Many of the people attending the Dec. 7 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners were supporters of Lourdes Salazar Bautista, an Ann Arbor resident who faces deportation. She is standing against the wall in the upper right corner of this photo. (Photos by the writer.)

Public commentary focused on two issues: (1) people lobbying against the imminent deportation of Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista, and asking commissioners to intervene; (2) nonprofit leaders thanking the board for increasing the budget for coordinated funding, which supports human services agencies. The two-year budget for 2012-2013 approved by commissioners on Nov. 16 had included $128,538 in cuts each year to coordinated funding, but a vote on Dec. 7 restored that amount.

Another budget amendment approved by the board at the meeting relates to the unresolved status of mandated animal control services. County officials are still negotiating with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which has a $500,000 annual contract for that work. The contract expires Dec. 31, and contingency plans are being made for the case that an agreement can’t be reached. Commissioners approved a budget amendment that requires board approval for any contract for animal control services extending more than 60 days.

Two presentations were made during the Dec. 7 meeting. Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, briefed commissioners about efforts to create a countywide transit system. The board will be asked to approve a four-party agreement between the county, AATA and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti that would set a framework for incorporating a countywide transit authority. Voters may eventually be asked to approve a millage for the system – if a dedicated funding sources is not secured by the end of 2014, the effort in its current form would demise.

And in a presentation aimed at priority setting for 2012 and beyond, board chair Conan Smith proposed focusing county efforts on shoring up the county’s east side, an area that’s facing a “perfect storm of despair,” he said, including high unemployment, low graduation rates and poor health. Characterizing his proposal as the start of a board discussion, Smith laid out a variety of options that the county could pursue, including a possible Headlee override or new millage to pay for services. Feedback from commissioners indicated support for developing a strategy to tackle these problems, but a reluctance to limit the focus to only the east side – primarily Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. Several commissioners pointed out that poverty exists throughout the county.

Commissioners also took a range of other actions, including: (1) rejection of a proposal from the Washtenaw County road commission for a possible millage to fund road improvements; (2) a resolution of support for same-sex benefits; (3) an extension of a deadline related to compliance with the state’s 80/20 rule for health care costs; (4) approval of a brownfield plan for Ford Motor Co.’s Rawsonville plant; (5) creation of a board subcommittee on energy policy; and (6) appointments to a variety of boards, commissions and committees.

More Money for Coordinated Funding

The two-year budget approved by commissioners on Nov. 16 had included $128,538 in cuts each year to coordinated human services funding. However, at that meeting several commissioners expressed the desire to find additional funding for coordinated funding. A resolution on the Dec. 7 agenda restored the amount that had been cut, returning the line item for coordinated funding to $1.015 million annually in 2012 and 2013, the same amount that was budgeted for 2011.

Coordinated funds are distributed to a range of nonprofits through a process administered by the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, partnering with the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw Urban County, Washtenaw United Way, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The process gives priority for funding those nonprofits that serve six targeted areas: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health and food. [For background on coordinated funding, see Chronicle coverage: "Despite Concerns, Coordinated Funding OK'd"]

The issue had received some discussion at a Nov. 29 administrative briefing, when commissioners previewed the Dec. 7 agenda. County administrator Verna McDaniel told commissioners that when she initially presented the proposed 2012-2013 budget at the board’s Sept. 21 meeting, more than three months remained in the current fiscal year, which ends Dec. 31. She indicated that there had still been uncertainty about the county’s financial needs for the remainder of this year.

Also, she said, the county received a repayment of captured taxes from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and from a settlement with the townships of Ypsilanti and Augusta over a police services lawsuit. [The county received about $242,000 from the DDA, in a payment related to excess capture in the DDA's tax increment financing (TIF) district. That news had been announced in May 2011. The board voted in July 2011 to accept a $749,427 settlement related to the police services lawsuit. The county was paid in August.]

At the Nov. 29 administrative briefing, to explain the reason for the budget amendment assigning the additional funding, board chair Conan Smith noted that there’s increased need for basic human services, like food and housing. He also cited changes in the office of community development (OCD), which was recently awarded a $3 million grant. [The federal grant, administered by OCD, was awarded to the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project. It's for a project focusing on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township.]

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary at the start of the Dec. 7 meeting to urge commissioners to restore money in the budget for coordinated funding, and to thank them for their support. Some of the speakers had previously lobbied for funding, before the Nov. 16 budget vote.

Paul Saginaw, co-founder and board member of Food Gatherers, with the nonprofit's board chair, Margie Hagene. Both spoke during public commentary in support of coordinated funding.

Margie Hagene, board chair for the nonprofit Food Gatherers, and board member Paul Saginaw – who co-founded Zingerman’s and Food Gatherers – both spoke in support of restoring funding. Food Gatherers is one of the nonprofits that receives money through the coordinated funding process. Saginaw thanked the board for reinvesting in human services and promoting the human potential that surrounds us, rather than discarding it.

Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, thanked commissioners for their support of coordinated funding. The foundation is one of the partners in this approach, she said, and is fully committed to it. It’s the right approach at a time of great need, she said, allowing public funds to leverage private dollars. That way, each dollar has a greater impact than it would if invested alone. Other communities are interested in emulating this model, she said. She looked forward to a continued partnership.

Pam Smith, executive director of the Child Care Network, also thanked commissioners. She described two recent volunteer experiences of she’d had, helping a mother shop for children’s clothing through the Warm the Children program, and wrapping gifts that people brought in for needy families at Saline Area Social Services. She’s seen the spectrum – from those in great need, to those who are answering that need. Commissioners have a difficult job, she said, but the community is behind them.

Dick Soble, a board member of both the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and Food Gatherers, and WHA board member Jean Carlberg each spoke in support of reallocating money to coordinated funding. Soble noted that the county helped found WHA, which now involves 26 organizations working to address issues of homelessness. Carlberg said the county has provided a model for public/private partnerships, and she hoped commissioners would continue their support.

Coordinated Funding: Commissioner Discussion

Several commissioners thanked the people who came to speak in support of coordinated funding. Yousef Rabhi said he was proud that the county could restore the funding. Rob Turner noted that the board had made human services a budget priority, and they were cementing that decision by restoring funding.

