmore Lake).

Smith referred to a New York Times article he’d given to the board, which reported that actuaries have been making unrealistic assumptions about returns on investments for many years. That means pension funds are much more underfunded than industry practices would estimate, he said. For Washtenaw County, actuaries are still using an unrealistic net gain on investments of 7.75%, he said. For the WCERS account, the actual return has been 3.4% since 2000. If the actuary used a more realistic number, the current underfunding would be much higher than $300 million, he argued.

In 2007, the board made a decision “so stupid that it must have been on purpose,” Doug Smith said. Even though the county had eliminated the defined benefit pension plan in 1984 in favor of a defined contribution plan – which by 2007 covered about 80% of county employees – the county in 2007 decided to let all employees buy back into the pension plan. It was a “gift to employees, including Verna McDaniel, at taxpayer expense,” Smith contended. McDaniel is employed by taxpayers, he said, and she is not serving them well. The entire problem with underfunding the retirement plan rests with the board, “and I’m tired of hearing Conan Smith say otherwise,” he concluded.

During the final opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Doug Smith asked for confirmation of his understanding of McDaniel’s presentation: Even if the administration isn’t happy about making budget cuts, the roughly $4 million cut over four years is manageable without the bonding. He also wanted confirmation that the budget was being prepared with the assumption that the county would not be bonding.

Financial Update: Public Commentary – Commissioner Response

Conan Smith acknowledged that Doug Smith was right: “I had missed the shorting of the VEBA in 2006-09. I’d been told differently, and I didn’t validate that information.” He said he’d go back and look at what the rationale was for that decision, but “it almost doesn’t matter. We’ve got to deal with it looking into the future.”

Conan Smith also affirmed that “absolutely the budget is manageable.” There are sufficient general fund revenues to cover the contributions that must be made each year toward unfunded retiree obligations. “The question is always: What are the consequences of doing that?” he said. The county has been making operational cuts ever since he got elected, Smith said, and it would be possible to make more cuts. But “we have cut to the bone already,” he added. Making additional cuts would result in measurable, immediate reductions in services to residents, he said.

As for bonding, it’s almost inevitable that they wouldn’t be able to bond this year, he said, because of the timing needed to move through the bonding process. Given that the board must adopt a balanced budget by Dec. 31, it would be irresponsible of McDaniel not to present a budget on an assumption that no bonding would take place, he said.

Andy LaBarre addressed Doug Smith’s comments that had questioned the motives of commissioners. LaBarre felt those comments were wrong. He said he appreciated the service of Conan Smith, Yousef Rabhi and Verna McDaniel. “I just wanted that said for the record,” LaBarre concluded.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to the remarks reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: SafeHouse Center, Human Services Funding

Three representatives of SafeHouse Center – a nonprofit that provides support for people affected by domestic violence or sexual assault – addressed the board at the start of the July 24 meeting. Barbara Niess-May, the nonprofit’s executive director, thanked the board for its support of SafeHouse as well as other safety net services in the community. It makes an enormous difference to people who find themselves struggling and needing an extra hand during a difficult time. She noted that the coordinated funding program is critical, and she encouraged commissioners to keep it a priority. Any loss to that funding would impact the quality of life for many people, including survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Molly Resnik, a co-founder of SafeHouse Center, and SafeHouse board president Rob Oliver addressed the county commissioners during public commentary, advocating for continued support of the nonprofit.

About 10 years ago, SafeHouse took on the task for providing sexual assault services on behalf of the county, Niess-May explained. There was an agreement about how much funding it would take to support that work, she said, but those amounts subsequently have been reduced. Like everyone else, SafeHouse is doing its best to do more with less, she said, but the need has not lessened. SafeHouse serves about 5,000 women, children and men each year, with a staff of 24 and 150 volunteers. SafeHouse is “definitely leveraging every last bit that we can,” she said. SafeHouse serves as a support for law enforcement, and works cooperatively with the county prosecutor’s office, “and in the end, we save lives,” Niess-May said. A loss of funds would mean a drastic reduction of services.

Molly Resnik, one of SafeHouse’s co-founders and a long-time volunteer, said she knew there were a couple of people at the board table who had been there in the early 1970s when organizers started putting together services for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. It’s heartening to see the continuity, she said, but frightening to see that in many ways, “we’ve gone backwards in response to budget cuts.”

Until recently, she had served on the board of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, a partner in the coordinated funding approach. She’s very aware of the importance of prioritizing and of coordinating an approach to meet community needs. The one problem is that some services – like those offered by SafeHouse – “don’t comfortably fit into categories.” It’s been put into the category of emergency housing and homelessness, she noted, but it’s not exactly a fit. As the U.S Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and others have redefined what homelessness means for the purpose of funding, it’s leaving SafeHouse out in the cold. Resnik said that for her, it comes down to saving lives. She has no doubt that there are women and children alive today because SafeHouse was there. She asked the board to remember that SafeHouse stands out, and somehow the community needs to reinvigorate the comprehensive services it offers.

The president of SafeHouse Center’s board, Rob Oliver, noted that the organization is effective despite cuts by the county, federal sequestration and funding cuts from the HUD. That’s why money from the county is so important. SafeHouse has hired a consultant to help with fundraising, so the nonprofit is doing as much as it can to be sustainable, he said. Oliver recalled his own experience with domestic violence years ago, saying that thanks to Resnik, his family had a place to go when they had to flee an abusive stepfather. Now, other families also have a place to turn. He urged commissioners to support SafeHouse and its work.

From left: Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1 of Chelsea) and Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation.

Several commissioners responded, expressing support for human services funding in general and SafeHouse specifically. Conan Smith noted that there are fiscal pressures on all local governments, and some of the cuts are because of economic conditions. But some cuts are because of decisions that the board chooses to make, he said, so having people come and articulate the critical importance of maintaining certain investments is really important. People need to know that even making small cuts to organizations like SafeHouse can have a direct impact on people’s lives, he said.