Leah Gunn said she supported the resolution to restore funding, and she thanked Alicia Ping for Ping’s suggestion to spread the funding over two years. [The original proposal had added $250,000 to the coordinated funding line item in 2012. At the Nov. 29 agenda briefing, Ping had argued that the amount was better allocated over two years. Otherwise, coordinated funding would see a significant increase in 2012, then a sharp dropoff in 2013 if the county couldn’t find money for it at that level, she said.]

At the Dec. 7 meeting, Dan Smith said he wouldn’t support the increase. He noted that the board had just approved the budget at its last meeting, and it was premature to increase funding at this point, especially since the county asked its employees to make sacrifices to balance the budget. He also pointed to the projected $14 million deficit in 2014, which will require additional cuts, saying that the county is in dire financial straits.

Outcome: On a 10-1 vote, the board approved additional money for coordinated funding in 2012-2013. Dissenting was Dan Smith (R-District 2).

After the vote, Ronnie Peterson said he wanted to clarify that contrary to some media reports, he had previously voted against cuts to coordinated funding, the Humane Society of Huron Valley, and Head Start. From The Chronicle’s report of that budget vote:

The final budget vote was unanimous, though three commissioners voted no on specific line items. (Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.) Ronnie Peterson, Felicia Brabec and Alicia Ping voted no to cuts for animal control services. Peterson and Brabec also voted no to cuts for Head Start and the coordinated funding of human services. Conan Smith voted no to the line item for the board of commissioners, referring to it only by the line item number. He later said he’d been joking. [.pdf of 2012-2013 general fund budget]

Peterson said it was amazing that they now could come up with more money for coordinated funding, but not for Head Start. [The 2012 budget includes $528,048 in funding for Head Start, but eliminates county support in 2013. The county plans to turn over the program to federal officials by 2013. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Head Start Advocates Make Emotional Plea"]

Peterson wanted to make sure the county honors its Head Start employees, and that the county administration provides appropriate documents to indicate that the decision to relinquish the program was not because of problems with its quality.

Humane Society Update

Ronnie Peterson, who has opposed cuts to the county’s funding of state-mandated animal control services provided under contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, asked for an update on negotiations for a new contract. HSHV’s current contract, for $500,000 annually, ends on Dec. 31. The county has budgeted a total of $430,000 annually for 2012 and 2013, which HSHV has indicated is insufficient for the work required by the county. [See Chronicle coverage: "Animal Control Mandate Unresolved" and "Washtenaw County Budget Set for 2012-2013"]

Board chair Conan Smith reported that HSHV board chair Mike Walsh had been sent a draft RFP, including a “scope of work” for animal control services that the county believes are mandated by the state. [.pdf of draft RFP] Representatives from the county and HSHV are planning to meet soon to continue negotiations, Smith said, and he hoped to move quickly to find common ground for a new contract. The negotiating team for the county includes Smith, sheriff Jerry Clayton, and county administrator Verna McDaniel. HSHV is represented by Walsh, Mark Heusel, and HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf.

Peterson pressed for information about what might happen after Jan. 1 if a new agreement isn’t reached. Smith replied by recounting that in October, the county had received a letter from Walsh indicating that HSHV likely wouldn’t be able to continue providing services at the reduced amount, but offering to handle some kind of transitional service until the county sought another provider. Smith said McDaniel has been investigating other options in case the county needs to bid out the work. There is at least one entity, possibly more, that could handle animal control services for the county starting Jan. 1, Smith said, if negotiations with HSHV break down. McDaniel added that she didn’t want to name those other entities, but the county does have options.

The county has budgeted roughly $25,000 a month for animal control services, Smith said. For contracts under $25,000, the county administrator has the discretion to authorize those agreements. Such a contract would be temporary, Smith said, while negotiations with HSHV continue. He said he didn’t view Jan. 1 as a deadline for negotiating.

Regardless of the entity that eventually enters into a long-term contract with the county, Smith said, it’s important that a detailed billing of services be provided to the county. [One criticism of the current HSHV contract is that there's no itemized billing in the monthly invoice sent to the county.] Smith said the bill should list details such as boarding fees per animal and veterinarian services, so that it’s clear what’s being paid for on behalf of the county’s taxpayers.

Some commissioners wanted to ensure that a new long-term contract with HSHV – or perhaps another provider – would be brought to the board for approval. Rob Turner noted that the funding for animal control services is part of the sheriff’s budget now, and that the sheriff has authority to enter into such contracts. The board didn’t approve food service or laundry contracts with the jail, for example, so why should this be different? This had been a concern of his when they originally voted to shift the funding from the “outside agencies” category to the sheriff’s office, Turner said. He felt it had indicated a severing of the board’s relationship with HSHV.

Peterson said he didn’t feel that shifting the funds to the sheriff’s office meant the board had relinquished control. He assumed any contract for animal control services would be coming back to the board.

Smith conceded that this was a gray area. Other funds in the sheriff’s office budget are controlled by the sheriff. Clayton and McDaniel had both indicated that they understood the board intended to remain involved in decisions about animal control services, Smith said.

To clarify the issue, Smith proposed a resolution amending the 2012 budget line item for animal control services, stating “No contract for animal control services that extends beyond 60 days shall be entered into without approval by the board of commissioners.”

Barbara Bergman indicated that she believed the sheriff should make decisions about how to handle animal control services, now that the funds are in his budget.

Outcome: The budget amendment passed on a 10-1 vote, with dissent from Barbara Bergman.

Peterson also brought up the issue of the investment that the county has made in HSHV’s facility. By way of background, in mid-2007 the county board approved the issuance of $6.5 million in bonds for the construction of HSHV’s new animal shelter, plus a $1 million contribution to the HSHV construction fund from its capital reserves. That bond was to be repaid on a seven-year schedule by the county – using funds supplied by HSHV. The bonds were sold in August 2008, with the final payment due in 2015.

To issue to bonds, the county needed to have an ownership stake in the project. So currently, and through the end of the scheduled bond payments, the county owns the animal shelter, and leases the facility back to HSHV. That arrangement is possible through a ground lease agreement in which the county leases from HSHV the property on which the animal shelter is built. HSHV owns part of that land, and leases the other part from the University of Michigan in an arrangement approved by UM on July 17, 2008. The UM lease to HSHV is for $8,000 for the first 30 years of the 65-year lease, with the amount after 30 years reduced to $1 per year.