Ronnie Peterson said SafeHouse had brought its secret weapon by having Molly Resnik speak to the board. Washtenaw County government was part of the birth of SafeHouse, he said, and it’s important to make sure that this kind of safety net service is always a part of the county’s institutional funding. He joked that some people might think his politics have swung to the right because of his friendship with Dan Smith, a Republican commissioner. But Peterson said he’s always been focused on the delivery of services and outcomes. Every community should have a SafeHouse, he said. If the county can make a major long-term commitment to the humane society, Peterson added, then it should make a commitment to SafeHouse too.

Yousef Rabhi said he supported SafeHouse, and he thanked the representatives for advocating on behalf of the nonprofit. The partnership between SafeHouse and the county goes way back, he said, adding that he plans to continue advocating for human services funding in general, and for SafeHouse specifically. Although SafeHouse has a separate line item in the county’s budget, its funding has been decreased significantly over the years, Rabhi said. That decision needs to be reviewed.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge called for an FBI investigation of municipalities in Washtenaw County, including the city of Ann Arbor, because of egregious, long-standing violations of civil and human rights of residents. In particular, he cited budget manipulations and priorities that resulted in the loss of substantial amounts of money between 2008 and today. He contended there’d been investment losses at the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor Public Schools as well as at the University of Michigan.

At his last turn at public commentary, Partridge told commissioners that priority items are being ignored, including plans for affordable housing, ending homelessness, an affordable countywide transportation system, and affordable, accessible education and health care. County residents are suffering, he said, and Washtenaw County is being left behind compared to other areas in the state. Commissioners should be seeking additional revenue sources, and lobbying the state legislature to allow for a progressive income tax, he concluded.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (present during the first part of ways & means committee only), Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to 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 commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

From left: Raman Patel, Washtenaw County’s equalization director, greets Leila Bauer, chief deputy treasurer who is retiring after 41 years with the county. (Photos by the writer.)

After several years of reporting declining tax revenues, Raman Patel – the county’s equalization director – gave commissioners a report showing stronger signs of economic recovery, reflected in a 1.68% increase in taxable value. That translates into an estimated $2.327 million more in property tax revenues for county government than had been budgeted for 2013. [.pdf of Patel's presentation]

Also related to the budget, commissioners gave initial approval to a four-year budget planning cycle, a change from the current two-year cycle that’s been in place since 1994. Voting against the item was Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). He and other commissioners expressed a range of concerns, including the fact that commissioners are elected every two years and therefore might not be able to contribute adequately to setting budget priorities. Although Peterson remained unconvinced, several commissioners observed that the annual budget affirmation process acted as a fail-safe, allowing the board to make adjustments based on changing priorities.

Another item that could have a dramatic impact on the county’s budget was only briefly mentioned: A proposal to issue up to $350 million in bonds to fully fund the county’s pension and retiree healthcare plans. It would be by far the largest bond issuance in the county’s history. County administrator Verna McDaniel plans to make a formal presentation about the proposal at the board’s May 2 working session. She distributed materials on April 17 to help commissioners prep for that meeting. [.pdf of bond proposal handout]

Commissioners also took a final vote officially to dissolve a countywide public transit authority known as the Washtenaw Ride. There was no discussion, but Conan Smith (D-District 9) – a vocal advocate for public transit – cast the sole vote against the resolution.

Other action handled by the board included a federal weatherization grant, a public hearing for the Urban County strategic plan, and resolutions honoring county employees and residents. Among them was Leila Bauer, the county’s chief deputy treasurer who is retiring after 41 years with the county. She received a standing ovation from the board.

County Bonding Proposal

County administrator Verna McDaniel passed out information to commissioners on April 17 regarding a major bonding proposal. She plans to make a formal presentation at the board’s May 2 working session. [.pdf of bond proposal handout]

The proposal is for a 25-year bond issue of up to $350 million to fully fund the county’s pension and retiree healthcare plans – the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA).

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Although commissioners were alerted to the possibility of this bonding proposal earlier in the year, the communication from McDaniel was the first time it had been formally raised at a public board meeting. She told commissioners that the material she was providing outlined six key points, including the purpose and objectives of bonding, and cost comparisons between estimated payments of debt service compared to the county’s annual required contribution to its pension and retiree healthcare funds.

She also provided a summary of relevant provisions in Public Act 329 of 2012, which the Michigan legislature passed in October of 2012. [.pdf of Public Act 329] The law enables municipalities to issue bonds to cover unfunded accrued pension and retiree healthcare liabilities, but has a sunset of Dec. 31, 2014.

The material distributed by McDaniel also lists benefits and risks of bonding, and a comparison of budgets based on bonding or not bonding.

Benefits cited by McDaniel include:

• Easier long-term budgeting provided by having predictable bond payments, rather than fluctuating amounts each year to cover pension (WCERS) and retiree healthcare (VEBA) costs. For example, the current combined WCERS and VEBA contributions in 2014 are estimated at $23.5 million. A bond payment is estimated at $18.6 million. [These annual lower payments don't take into account the higher amounts paid in interest over the life of the bonds, however. Details on the interest payments were not provided.]
• The complete elimination of the WCERS and VEBA obligations after 25 years.
• Proceeds from the bond, held in an intermediate trust, could be used to call the bonds after nine years, if some future event eliminates the WCERS and VEBA liabilities.
• Current rates for issuing bonds are at an historic low. Average debt service is estimated at 4%.

McDaniel also listed a few risks of bonding, including the size of the debt load, the uncertainty of market conditions, and the impact of defaulting, which would have consequences for the county’s credit rating and ability to issue bonds for other purposes.

The timetable proposes an initial board vote to approve the bond issuance on May 15 at its ways & means committee meeting, with a final vote on June 5. The board would vote on July 10 to approve the final bonding amount. During the summer months of June through August, the board typically holds only one regular board meeting each month.

McDaniel is also recommending that the county set up an intermediate trust to receive net proceeds from the sale of the bonds, and to invest and distribute the assets.

“This is an important and critical issue,” she said, “and we wanted to make sure you had as much information as possible in advance.”

Based on the county’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), Washtenaw County’s total outstanding debt at the end of 2012 was $60.877 million, up from $35.67 million in 2003. In 2012, the county paid $8.77 million in principal on its debt, $2.69 million in interest and other charges, and $166,892 related to bond issuance costs. [.pdf of debt data from 2012 CAFR]

County Bonding Proposal: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) confirmed with McDaniel that the county’s legal counsel and bond counsel, John Axe, would attend the May 2 working session. [Axe has been advising the county on this proposal, and likely would be paid based on a percentage of the bonded amount.]