At the county board’s Dec. 7 meeting, Peterson described the situation as a liability on the county’s books, and said there’s no obligation for HSHV to make payments on the bonds. The taxpayers’ investment in that facility should be protected, he said – that’s an argument in favor of reaching an agreement with HSHV for a new contract.

Turner replied that even if the county’s contract isn’t continued with HSHV, the nonprofit wouldn’t consider leaving its new facility. He also said that losing the county’s contract won’t make or break HSHV financially.

Road Commission Proposal

On the Dec. 7 agenda was a resolution to reject a proposal from the Washtenaw County road commission that included a variety of road improvement projects, and the possibility of a countywide millage (that would not require voter approval) to pay for them.

Road Commission Proposal: Public Commentary

Christine Jones of Ann Arbor said it would be completely unfair for voters not to have a say in raising taxes for road repair. People didn’t elect the county commissioners with the understanding that commissioners would raise taxes, she said. Jones said she wanted to make sure the road tax didn’t pass and that the board heard from taxpayers about it.

Road Commission Proposal: Commissioner Discussion

By way of background, the proposal had been discussed at length by the board in October, when commissioners ultimately decided to defer action until the Dec. 7 meeting.

The board had initially discussed this issue at its Sept. 8 working session, and it was expected to be on the agenda for the Sept. 20 meeting. But it wasn’t until Sept. 23 that the road commission formally submitted its plan to the county clerk’s office outlining a set of possible road projects throughout the county, costing about $8.7 million. [.pdf of projects list and .pdf of map showing the location of the proposed projects]

A truck parked at the Zeeb Road facility of the Washtenaw County road commission.

The plan was then brought forward as an item of discussion at the board’s Oct. 5 meeting. However, no resolution related to the topic was proposed, and no member of the road commission attended that meeting. The following night, at an Oct. 6 working session, the issue was tackled yet again as the board met with Ken Schwartz, a former county commissioner who’s now one of three road commissioners, and Roy Townsend, the road commission’s director of engineering. Schwartz was instrumental in identifying a 1909 state law that would allow the county board to levy a millage for road repair without voter approval.

The item was discussed at some length during a Nov. 29 administrative briefing, held to preview the Dec. 7 agenda items. That meeting was attended by all but two commissioners: Ronnie Peterson and Dan Smith. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Poised to Reject Road Millage"]

At the briefing, there was no enthusiasm for acting on the road commission’s plan. In addition to concerns about levying a millage, commissioners pointed to uncertainty related to pending state legislation that would, if passed, allow the county to take over operation of the road commission. [On Thursday, Dec. 1, the state House of Representatives passed bills that would allow county road commissions to be eliminated or restructured, and folded into operations of the county government. Currently, road commissions operate independently, with separate budgets and staff. The bills await action in the state Senate. The state senator representing Ann Arbor's District 18, Rebekah Warren, is married to county board chair Conan Smith. She attended a portion of the Dec. 7 board meeting.]

The discussion at the Nov. 29 briefing also touched on the leadership change at the road commission. Long-time managing director Steve Puuri is retiring at the end of 2011.

None of these issues were raised when the item came before the board on Dec. 7, and there was only limited discussion. Noting that there are major roads in his district that need repair, Ronnie Peterson expressed frustration that it didn’t appear the issue would be discussed by the board before the vote. He said he thought the road commissioners and staff would make a presentation, but that wasn’t the case. [Schwartz was the only representative from the road commission at the Dec. 7 meeting, but he did not formally address the board.]

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, reviewed the process that had taken place to this point, including the decision by the board on Oct. 5 to defer the item until Dec. 7, and the discussion at the board’s Oct. 6 working session.

Outcome: As part of the board’s consent agenda, commissioners voted unanimously to reject the road commission proposal.

Countywide Public Transit Update

Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, gave a presentation to commissioners about efforts to create a countywide transit system. [For background on a variety of transportation issues, including the countywide plan, see recent Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux"] Also attending the Dec. 7 meeting was AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein, and Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator.

Michael Ford, right, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, talks with county commissioner Wes Prater.

Ford began by outlining three major steps being taken to create a countywide transit system: (1) developing a governance structure for regional service, (2) planning service improvements, and (3) figuring out funding at the local, state and national levels. The first step has been taken this year, he said, with the creation of the unincorporated 196 board (U196).

Act 196 of 1986 is a state enabling statute that explicitly provides for the formation of a transit authority at the county level. The AATA is formed under Act 55 of 1963.

Membership in the 11-member unincorporated board (U196) is as follows: Pittsfield District – Mandy Grewal (supervisor, Pittsfield Township); Northeast District – David Phillips (clerk, Superior Township); North Middle District – David Read (trustee, Scio Township) with alternate Jim Carson (councilmember, Village of Dexter); Southeast District – (1) Karen Lovejoy Roe (clerk, Ypsilanti Township) and (2) John McGehee (director of human resources, Lincoln Consolidated Schools); West District – Bob Mester (trustee, Lyndon Township) with alternate Ann Feeney (councilmember, city of Chelsea); Ypsilanti District – Paul Schreiber (mayor of Ypsilanti) with alternate: Peter Murdock (councilmember, city of Ypsilanti); South Middle District – Bill Lavery (resident, York Township); Ann Arbor District: (1) Jesse Bernstein (AATA board), (2) Charles Griffith (AATA board) and (3) Rich Robben (AATA board).

Ford said that next steps for governance include: (1) securing a 4-party agreement with AATA, the county, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; (2) writing up the articles of incorporation; and (3) developing bylaws. On the funding side, Ford noted that a report on funding options was released in the fall, and a task force of local financial experts – chaired by former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel and McKinley CEO Albert Berriz – has met three times so far. A report with both short- and long-term funding recommendations will be ready in early 2012.

A 30-year plan for service improvements has already been developed, Ford said. The U196 board has been discussing it, with the goal of developing a five-year transit improvement program that will be presented to municipalities in the county before incorporating as a countywide transit authority. The program, to be completed in 2012, will include service recommendations, a funding plan, and recommended fare structures and policy.

What’s needed from the county, Ford said, is help in developing a clear and transparent process that’s fair to citizens, uses public resources in an efficient way, and maintains local control while allowing municipalities to work together. More specifically, a four-party agreement between the county, AATA and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti is being developed that will set a framework for incorporating a countywide transit authority. [.pdf draft of four-party agreement]

Among other things, the agreement would enable the transfer of dedicated transit millages in Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor to the new authority, and establish a process for opting-out of the authority.

Ford described the process that would lead to the establishment of a new countywide authority, assuming the county approves the authority’s articles of incorporation and that the four-party agreement is also approved. In 2012, the U196 board will finish a report on a five-year transit improvement program, then request that the county clerk – Larry Kestenbaum – file articles of incorporation for a countywide transit authority.

The articles of incorporation would establish the authority with boundaries of Washtenaw County. Certified letters, required by law, would be sent to each municipality announcing incorporation of the authority. Any municipality could opt-out, and those communities would not be taxed or receive transit service. The county would not take on liabilities, Ford said, nor provide its full faith and credit to the authority. The county could appoint a liaison to attend transit authority meetings.

The county would not be expected to make any request for funding, such as a levy on taxpayers. A chart provided by Ford indicated that a funding request would be made directly to voters. If voters rejected it, the request would be put on the ballot again, once a year. If voters do not approve a millage by the end of 2014, the incorporated 196 board would be dissolved.

Ford said that if and when countywide funding is set, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti then would transfer their current dedicated transit millages to the new authority. AATA would transfer its assets, obligations and operations to the new authority, too, and the authority would begin implementing the countywide five-year transit plan.

The county board will be asked to vote on the articles of incorporation and four-party agreement in January, Ford said. He again stressed that the county would not be taking on liabilities or debt. Nor would the board be asked to request funding from voters, he said. Local governments will have the opportunity to opt-out when the authority is formed. The municipalities that participate will have input into planning countywide transportation, he said.

“I really could use your support in moving this thing forward,” Ford concluded, alluding to the catch-phrase used to promote the countywide initiative at MovingYouForward.org. He noted that AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein was in the audience, and that either of them would be happy to answer questions.

Countywide Public Transit Update: Commissioner Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. thanked Ford for coming, and praised AATA staff for their help in Sizemore’s district putting in bus stops along Holmes Road and in the Willow Run neighborhood. Ronnie Peterson thanked both Ford and Gryniewicz, saying that they’d done a tremendous job in explaining the possible expansion. It was difficult to do during these challenging economic times, Peterson said, but it’s a vision that he’s been advocating for a long time. He asked Ford what’s needed from the county board at this point.

Ford replied that the board’s approval of the four-party agreement in January would be appreciated. Any outreach and support that commissioners can do would also be welcome, he said, noting that AATA can’t do it alone.

Peterson said there’s no millage that the county board is being asked to levy, and no administrative costs that the county would incur. He clarified with Ford that although the county board would allow for the formation of this new entity to take place, the responsibility for it would rest with the local communities. Nor would the county need to bond or incur any kind of debt. In that case, Peterson said, he fully supported the initiative.

Peterson commended Ann Arbor officials for allowing AATA to move in this direction, noting that in general “I don’t commend them too much.” The project had moved more quickly than any other government initiative he could recall, and there’s no question it had his support.

Wes Prater asked when the articles of incorporation would be ready for review. In January, Ford replied. Prater then clarified with Ford that local communities could opt out of the 196 organization if they wanted to – they didn’t have to participate.

Prater noted that the five-year plan doesn’t indicate any capital improvements that will be needed. Ford said that piece of it is still being developed, and they’re looking at potential funding needed for both operations and capital. That information will be provided to the board in the future, he said.

Yousef Rabhi described this project as one of utmost importance. He doesn’t own a car, and said he would love to be able to get where he needed to go throughout the county via public transportation. He said he’s attended two of the three U196 meetings so far, but he’s not an official liaison for the county board. Anyone can go to the U196 meetings.

Leah Gunn indicated support for appointing Rabhi as a liaison. She said when she first met Ford, she knew he could pull off this initiative.

Dan Smith said he had some doubts that all of the local communities would participate, and it appears that’s the case. He said he expected more would pull out eventually. Smith added that he’s glad the financing piece is coming together, and he thanked Ford for the outreach and updates, and for soliciting public opinion on this effort.

Barbara Bergman joked that she now knows how to get a free lunch – an allusion to several lunch meetings that AATA hosted for community leaders to brief them about this project. She thanked Ford for tutoring her on the effort.

Setting the Stage for 2012

Typically the report from the board chair is a relatively brief agenda item. But at the Dec. 7 meeting, Conan Smith used the time to make a presentation outlining a framework for setting priorities in 2012. With the county’s two-year budget now approved for 2012-2013, the board has the luxury of using 2012 as a planning year, he said, putting in place policy changes that will guide the county in the future.

Smith identified two main issues facing the county: (1) institutional financial stability, and (2) a crisis facing the east side of the county.

He addressed the county’s financial stability first, noting that the county has a structural deficit with long-term implications. Though the administration has done yeoman’s work in making structural reforms, Smith said, it’s not sufficient, given other challenges at the federal, state and local levels. Among those challenges, he said, are declining property values leading to lower tax revenues, a reduction or elimination of state revenue-sharing, changes to federal programs that affect revenue, and the possible elimination of the personal property tax. On the expenditure side, the county is challenged by increasing labor costs, particularly related to health care and to retiree health care liabilities.

There’s also “complexity” regarding the cost of police services, Smith said. The county’s contribution to police services is escalating, he noted, and if other communities want to opt in and contract with the sheriff for police services, how can the county afford it?

Looking ahead, the county faces a sizeable gap between projected revenues and expenditures, he said. The projections anticipate deficits of $11.6 million in 2014 and $14.7 million in 2015. At the community level, there are several threats, he said, including dramatic disparities in child poverty rates, high unemployment rates, declining per-capita income levels, and disparate graduation rates. Related to that last issue, Smith noted that the Chelsea school district has the county’s highest graduation rate, and he hoped the board could look to commissioner Rob Turner – who served on the Chelsea school board for nine years – for guidance.