Peterson wondered if this proposal would impact the county’s current bonding capacity and ability to borrow for other needs.

McDaniel replied that this amount would be “well within our capacity.” The rating agencies allow the county to bond up to 10% of the county’s taxable value. According to the equalization report that was presented earlier in the meeting, the county’s taxable value is $14.416 billion.

Peterson asked McDaniel to provide more information at the May 2 working session about the county’s current bonding ability, as well as the impact that a $350 million bond issuance would have on the county’s ability to bond beyond that.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) review materials prior to the start of the county board’s April 17 meeting.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he was very interested in the impact that this bond would have on other communities in Washtenaw County. Rating agencies look at the total debt throughout the county, he noted. Communities have different levels of debt and taxable values, and he wanted to know how that would be affected regarding the “debt overhang.” [Debt overhang refers to the point at which debt is so great that an entity is unable to take on additional debt.]

The bond issuance that’s being proposed would add a substantial amount of debt on a per-capita basis, D. Smith said. Based on the data from the current equalization report and on the county’s current debt as provided in the most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), the county’s total debt – for all municipalities – is 9.2% of the county’s total taxable value.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) confirmed with McDaniel that the assumptions built in to her calculations factor in the new labor contracts, which eliminated defined benefit plans for new employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. [See Chronicle coverage: "New Labor Contracts Key to County Budget"] He also highlighted a chart that showed “savings” that the county would see from this bond issuance, and indicated that he’d like more information about how those amounts are calculated. [.pdf of budget projection charts]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) encouraged commissioners to email their questions to the administration prior to May 2, so that the financial staff would have adequate time to prepare responses. “It’s a big decision,” he said, “and we want to make sure we’re walking into this with a body of supporting information, both from professionals and from others in the community, to make sure we’re making the right decision on this.”

Rabhi said he had asked the administration to provide this material prior to the May 2 working session, so that commissioners would have time to review it and ask questions.

Equalization Report

Raman Patel, the county’s equalization director, made his annual presentation to the board on April 17. He began by noting that he has worked on 42 of the 55 equalization reports that the county has produced over the past few decades. [.pdf of Patel's presentation] [.pdf of equalization report]

Equalized (assessed) value is used to calculate taxable value, which determines tax revenues for the county as well as its various municipalities and other entities that rely on taxpayer dollars, including schools, libraries and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, among others.

After several years of reporting declining tax revenues, this year’s report showed stronger signs of economic recovery, reflected in a 1.68% increase in taxable value.

For 2013, taxable value in the county increased 1.68% to $14.2 billion. That’s an improvement over declines seen in recent years, when equalized value fell 0.76% in 2012, 2.85% in 2011 and 5.33% in 2010. It’s also an improvement over projections made when the county administration prepared its 2013 budget. The general fund budget was approved with a projection of $60.9 million in tax revenues. But actual revenues, based on 2013 taxable value, are now estimated at $63.236 million – for an excess in 2013 general fund revenues of $2.327 million. Patel stressed that at this point, the taxable value is a recommendation and must be approved at the state level.

Patel also presented tentative taxable values for specific jurisdictions. The city of Ann Arbor shows a 3.34% increase in taxable value, while the city of Saline’s taxable value is a 3.97% increase over 2012. All but six municipalities showed an increase in taxable value. Those municipalities with decreases include the city of Ypsilanti (-0.38%) and Ypsilanti Township (-2.53%).

Properties in the Ann Arbor Public Schools district – which includes the city of Ann Arbor and parts of surrounding townships – will see a 2.32% increase in taxable value. Properties taxed by the Ann Arbor District Library, covering a geographic area that in large part mirrors the AAPS district, increased in value by 2.11%. [.pdf of taxable value list by jurisdiction]

Taxable value is determined by a state-mandated formula, and is the lower of two figures: (1) a parcel’s equalized (assessed) value; or (2) a capped value calculated by taking last year’s taxable value minus any losses (such as a building being torn down), multiplied by 5% or the rate of inflation (whichever is lower), plus the value of any additions or new construction. This year inflation is 2.4%.

Patel reported that the county’s millage rate will not be rolled back this year. The state’s Headlee Amendment rolls back millage rates to prevent property tax revenues from increasing faster than the rate of inflation. That won’t happen this year, because the inflation rate of 2.4% is higher than the increase in taxable value.

In 2013, several categories of property saw increases in equalized value for the first time in years, according to the report. Commercial property showed a 2.2% gain in equalized value, compared to a 3.84% decline last year. It was the first increase in commercial property values since 2009. Residential property value – the largest classification of property in the county – showed an increase of 2.37%, gaining in value for the first time since 2007. Last year, the equalized value for residential property had dropped 0.57%, and had registered a 2.74% drop in 2011. The average residential sales price in February 2013 was $216,220 – up from a low of $154,015 in 2009.

Personal property values also increased, growing 3.15% compared to 2012.

Last year, agricultural property had been the only category that showed an increase. Growth continues in 2013, but at a slower pace. Agricultural property registered an 0.67% increase in equalized value this year, compared to an increase of 3.54% in 2012.

Industrial and developmental property values continue to struggle. Those were the only categories to register a decline in 2013. Industrial property showed a drop in equalized value of 4.78%. That compares to a 3.99% drop in value last year. Over the past few years that category has lost significant value, falling from an equalized value of nearly $1 billion in 2007 to this year’s value of $421.72 million. Developmental property – a relatively small category that covers properties not yet developed – had a 7.12% drop in equalized value.

Patel also highlighted the value of new construction in the county – $368.1 million, a 30% jump over the value of new construction in 2012. But most of the new construction is happening in DDA districts, he reported, so the full increase in tax revenue isn’t going directly to the taxing jurisdictions.

From right: County commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 6), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Patel noted that countywide, about $418 million is captured by local downtown development authorities (DDAs), local district finance authorities (LDFAs), brownfield tax increment financing, and other entities that are allowed to capture funds from taxing jurisdictions. For Washtenaw County government alone, $2.405 million goes to these other tax-capturing entities that would otherwise be revenues for the county’s general fund. He noted that although the official taxable value for Washtenaw County increased by 1.68%, the net increase is just 1.35% – after subtracting the amounts captured by DDAs and other tax-capturing entities.