Turning to issues facing the county’s east side, Smith said that area is facing what someone else characterized as the “perfect storm of despair.” The unemployment rate in the city of Ypsilanti is nearly 12%, compared to 8% countywide. Between 1999 and 2008, per-capita income in Ypsilanti Township fell to 19% to $24,038. Per-capita income in Ypsilanti Township and Ypsilanti, at $21,014, is below the amount that would be generated from the county’s living wage ordinance of $12.50 an hour, he noted. The situation ought to be untenable and unacceptable, he said.

Chart showing rates of free or reduced school lunches. (Links to larger image)

Other measures that reflect the disparity between the east side and the rest of the county include the percentage of students enrolled in the free or reduced school lunch program, the percentage of residents reporting they experience poor mental health days, and lower graduation rates.

Smith said that while you can find pockets of poverty, hunger and homelessness throughout the county, there’s a layering of challenges on the east side that make it especially dire, and difficult for residents to break out of the cycle of poverty. He said he was grateful that two Ypsilanti city councilmembers – Pete Murdock and Brian Robb – were attending that night’s board meeting. He noted that despite being one of the state’s best-managed cities, Ypsilanti is facing a financial crisis that could lead to bankruptcy. Ypsilanti has the highest tax rate in the county, yet because of declining property values, its property tax revenue is falling. That creates an environment in which it’s difficult to attract businesses or residents, Smith said.

It’s a cross-jurisdictional challenge, Smith argued, and the county needs to work hand-in-glove with Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township to address these problems. He maintained that east side issues are county issues. For one thing, a decline in property values affects the amount of revenues in the county budget. From 2007 to 2011, the county’s general fund has lost $3.75 million in revenues because of falling property values in Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. In addition, he noted that the board has made human services and public safety a priority – those issues are particularly a concern on the east side.

Smith then outlined options for addressing these challenges, saying that the county’s financial stability and the problems facing the east side are interconnected. Regarding the county’s financial stability, Smith looked at three options: (1) cut costs and services; (2) raise the tax rate; and (3) improve the tax base. The first option is not sustainable, he argued. It has an immediate impact, but a declining effect. It would entail workforce reductions, which would in turn mean cuts to direct services for residents. And some would argue that the county has already cut to the bone, he said.

The second option – raising the tax rate – would also have a near-term impact and declining long-term effect. It might be an effective strategy to address specific issues, he said. Potential targets might include a Headlee override, or a millage for specific county services such as housing, police services or community health. The strategy could also be used to fund outside agencies, such as the nonprofit sector – the possibility of a human services millage has been floated in the past.

2012 ballot deadlines.

Smith said that Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, has pledged to schedule a discussion on this topic in early 2012. Passing a millage or Headlee override, which would reset the millage rate to its original value, would be an uphill battle, Smith said, and something the board would need to tackle quickly. Regarding the Headlee override, the county would gain about 9/10ths of a mill, he said – equating to around $13 million to $14 million annually.

With respect to levying an additional millage, Smith said he had used 0.5 mill as an example, and had calculated how much residents across the county would pay if such a millage passed. [.pdf of chart showing millage calculations] Ann Arbor residents, for example, would pay on average $55.25 annually. On the low end, residents in the village of Manchester would pay $25.54, based on the average taxable value of property there. A half-mill would raise about $7-8 million for the county, Smith said.

The third option is to improve the county’s tax base, which is the most sustainable, but hardest and longest approach, Smith said. It would focus on improving economic opportunity and quality of life, but would require a coordinated investment from both the public and private sectors, he noted – the county couldn’t do it alone.

Smith proposed that the board explore this third option. The board needs to look strategically at whether to put a millage on the ballot, and to develop a policy framework for the county’s investments – how it spends its revenues. Those investments are already being made in the county’s hardest-hit areas, he said, but there are better, more strategic ways to do that.

A policy framework would identify the outcomes that are desired, such as improved jobs, health or public safety. A policy framework would also provide better clarity and coherence in decision-making across all county agencies, as well as for voters and community partners. Developing this kind of framework would be a long process, he said, and would require leadership from the board.

Within this context, Smith identified five goals to work toward:

• Stabilize or increase property values.
• Create opportunities for living-wage jobs.
• Provide access to lifeline resources for physical and emotional health and well-being.
• Ensure safety and security for all residents.
• Build an engaged, empowered citizenry.

Smith said he hoped to hold working sessions focused on each of these goals in early 2012. He also wanted to take the first several months of the year to talk about a possible millage, but set a longer timeline for the policy discussions. The outcome of their work would be (1) a decision on whether to put a millage on the ballot, and (2) a policy framework for dealing with issues on the county’s east side.

Regarding a possible millage proposal, Smith laid out the following timeline:

• January 2012: Hold a working session to explore the focus of a millage, rates and logistical considerations.
• February/March 2012: Craft a proposal for the board to review, approve or reject.
• March through May, August or November 2012 (depending on when a millage would be put on the ballot): Support a campaign for the millage.

For developing a policy framework, Smith proposed starting with a half-day retreat in January that would include other county elected officials. Working sessions could be held in February through May with staff and others focused on the five goals. From May through August a policy framework would be drafted, reviewed, amended and adopted, he said, followed by implementation starting in September.

Smith concluded his presentation by saying he looked forward to discussing these issues as the board moves into a very challenging 2012.

Setting the State for 2012: Commissioner Discussion

The board spent about 45 minutes discussing Smith’s proposal. Yousef Rabhi began by describing the goals as phenomenal. It was great to have those goals for the east side, he added, but everyone in the county should have access to living-wage jobs, or a home that’s not at risk of foreclosure. The need is everywhere, he said, though the rates of poverty are higher on the east side. He noted that the county is already spending about 70% of its resources on the east side. It’s good to have a discussion about how to make those resources more effective, but Rabhi also wanted to have that same discussion include other parts of the county.

Barbara Bergman told Smith that if other commissioners had been involved in developing his proposal, it would have included all of the county, not just the east side. [Bergman represents District 8, which covers the northeast portion of Ann Arbor. Smith's District 10 also is in Ann Arbor, on the west side.] It would be difficult to pass a millage unless the revenues it generated would be spent countywide, she said. There is poverty all over the county, she added, and unless that’s considered, she wouldn’t support this approach.

Bergman said she’s long been a supporter of Ypsilanti, but this plan doesn’t take into consideration other parts of the county and it would be difficult to ask her constituents to support a millage for it. She said she hoped he would take this into consideration “as you plan agendas with us, Mr. Smith.”

Felicia Brabec asked Smith what the process would be, now that he has presented his proposal. Smith characterized it as similar to the budget process this year, when he presented some issues and a framework for board discussion. He noted that he didn’t present solutions, only options. Part of his role as chair is to make sure the board’s agendas are driving forward their priorities. He said he has background and experience in fostering these kinds of conversations, and if the outcome doesn’t go his way, “that’s not new.” Responding to Bergman’s comments, Smith said the board will make decisions on how to proceed – his job is just to kick off the conversation.

Brabec said her thought is that these goals would fit a lot of communities, but she was struck by how difficult it would be to identify objectives for these goals. That alone could take a year or two, she said.

Smith said if it were up to him, they’d talk about it for five years – he and Tony VanDerworp, one of the county’s managers who’s responsible for energy and economic development programs, would be “drunk on process,” Smith joked. But there are ways to tackle these goals more quickly. For one, the board can rely on staff leadership – many county workers have been dealing with these challenges for decades, he noted. The other thing is simply to attune people to the outcomes that the board is seeking, and focus efforts across county government – including the sheriff, treasurer and other elected leaders – on getting greater impact from their investments. How can they all work together better, for a greater impact?

Wes Prater said he was impressed by Smith’s “white paper,” adding that it will make commissioners think about these issues. He noted that they can use census data to drill down and determine specific areas of poverty to target the county’s resources, but agreed with others who said the effort needs to look countywide. There are tough decisions to be made, he said, “but I guess that’s our job.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he agreed with Prater. There are duplication of services that he’d like to address, especially related to services for youth. Sizemore said he was organizing a countywide summit for youth, and he planned to work hard on these goals.

Saying he’d been concerned about the challenges coming up in the 2014-2015 budget, Rob Turner praised Smith for focusing the board on these issues. These are great ideas, but the biggest thing that will help improve the county financially is to make people more productive, he said. Turner also expressed concern about focusing mainly on the east side – everyone needs to buy into it, he said. [Turner represents District 1, covering the west and northwest part of the county.]

Turner told commissioners that his niece is a teacher in the Willow Run school district on the county’s east side, and that kids there aren’t prepared for school because of their socioeconomic situation – it puts them at a terrible disadvantage. The financial viability of an area depends on the education of its residents, he said. It’s an interconnected issue that needs to be addressed.

Related to a millage proposal, Turner said he’d been involved in two proposals recently: a countywide school enhancement millage, and a special education millage renewal. The enhancement millage failed because “Ann Arbor voters stayed home,” Turner said, and it wasn’t supported in the out-county areas. Ann Arbor voters again stayed home for the special education millage – some precincts recorded less than 2% turnout – but turnout was greater in other parts of the county, and it passed. Ann Arbor residents must be passionate about any effort that the county puts forward, in order for it to succeed, Turner said. He looked forward to continuing this discussion, and to the board’s retreat in January. The year 2014 will be here before they know it, he said.

Ronnie Peterson praised Smith’s presentation, then said the millage proposal should be separate from the policy framework discussion. That’s correct, Smith replied. Any millage would be countywide and support countywide issues. The other discussion would help the county focus its current investments on the east side more strategically.

Peterson – who represents District 6, which covers much of Ypsilanti – argued that the rest of the county would benefit from helping the east side. “You can’t be half sick,” he said, and Ypsilanti needs healing. He described Smith’s proposal as one of the best initiatives he’d ever seen in county government, and said the needs are great for education, poverty and public safety.

Peterson took issue with the implication that it was somehow unfair for the east side to be getting 70% of the county’s resources. Much of that is federal funding that’s based on data regarding income and other measures, he noted – and he’d be willing to share his district’s poverty, if others wanted those federal resources. He told other commissioners not to compare the few census tracts of poverty in their districts with the situation on the county’s east side. “We will all rise together,” he said.

Rabhi clarified that he hadn’t meant the county should reduce that 70% in spending on the east side, but rather that they should ensure it’s spent more wisely.

80/20 Rule

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a resolution stating that the county will comply with Section 4 of the state’s Public Act 152 of 2011, also known as the “80/20″ rule regarding health care costs. Initial approval was given at the board’s Nov. 16 meeting.

On Jan. 1, 2012, public employers like Washtenaw County will be prohibited from paying more than $5,500 for health benefits annually for a single employee, $11,000 for an employee plus spouse, or $15,000 for family coverage. However, the law allows a public employer, by a majority vote of its governing body, to choose another option: to pay not more than 80% of the total annual costs of all the medical benefits plans it contributes to or offers its employees and elected public officials.

When the board initially passed this resolution on Nov. 16, it stated that collective bargaining agreements entered into by the county on or after Sept. 15, 2011 must comply with the 80/20 rule. Five of the county’s 17 bargaining units, representing about 95 employees, do not yet have agreements with the county for 2012-2013. Those employees would be subject to the 80/20 rule, which will place more responsibility on employees for the cost of health care.

The units that haven’t accepted concessions are those representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office, and AFSCME Local 3052 representing general supervisors.

However, on Dec. 7 an amendment was proposed to change the Sept. 15 date, which the board had initially approved, to Jan. 1, 2012.

Alicia Ping spoke out against the date change. She said that 90% of the employee had come to the table in good faith to meet the Sept. 15 deadline, and it sends the wrong message to them if the board now extends that date. Dan Smith said he’d be voting against the amendment for similar reasons. He noted that the board had held a special meeting in September for the sole purpose of approving labor agreements before the Sept. 15 deadline.

Ronnie Peterson asked why the date change to Jan. 1 is needed. County administrator Verna McDaniel said the change simply gives the administration more flexibility in trying to reach agreements with the unions before the end of this year.

Wes Prater and Yousef Rabhi indicated support, though Rabhi also expressed concern this wasn’t treating the different bargaining units equally. Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, came to the podium and said that the change has no impact on the other bargaining units. For the remaining five units, members will either be subject to the 80/20 rule or the hard cap, she said – in either case, they’ll be paying more for their benefits than the other bargaining units.