Another factor is the impact that the Headlee amendment has had since the state’s voters approved that measure in 1978. The county was originally authorized to levy 5.5 mills, but since 1978 that rate has been rolled back to 4.5493 mills, Patel noted. In order to levy its full rate of 5.5 mills, the county would need to ask voters for a Headlee override.

Compared to surrounding counties, Washtenaw is faring well, Patel reported. Taxable values were flat in Oakland and Lapeer counties, and Livingston County showed a modest increase of 1.18%. But values in other counties continue to decline, including Wayne (-1.20%), Macomb (-0.55%) and Genesee (-2.43%).

Though the news for Washtenaw was generally positive, Patel cautioned that the loss of the state personal property tax – which Michigan legislators repealed last year – could ultimately result in a loss of more than $5 million in annual revenues for the county government alone, and more than $40 million for all taxing jurisdictions in Washtenaw County. The tax will be phased out starting in 2014 through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources. It’s unclear what will happen if voters reject that proposal.

The county also hasn’t recovered from a loss in property value over the past few years. Although the $14.21 billion in total taxable value this year is higher than 2012, it’s 9.2% lower than the taxable value of $15.65 billion in 2008. “Even with the improved market, it will take a number of years to regain the valuation status,” Patel said.

Equalization Report: Board Discussion

Several commissioners praised the work, thanked Patel and his staff, and generally applauded the news. There were also several questions.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked how Patel got the comparative data with other counties. Patel replied that there are 83 counties in Michigan with 83 equalization directors. “We get together every month,” he said. “This is my job, because I want to make sure that my county is going to equalize property just like every other county.” Every assessment should reflect uniformity and equity – that’s his responsibility, Patel said, adding that the state Constitution is very clear about this equalization process.

D. Smith also asked about tax tribunal cases, and wondered what the impact might be on appeals made regarding this year’s assessments. Patel reported that the county has about $800 million in taxable value that’s in contention. That doesn’t mean that the county will have to refund $800 million worth of tax revenue, he explained. Often the original assessments aren’t changed, even if they are challenged.

Responding to another query from D. Smith, Patel explained that the “developmental” category is used to classify property that would eventually be developed. At the point when it’s developed, the property will be reclassified – as commercial or residential, for example, depending on its use. So the developmental category fluctuates considerably from year to year. It’s a category “parking spot,” he said.

D. Smith also clarified with Patel that the total amount of tax dollars levied countywide – including all municipalities, school systems, libraries, etc. – was $632.299 million, based on 2012 millage rates. Yes, Patel said. The amount will likely change only slightly for 2013.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Patel and called the report wonderful news. After years in recession and making budget cuts “down to the bone,” Rabhi said, it’s good to hear that the county will be taking in more revenues than it budgeted for. But he noted that the federal government is cutting back on its funding, and budget cuts at the state level are expected to continue. He wanted to highlight the fact that the county now has a potential opportunity to help sustain some of the ongoing community investments that would otherwise be damaged or cut back due to federal and state funding cuts.

Rabhi noted that Washtenaw County is doing well compared to other areas in Michigan, and a lot of that is due to government investments, he said – through the county, the universities, and other local entities. “We’re putting money back in our community for economic development,” he said, “and we’re building the economy here in Washtenaw County. I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that we’re seeing a return in property values.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) noted that the county is still seeing fairly significant losses in industrial property values. He wondered if it was due to properties being taken out of that classification, or because those industrial properties continue to decline in value. Patel replied that these properties continue to decline in value. As an example, he noted that General Motors had removed personal property from its closed Willow Run plant in Ypsilanti Township, which contributed to the property’s loss in value.

C. Smith said it might be something to talk about with Ann Arbor SPARK, this region’s economic development agency. Even though several classifications are seeing a turnaround, he noted, that hasn’t yet happened for industrial properties. In order for that to occur, the properties need to become competitive in the marketplace, he said. SPARK is really the county’s “go-to partner” in terms of recruiting tenants for those buildings, he added, so perhaps that effort should be given more weight in SPARK’s strategic plan.

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that Paul Krutko, SPARK’s CEO, is very active in working on GM’s Willow Run plant as well as other industrial facilities in the county. “I think he knows that that’s a huge concern,” she said. [Both McDaniel and Conan Smith serve on the executive committee of SPARK's board of directors. The county allocated $200,000 to SPARK in the 2013 budget.]

C. Smith asked Patel to provide a list of the top 10 industrial parcels in the county, based on valuation, as well as the 10 parcels that are experiencing the greatest loss in value. This information would help in targeting any marketing that might be done, he noted.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) thanked Patel, noting that this was the first good news the equalization staff has delivered since she was elected in 2010. “I’m surprised you aren’t all out there doing the happy dance,” she joked.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the 2013 equalization report.

Four-Year Budget Process

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a four-year budget planning cycle, a change from the current two-year cycle that’s been in place since 1994.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioner Felicia Brabec (District 4) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

The board had been briefed on the issue at a Feb. 21, 2013 working session. County administrator Verna McDaniel has cited several benefits to a longer budget planning cycle, saying it would provide more stability and allow the county to intervene earlier in potential deficit situations. [.pdf of McDaniel's Feb. 21 presentation] State law requires that the board approve the county’s budget annually, but a quadrennial budget would allow the administration to work from a longer-term plan.

With a two-year approach, larger cuts must be made within a shorter timeframe to address anticipated deficits. A four-year plan would allow the administration to identify potential deficits at an earlier date, and target savings that would compound over the longer period, making the overall budget more manageable.

The county is currently working on a new budget starting in 2014. Earlier this year, the county administration projected a $24.64 million general fund deficit over the four-year period from 2014 through 2017. A much smaller general fund deficit of $3.93 million is projected for 2014, but McDaniel hopes to identify $6.88 million in structural changes for that year – a combination of new revenues and cuts in expenditures – in order to eliminate the cumulative deficit going forward. These numbers will be revised in light of the county’s equalization report, which estimates that the county will receive $2.327 million more in 2013 tax revenues than had originally been budgeted.