Outcome: On a 9-2 vote, commissioners approved the date change related to the 80/20 rule deadline for bargaining units. Dissenting were Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

During public commentary at the end of Wednesday’s meeting, county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie spoke to the board, saying that it wasn’t appropriate for some commissioners to imply that the five remaining bargaining units are negotiating in bad faith. He said there is nothing wrong with the way that they’re negotiating, and noted that two years ago, the prosecuting attorneys had been the first of the county’s bargaining units to agree to pay for a portion of their medical insurance. [As an elected official, Mackie is not represented by any of the bargaining units.]

2011 Apportionment Report

In a process mandated by the state, commissioners were asked to accept the county’s 2011 apportionment report, which gives details of the 2011 taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. December tax bills have already been mailed out to property owners, based on these calculations.

Every April, the county’s equalization department produces an annual report describing Washtenaw County’s total equalized (assessed) value of property. The report – part of the state-mandated equalization process – gives an indication of how much revenue the county will receive from property taxes in the coming year. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw County's Taxable Value Falls"]

In November, the equalization and property description department presents an apportionment report, which gives details of the taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. [.pdf file of 2011 apportionment report] Like the equalization report, the board is required by state law to vote on adopting the apportionment report.

This year, all the taxing entities in Washtenaw County will be levying in total about $622 million in property taxes – a drop from $639 million in 2010. The county alone will levy about $81 million this year, compared to $83 million in 2010.

Raman Patel, the county’s equalization director, spoke briefly to commissioners, saying that the equalization process is underway in preparation for the annual report in April. He noted that the next equalization report will be calculated based on a CPI of 2.7%, compared to 1.7% for the previous report. [The consumer price index (CPI) is an indicator of inflation.) He said it appears that the market is stabilizing, and that taxable value won’t be declining as much as it did last year.

Conan Smith expressed some surprise and gently teased Patel, noting that this was the first time that he could recall Patel ever hinting at the outcome of an equalization report in advance of its completion. Smith also thanked Patel for his professionalism and guidance over the past few decades for the county during these difficult economic times. Though Smith's remarks implied that Patel would be retiring, after the meeting Patel told The Chronicle that he hadn't announced that decision yet.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to accept the apportionment report.

Support for Same-Sex Benefits

A resolution brought forward by Washtenaw County commissioner Yousef Rabhi urged state lawmakers to reject HB 4770, HB 4771 and “any legislation that codifies discrimination.”  [.pdf of resolution] The state legislation removes the ability to extend benefits to same-sex partners. As of the Dec. 7 meeting, it had been passed by both the House and Senate. It now awaits Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature before becoming law. A Dec. 9 article in the Detroit Free Press quoted Snyder’s spokeswoman, who indicated that the governor intends to sign the bill pending a final review.

Currently, Washtenaw County offers its employees the option of benefits in an “other eligible adult” category, which includes benefits to same-sex partners as well as opposite-sex partners. There are nine people enrolled in this category of benefits, according to Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director.

Support for Same-Sex Benefits: Public Commentary

Sandi Smith said she was there as a private citizen, even though she serves on the Ann Arbor city council. The council had voted unanimously at its Dec. 5 meeting to support equality, she said, and she hoped the county commissioners would do the same. She noted that the legislation had been passed in the Senate earlier that day, and would go to the governor for his signature imminently. It’s a question of equality, she said. People should be compensated equally, Smith said, and Michigan can’t afford to be viewed as an unfriendly place to be.

Andy LaBarre introduced himself as vice president of of government relations at the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce. In November, the chamber had announced its opposition to the legislation, he said, because of its detrimental effect on the business community. [.pdf of chamber statement on HB 4770 and HB4771] LaBarre said he was there to applaud the board for its resolution.

After LaBarre’s commentary, Rabhi pointed out that in addition to his work at the chamber, LaBarre is a candidate for the county board. [LaBarre, a Democrat and former aide to Congressman John Dingell, has announced his intent to run in 2012 for the newly redistricted seat in Ann Arbor's District 7.] Wes Prater kidded Rabhi about how much LaBarre had paid him to mention that.

Support for Same-Sex Benefits: Commissioner Discussion

In an email to The Chronicle prior to the Dec. 7 meeting, Rabhi described the situation as an issue of fairness and equality – the county should be able to treat all of its employees, regardless of sexual orientation, with the same level of care. He also argued that eliminating the county’s ability to extend benefits would hamper its hiring ability. That’s of particular concern because the county is expected to fill about 100 positions in the coming year, in the wake of a high number of retirements at the end of 2011.

At the Dec. 7 meeting, Rob Turner asked to pull the resolution out of the consent agenda so that it could be considered separately. He said he had appreciated that during his year on the board, commissioners haven’t proposed resolutions on state issues. These kinds of votes don’t promote cohesiveness, he said – they are divisive. Because the resolution sets a bad precedent that the board might later regret, he asked that it be withdrawn so that there aren’t hard feelings among commissioners. He said that this kind of resolution has no influence on state legislation.

Leah Gunn countered that this is a message the board needs to send. There are some county employees whose families depend on health insurance and other benefits provided through the “other eligible adult” category, she noted. Gunn said she felt strongly that this is one instance in which the county would be directly affected by the state legislation, and she supported Rabhi’s resolution.

Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie and Ann Arbor city councilmember Sandi Smith. Both spoke during public commentary at the county board meeting, on different topics.

Barbara Bergman agreed with Gunn, saying that the quality of life for county employees is the board’s responsibility, and this legislation affects their quality of life. Generally she agreed with Turner that the board should stay away from state issues, but this is a moral obligation to employees, who are doing “yeoman’s work” for the county, she said.

Dan Smith supported Turner’s view opposing the resolution. They could spend lots of time debating issues at the state and national level – or even issues at the United Nations. The board needs to stay focused on Washtenaw County issues, he said.

Rabhi acknowledged the concerns raised by Turner and D. Smith, and said he respected their opinion. He hoped this wouldn’t be divisive, and he didn’t think it would be – the commissioners work together “phenomenally,” he said. But Rabhi added that he wouldn’t withdraw the resolution, saying he firmly believed they needed to take a stand on this, and that it’s important to staff.

Felicia Brabec also supported the resolution. It’s an issue of fairness and equality, she said, and it affects everyone – not just those who receive benefits. Alicia Ping pointed out that there are around 50,000 people in the county who don’t have health insurance, and any legislation that affects people’s access to health insurance is a bad thing, even if it’s just nine people.