Four-Year Budget Process: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he thought it was a step in the right direction, though he still had some concerns. He’s talked with county administrator Verna McDaniel about this process, and sees more positive than negative things coming from the change.

His basic concern is that commissioners are elected on a two-year cycle, which is in “direct conflict with a four-year budget,” he said. Although McDaniel has plans to accommodate that, he said, there’s no getting around the basic fact. However, he noted that countywide elected officials are on a four-year election cycle, which would synch well with a four-year budget. [Countywide elected positions are the sheriff, treasurer, county prosecuting attorney, clerk/register of deeds, and water resources commissioner.]

D. Smith said he’d like a more intense budget discussion with the county departments. The board is rather removed from that department-level discussion, he noted. One way to intensify that discussion would be to institute zero-based budgeting, he said. On a four-year cycle, each department would wipe its slate clean and be required to justify each item in its budget. Doing this every four years might not be as onerous as doing it every one or two years, he said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5).

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) clarified with McDaniel that the four-year budget process would begin with the budget that’s being developed, from 2014-2017.

Peterson then said that although his politics often differ greatly from Republican Dan Smith’s, he respected Smith as an individual and in this case he shared some of Smith’s concerns. Peterson stressed that this was the first time he had participated in a discussion about a four-year budget. [Peterson did not attend the Feb. 21 working session when McDaniel and the county's financial staff briefed commissioners on this approach.]

The responsibility for the county’s budget rests with the elected board of commissioners, he noted. Sometimes they just come to meetings “because we somewhat enjoy each other’s company,” he joked. But often there are pressing items related to appropriations, he added, citing the allocation of funds in the wake of last spring’s tornado touchdown in the Dexter area.

This responsibility is entrusted to the board, he said. In recent years, because of the economy, the board has made difficult decisions that sometimes resulted in residents not getting the services they need, he said, like the decision to stop administering the HeadStart program. [The responsibility for the Washtenaw HeadStart, which the county has administered since the 1960s, is in the process of being handed over to another to-be-determined entity.]

It’s not the board’s role to micromanage, Peterson noted, and the county would run quite well even if the board met only once every six months. Commissioners set the millage rate, accept the equalization report, make key hires – and set the budget, he said.

Earlier this year, the board approved new labor contracts that will determine the wages and benefits of employees for the next 10 years. As part of that, the board has the obligation to “right the ship,” Peterson said, and he didn’t know if commissioners could do that with a four-year budget cycle. They haven’t yet assessed some of the programs and structures that have been in place for years – programs and structures that need to be re-evaluated, he said.

Peterson told commissioners that they hadn’t really started the process for the next budget year, let alone for four years. He said he wouldn’t be supporting a four-year budget. The board needed to have a retreat to discuss it, he said, adding that perhaps others have already met and made that decision. The public should have input too, he said.

Peterson concluded by saying that even for a two-year budget, things can change – either because of the economy, or because of changing priorities among commissioners. “If you can count to a majority, you can change the budget,” he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) spoke next, indicating that he shared concerns about the impact of elections on the budget process. But he said he’d support a four-year budget. Everything the board and administration has done so far this year has been with the goal of providing more stability and predictability, he said. A four-year budget process would add to that. “And I feel secure in that we have a fail-safe in the [budget] reaffirmation each year,” he noted. “To me, if that wasn’t there, this wouldn’t be in any way, shape or form a prudent or responsible thing to do.”

In some ways, LaBarre added, a four-year approach moves the county away from a crisis-to-crisis mentality and more toward a strategic and tactical approach.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) emphasized that the board’s responsibility is to pass an annual budget, and the four-year budget cycle won’t change that. In two years after the next board is seated, commissioners could decide that they didn’t want to do a four-year budget cycle, he said. So he didn’t feel that he was forcing anything on future boards.

There’s value in having a budget process and in allowing commissioners to delve into the details, Rabhi said. So there should be some sort of budget process every two years, with the understanding that the budget extends beyond a two-year time period.

In terms of the budget process so far, Rabhi reminded commissioners that they’ve had one budget retreat so far. Also, there was a working session in February specifically about the four-year budget proposal. “It wasn’t as well-attended as it could have been,” he added, but materials from that working session were provided to all commissioners, weighing the advantages and disadvantages. [.pdf of McDaniel's Feb. 21 presentation]

Rabhi said he’s scheduled a second retreat for the board on May 16 at the county’s Learning Resource Center. [The LCR is located near the county jail, at 4135 Washtenaw Ave.] The meeting is open to the public, and will be held at the same time as the board’s working sessions, which begin at 6 p.m.

If approved, Washtenaw County will be one of the only counties in Michigan if not the country to do a four-year budget, Rabhi said. “It’s a wonderful way to lead the nation in fiscal stability and fiscal responsibility.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) also shared concerns that had been raised about process considerations. From the standpoint of staff and administration, he said, a four-year budget makes a lot of sense because of the long-term planning process. But from the board’s perspective, he still was concerned about the two-year election cycle.

The resolution in front of the board simply gave direction to the staff, C. Smith said. It’s a good model, because it leads to longer-term decisions with more predictability. But it doesn’t obviate any of the concerns that had been raised by other commissioners, he said, so the board needs to develop a budget policy for this four-year approach. If they were operating on a two-year cycle, commissioners would approve the two-year budget for 2014-2015 at the end of 2013, but in 2014 they’d likely just rubber stamp it, he said. Commissioners know that they’ll be around for two years, so that second year budget is one they’ve already worked on.

It would be different on a four-year cycle, C. Smith said. There’s no guarantee that a commissioner would be around for four years. So it’s important to differentiate what happens in each of the four years. In the third year, perhaps there should be a substantive review of the budget – have the priorities changed, or are the original objectives being met? Then in the fourth year, commissioners would begin the budget process again with a “fulsome” assessment of the previous four years, he said.

In concept, the four-year process is a good approach, C. Smith said. But the board hasn’t yet articulated clearly the role that commissioners should be playing inside that process. He supported the resolution, saying that it simply gave direction to plan for four years. In September, if commissioners decide they want to adopt only a two-year budget, “we still have that right.” He said he’d be happy to be a leader in thinking through how the board can engage in the next four-year budget process.

From left: Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the county board of commissioners.

Peterson spoke again at length, saying it was amazing to him that the board had only held two short retreats, but had already made decisions about budget priorities. [In fact, there has been just one budget retreat so far – on March 7, 2013 – although budget issues have come up during discussions at several regular meetings.]

The budget isn’t the responsibility of administration, Peterson said, and he hoped the board assumed responsibility for it soon. He praised the county’s employees and talked about their sacrifices over the past few years. He urged the board to assess the county’s programs and services, to make sure the county never gets into this same kind of position again. He questioned how anyone could see the needs of the county four years from now, when things have changed so dramatically just over the past nine months. National healthcare reform is one example of changes that could impact the budget in the future, he said.

Rabhi responded, thanking Peterson for raising these concerns. Rabhi said he wanted to have a robust budget process, whether it’s a two-year or four-year budget. He expressed willingness to address Peterson’s concerns over the current budget process, and noted that another retreat is scheduled for mid-May. There will also be more budget-related working sessions, he said. “I don’t know of any private discussions that have been had around the budget,” Rabhi added.

A budget task force has been working under the direction of the administration, Rabhi said, noting that Felicia Brabec – chair of the board’s ways & means committee – has been very active in those. In addition to retreats, working sessions and regular meetings, Rabhi said he was open to other suggestions from commissioners in the budget process.

Brabec agreed that the board needs to be thinking more strategically, and said the next retreat will focus on that approach, looking at things like community impact. Rabhi added that the budget can’t just be about dollars and cents – it’s also about community impact, and developing a framework for assessing impact.

Dan Smith stressed that the board would be voting on something very specific that night, and he read from the resolution’s only resolved clause: “… that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners approve the development of a Quadrennial County Budget.” It doesn’t say that the board will adopt a quadrennial budget, he noted – it’s just the beginning of the process. At any point, commissioners could change this approach. The actual voting on the budget itself is a long way off, he said, and this is just the first step in the process. He said he’d continue evaluating it over the next few months.

Conan Smith reported that he had communicated to Brabec and LaBarre – but not to Rabhi, the board chair – his concerns that the board hasn’t allocated sufficient time so far for a robust budget conversation. Waiting until late May for the next board retreat means that administration will already be deep into the budget process, he said, and it gets harder to change direction if you want to keep the process on schedule. He expressed concerns that presentations at the working sessions had been on topics with lower priority than the budget.

C. Smith said he knew there’s keen interest in bonding for pension and healthcare liabilities, but going down that path before the board has a conversation about budget priorities is not the right sequence. He thought there should also be more conversations on the budget at the board’s ways & means committee meetings.

In the last budget cycle in 2011, C. Smith said, the board had held three retreats “all before March.” [He had been board chair at the time. Retreats – including sessions on Jan. 29, 2011 and Feb. 9, 2011 – culminated in the board adopting a set of budget priorities and principles at its March 16, 2011 meeting.]

The board had “a more engaged conversation by this point in the last budget process,” C. Smith said, “so I think that might be part of what the tension is – it feels like we’re getting late, in all honesty.” He urged the board leadership – Rabhi, Brabec and LaBarre – to examine their budget schedule and possibly call additional meetings to focus on the budget.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 7-1 to approve the resolution directing the administration to develop a four-year budget. Dissenting was Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 6) was not in the room when the vote was taken. A final vote is expected on May 1.

Weatherization Grant

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to accept $185,654 in funds for the county’s weatherization assistance program.

The funding roughly equals the amount of federal weatherization dollars that the county received in 2012, which was a decrease of about 65% compared to 2011 federal funding levels. The current funding is allocated through the 2013 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The county last received LIHEAP funding in 2010, but has received weatherization grants from other federal funding sources in the intervening years.

For the period from April 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, the program is expected to weatherize 27 homes. According to a staff memo, the work includes an energy audit inspection and follow-up inspection of the completed weatherization work, which might include attic and wall insulation, caulking, window repairs, furnace tune-ups, furnace replacements, and refrigerator installations. To qualify for the program, residents must have an income at or below 150% of federal poverty, which is about $35,325 for a family of four.

Weatherization Grant: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked whether the county would use outside subcontractors for this work, or if staff would do it. Mary Jo Callan – director of the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED) – replied that licensed contractors are hired to do the weatherization work, while staff members act as project managers and oversee the work.

Washtenaw County commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

D. Smith also noted that it’s been a few years since the county has received this type of grant. As he had read through the contract, there seemed to be some rather onerous requirements – such as making sure contractors meet the federal requirements needed to do the work. He wondered whether the county had sufficient resources to make sure all of those contract requirements are met. [.pdf of LIHEAP agreement]

Callan noted that although the county hasn’t received LIHEAP funding since 2010, there were large amounts of federal recovery (stimulus) dollars available in the interim. The requirements for all of this funding are similar, she said. Getting federal funds isn’t simply being given a blank check, she noted. It’s sometimes onerous, she acknowledged, but the county has a robust structure in place to manage dozens of federal grants.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked for Callan’s opinion on the proposed 30% reduction in LIHEAP funding that’s part of President Barack Obama’s budget. Callan replied that this is part of the analysis that her staff is doing related to the impact of federal sequestration. “A cut to this program is actually not new,” she said. It’s been a recurring recommendation in the federal budget for at least three years – either LIHEAP specifically, or weatherization in general.

Callan noted that the president’s budget also proposes a 50% cut in the Community Development Block Grant, which would have a tremendous impact on local programs. County staff is following this closely, she said. If the cut materializes, it would absolutely mean a decrease in the number of weatherization projects done each year. “And at some point, if you receive such a low allocation, you can’t have a program,” she said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) wondered how the county establishes criteria for delivering services. He said he’s very concerned about the elderly getting the services they need. In the past, he said, the program has served a lot of rental properties, while there are elderly homeowners who haven’t received the weatherization services. He wanted to see if senior citizens could get some kind of preference.

Brett Lenart, OCED’s housing and infrastructure manager, replied that the elderly are given a priority. The scoring system goes beyond a first-come-first-served approach, he said, and includes criteria like whether there are senior citizens or young children in the home, among other things. In response to additional queries from Peterson, Lenart noted that more information is available on the county’s weatherization website.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) reported that the Better Buildings for Michigan program has an version that’s available for non-low income families. A lot of people don’t qualify for weatherization program based on their income level, he noted, but could still use some support. He said he could help OCED connect with that program. [The Better Buildings for Michigan program is run by the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, where Smith serves as executive director.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to accept the weatherization grant. A final vote is expected on May 1.

Employees, Residents Honored

At its April 17 meeting, the board presented resolutions of appreciation honoring Rabbi Robert Dobrusin and several residents from the city of Saline, as well as to Leila Bauer, the county’s chief deputy treasurer who is retiring after 41 years of service.

In addition, the board declared the week of April 14-20 2013 as National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week in Washtenaw County. Several members of the county’s dispatch operations were on hand and received recognition from the board. [.pdf of telecommunicator resolution] Marc Breckenridge, Washtenaw County director of emergency services, said dispatch operators have gone through a lot over the last couple of years, citing new technology and changes related to combining county dispatch operations with the city of Ann Arbor. “They’ve really come through for us, and we’re really proud of them,” he said.

Marc Breckenridge, Washtenaw County director of emergency services, was among those on hand to accept a resolution regarding national telecommunicator week.

Dobrusin was recognized for 25 years of “providing spiritual and pastoral support” for the Beth Israel congregation in Ann Arbor, the city’s “oldest Jewish Institution.” [.pdf of Dobrusin resolution] Also cited was his work as a founding member of the Interfaith Round Table of Washtenaw County and with the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice. The resolution noted his human rights efforts, including his current position as national co-chair with T’Ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights.

Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman attended the meeting to accept the resolution on behalf of Dobrusin. She highlighted his work in supporting the rights of indentured workers, then indicated that this would be a surprise for him. “If you know Rabbi Dobrusin, don’t talk!”

The board also passed a resolution of appreciation for Leila Bauer, the county’s chief deputy treasurer. Her work over the years has included serving on the Washtenaw County Health Organization, Washtenaw County Community Mental Health board, Washtenaw County Human Services board, and the Washtenaw County Health Authority. She received a standing ovation from the board. [.pdf of Bauer resolution]

Several Saline residents were also recognized by the county board. Helen Martin was honored for her work with the Saline Downtown Merchants Association and Saline Main Street. Jeff Dowling was recognized for receiving the “Saline Salutes” 2013 Citizen of the Year Award, as well as for work with the American Cancer Society and various Saline community events. Joy Ely, owner of The Pineapple House, was recognized for receiving the “Saline Salutes” 2013 Lifetime Achievement Award, and for her support of downtown Saline. Also honored by the board was Sarah Chu, who received the city of Saline’s 2013 Youth of the Year Award. [.pdf of Martin resolution] [.pdf of Dowling resolution] [.pdf of Ely resolution] [.pdf of Chu resolution]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed all resolutions of appreciation.

Washtenaw Ride Dissolved

On the agenda for a final vote was a resolution to officially dissolve a countywide public transit authority known as the Washtenaw Ride. Initial approval had been given on April 3, 2013.

The Act 196 authority, created in mid-2012 and spearheaded by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, was for all practical purposes ended late last year when the Ann Arbor city council voted to opt out of the transit authority at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting. Of the 28 municipalities in Washtenaw County, the city of Ypsilanti is the only one that hasn’t opted out.

Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith (District 9).

The county board’s April 17 resolution rescinds a board resolution that created the transit authority, and requests that the state legislature also take action to dissolve the Washtenaw Ride, in accordance with Attorney General Opinion #7003. That AG opinion stated that “the dissolution of a transportation authority organized under the Public Transportation Authority Act requires an act of the Legislature and may not be accomplished by the unilateral action of the city in which it was established.” [.pdf of AG opinion 7003]

The county’s role in creating the transit entity had been laid out in a four-party agreement with Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and the AATA, which commissioners approved on Aug. 1, 2012 in a 6-4 vote. Subsequent revisions involving the other entities resulted in the need for a re-vote by the county board, which occurred on Sept. 5, 2012.

There are two other transit efforts now under way. Washtenaw County is part of a southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) created by the state legislature late last year. The RTA was formed to coordinate regional transit in the city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw. Conan Smith has been a strong advocate for the RTA, and made Washtenaw County’s two appointments to the RTA board before his term as county board chair ended on Dec. 31, 2012.

Separate from the RTA effort, the AATA has been meeting with representatives of the county’s “urban core” communities to discuss possible expanded public transit within a limited area around Ann Arbor. It would be a smaller effort than the previous attempt at countywide service. The AATA hosted a meeting on March 28 to go over details about where improvements or expansion might occur, and how much it might cost. [See Chronicle coverage: "Costs, Services Floated for Urban Core Transit."]

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners passed a resolution dissolving The Washtenaw Ride. Voting against the resolution was Conan Smith (D-District 9), but he did not comment on his vote during the meeting. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

CSTS Job Creation

On the April 17 agenda for a final vote was a resolution authorizing the creation of 39 new jobs and the reclassification of 76 others for Washtenaw County’s community support and treatment service (CSTS) department. Initial approval had been given on April 3, 2013.

CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, but receives most of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. WCHO contracts for services through CSTS. Although staffing has remained fairly constant in the last five years, demand for services has increased by about 40%. These jobs are being created to provide the capacity to meet that demand.

The new jobs include client service managers, support coordinators, mental health professionals, mental health nurses, management analysts, administrators and a staff psychiatrist. All of the reclassified positions are client service managers. Of the 39 new positions, 30 of them are union jobs, represented by AFSCME.

According to a staff memo, the changes will add $14,255,535 to the CSTS 2012-2013 budget, bringing the budget total to $41,822,489. Of that, WCHO is providing $38,692,815, including revenues from grant pass-throughs. Other revenues include $165,190 from the Haarer bequest and $246,846 from a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

CSTS Job Creation: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) clarified with CSTS staff that they would be returning later in the year to secure approval for their annual budget. The CSTS budget runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. At that time, there would be a broader picture of the services that CSTS offers, he noted. The organization is shifting to more of a fee-based approach, Peterson said, and someone will need to assume responsibility for paying for these services. It would be helpful to show exactly what services are delivered by CSTS. It’s a very complex department, he said, and most people don’t know what services it provides. “You are the resources of last resort for many of our citizens,” he said. It’s important that the county provide the support that CSTS needs to deliver its services, he noted, especially as funding changes at the state and federal levels.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked the CSTS staff for their work, and said he echoed Peterson’s sentiments.

Outcome: On a final vote, commissioners unanimously approved the creation and reclassification of CSTS jobs.

Public Hearing for Urban County Plan

A public hearing to get input on the Washtenaw Urban County‘s five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan was held during the board’s April 17 meeting. [.pdf of draft strategic and annual plans]

The Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County and 18 local municipalities that receive federal funding for low-income neighborhoods. Members include the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline, and 15 townships. “Urban County” is a designation of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, entitling them to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs. The Urban County is supported by the staff of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

The plans indicate that the Urban County area is expected to receive about $2.7 million annually in federal funding, which will be used for these broad goals:

1. Increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities

2. Increasing quality, affordable rental housing

3. Improving public facilities and infrastructure

4. Supporting homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing services

5. Promoting access to public services and resources

6. Enhancing economic development activities

Only one person spoke during the April 17 public hearing. Thomas Partridge criticized the lack of affordable housing in the county, and said there was insufficient funding for adding adequate housing. He urged commissioners to hold their retreat and do their strategic planning in the boardroom, where the proceedings can be televised and accessible to residents.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary – each time speaking for the full three minutes that speakers are given. He described himself as an advocate for the most vulnerable residents, and called for ending housing discrimination in every city and township in Washtenaw County. He advocated for zoning and planning policies that ensure non-discrimination in housing. Partridge also demanded the recall of all elected officials who ran for office on the platform of advancing Michigan, but who subsequently neglected their promises and have taken the opposite attitude.

He also noted the much lower turnout during public commentary at the county board meeting compared to an Ann Arbor city council meeting earlier in the week. [The council's April 15, 2013 meeting had included two public hearings on controversial topics: 45 speakers participated in the public hearing on proposed changes to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority ordinance, and 51 people spoke on the 413 E. Huron site plan.]

Responding to Partridge’s comments about the need for more public participation, county board chair Yousef Rabhi said the board wanted to ensure that there aren’t any barriers to citizens participating in its meetings. Any time he speaks with constituents, Rabhi said, he stresses the importance of the county’s work and encourages input. But he conceded that the county board doesn’t draw the same kind of crowd that the Ann Arbor city council does. On the other hand, he noted, the county board’s meetings don’t last until 3 a.m. [The council's April 15 meeting had adjourned after 3 a.m., before the council finished its business. Most council agenda items were postponed until May 6.]

Present: Alicia Ping, Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to 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 commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The resolution authorizes the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help Lyndon and Sylvan townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.25 million remains to be repaid. According to a staff memo, the project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

The staff memo also states that additional funds might be available from special assessment prepayments and connection fees paid by the state of Michigan. These funds might reduce the total refunding bond amount even more, and would increase the savings.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The resolution authorizes the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help the townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.225 million remains to be repaid. According to a staff memo, the project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

The staff memo also states that additional funds might be available from special assessment prepayments and connection fees paid by the state of Michigan. These funds might reduce the total refunding bond amount even more, and would increase the savings.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The first series of bonds – for $37 million – is scheduled to be issued on April 10, 2012 to finance the first phase of the project. The remaining series will be issued in the first half of 2013.

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

The WWRA plans to use $500,000 from its reserves to fund part of the project. The $2.7 million in bonds will be repaid through special assessments on households in participating WWRA communities: the city of Chelsea, Dexter Township, Lima Township, Lyndon Township, and Manchester Township. Bridgewater Township is participating in the WWRA, but will not help fund the new facility. The village of Manchester and Sylvan Township have withdrawn from the WWRA.

Drop-off recycling bins will be located in the township, where residents will be assessed $24 per household per year. In Chelsea, where residents will receive curbside recycling service, the assessments will be $56 per household per year. The first of the 15-year assessments, established through the county’s board of public works, will be on the December 2011 tax bills for these areas.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor, where the board of commissioners holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The WWRA plans to use $500,000 from its reserves to fund part of the project. The $2.7 million in bonds will be repaid through special assessments on households in participating WWRA communities: the city of Chelsea, Dexter Township, Lima Township, Lyndon Township, and Manchester Township. Bridgewater Township is participating in the WWRA, but will not help fund the new facility. The village of Manchester and Sylvan Township have withdrawn from the WWRA.

Drop-off recycling bins will be located in the township, where residents will be assessed $24 per household per year. In Chelsea, where residents will receive curbside recycling service, the assessments will be $56 per household per year. The first of the 15-year assessments, established through the county’s board of public works, will be on the December 2011 tax bills for these areas.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor, where the board of commissioners holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The WWRA plans to use $500,000 from its reserves to fund part of the project. The $2.7 million in bonds would be repaid through special assessments on households in participating WWRA communities – the city of Chelsea, Dexter Township, Lima Township, Lyndon Township, and Manchester Township. Bridgewater Township is participating in the WWRA, but will not help fund the new facility. The village of Manchester and Sylvan Township have withdrawn from the WWRA.

County commissioners had been briefed on the proposal at their July 7, 2011 working session. Since then, the WWRA board has approved adding a county commissioner to their board. Rob Turner – a Republican representing District 1, which covers large portions of western Washtenaw – will serve in that role.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The WWRA plans to use $500,000 from its reserves to fund part of the project. The $2.7 million in bonds would be repaid through special assessments on households in participating WWRA communities – the city of Chelsea, Dexter Township, Lima Township, Lyndon Township, and Manchester Township. Bridgewater Township is participating in the WWRA but will not help fund the new facility. The village of Manchester and Sylvan Township have withdrawn from the WWRA.

County commissioners had been briefed on the proposal at their July 7, 2011 working session. Since then, the WWRA board has approved adding a county commissioner to their board. Rob Turner – a Republican representing District 1, which covers large portions of western Washtenaw – will serve in that role.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]