Turner said there have been other times when issues at the state level would have affected staff. He cited a time when AFSCME leaders approached commissioners about an issue. In that case, the approach was for individual commissioners to write letters to state legislators. That was a good way to handle it, Turner said.

Conan Smith said he agreed with Turner in terms of process – the board faces challenges, and needs unity. He said they know their legislators extraordinarily well, and it was easy to get in touch. [This remark elicited laughs, as Smith is married to state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), who attended part of the Dec. 7 meeting.]

In general, C. Smith hoped the board would stay far away from issues that don’t impact the county, and he hoped to minimize the times that they would weigh in on state issues.

Gunn added that anyone can vote the way they want, and it won’t be held against them.

Ronnie Peterson said the resolution had his vote “even without the phone call” – an allusion to Rabhi’s communication with individual commissioners prior to the meeting. The benefits came as part of the condition of employment at the county, he said, and no one should be able to take them away. “Any form of discrimination is wrong,” he said.

Outcome: On a 9-2 vote, commissioners passed the resolution urging state lawmakers to reject HB 4770 and HB 4771. Dissenting were Rob Turner (R-District 1) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Brownfield Plans for Ford, Arbor Hills Crossing

Two brownfield plans were on the agenda for the Dec. 7 meeting: for Ford Motor Co.’s Rawsonville plant, and Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw. Projects at locations within municipalities that are part of the county brownfield redevelopment authority – including Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township – must have brownfield plans approved by the county board.

Brownfield Plan: Arbor Hills Crossing

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw. The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces. The brownfield plan includes $6.7 million in tax increment financing (TIF) to be paid back over a 19-year period.

The Ann Arbor city council approved the brownfield plan at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

Dan Smith asked staff to tell him how much of the TIF capture would otherwise be coming to the county’s general fund. Brett Lenart, who has provided staff support for the county’s brownfield program, said that the project is expected to bring an annual increase of $432,000 in property taxes for all taxing jurisdictions. Of that, the county’s portion would be $58,913 compared to the current $16,254. These higher amounts would occur after the end of the 19-year period of the brownfield plan.

Smith said he would support this plan reluctantly. The board still hasn’t had a broader discussion about brownfield plans that require TIF capture, he noted. There are tradeoffs, but commissioners haven’t discussed those tradeoffs.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the working sessions of the board, said he’d schedule the topic for an upcoming session. [The board had debated the issue of brownfield projects in May of this year, in the context of a request from developers of Packard Square in Ann Arbor.] Rabhi noted that the increase eventually coming to the county is money is money it doesn’t currently have.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to give initial approval to the Arbor Hills Crossing brownfield plan. A final vote will likely occur at the board’s Jan. 18, 2012 meeting, when a public hearing is set. 

Brownfield Plan: Ford’s Rawsonville Plant

The board held a public hearing and was asked to give final approval to a brownfield plan for Ford Motor Co.’s Rawsonville plant. The plan would allow Ford to apply for $625,000 in Michigan Business Tax credits. According to a staff memo, the plan – with the potential tax credits – would allow the company to retain 260 jobs by bringing back work that’s currently done in China and Mexico. Investment in 2012 would be about $20 million, with total jobs stabilized at about 700 workers.

Two people spoke during the public hearing. Thomas Partridge criticized the hearing for being held so late in the meeting, when the public would have a difficult time being there. He also said these kinds of hearings should be better publicized. Partridge urged the company to reconsider its request and to lower the amount of tax credits and shorten the time it would receive this assistance. The project was taking away vital resources from schools and other taxing entities, he said.

Jeff Donofrio, with Ford Motor Co.’s government affairs office, said this request is all about keeping the Rawsonville plant competitive within the Ford system, so that it can receive additional investment and retain jobs. The request is part of a package of incentives to bring in new investments for Ford’s hybrid-electric and plug-in electric vehicles. He urged commissioners to support the plan.

During the brief discussion of this item, Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked whether there might be job-shadowing opportunities at the Rawsonville plant for local youth. Donofrio indicated that Ford would be willing to explore that idea.

Ronnie Peterson recalled when the plant had employed more than 5,000 workers, including his father and brother. He was pleased to see jobs coming back, and said the board should be advocates for Ford to continue investing in the county.

As a general commentary on the brownfield program, Wes Prater said the county gives more than $2 million in tax breaks to companies each year, and the board needs a better policy to guide decision-making in this area.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the brownfield plan for Ford Motor Co.’s Rawsonville plant.

Western Washtenaw Recycling

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to issue up to $2.7 million in bonds – backed by the county’s full faith and credit – to help pay for a $3.2 million facility operated by the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority (WWRA). The board had approved a contract for this project at its Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, and taken an initial vote on the bonds at its Nov. 16 meeting.

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.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the WWRA bonds.

Energy Subcommittee Formed

On the Dec. 7 agenda was a resolution to create an energy policy subcommittee. The subcommittee’s purpose is to help develop a county energy policy. Such a policy is required in order to receive federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants.

By way of background related to energy issues, at its Aug. 3, 2011 meeting, the board had held a public hearing and subsequently approved an interlocal agreement with the Southeast Michigan Energy Office Community Alliance (SEMRO). The Ferndale-based nonprofit (SEMRO) provides technical services to the county in identifying and implementing federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant projects. [.pdf of interlocal agreement]

The energy office is a division of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance. County commissioner and board chair Conan Smith is CEO of the alliance. The board voted initially to join the energy office at its March 17, 2010 meeting. Smith abstained from that vote. Smith was absent from the Aug. 3 meeting.

At the Dec. 7 meeting, Ronnie Peterson complained about a lack of information regarding the resolution. He asked how far-reaching the subcommittee’s scope would be. Tony VanDerworp, who leads the county’s energy initiatives, told commissioners that having an energy policy is a requirement for receiving federal block grants. But the subcommittee’s charge can be whatever the board wants it to be, he said. The subcommittee’s focus was intended to form a policy for internal purposes, he added – looking at county-owned buildings, its vehicle fleet, and overall energy conservation efforts. But it could be farther-reaching.

In response to a query about who would be appointed, Conan Smith said the members would be commissioners Rob Turner, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Yousef Rabhi. However, he added, others could join if they were interested.

Barbara Bergman noted that any policies or actions proposed by the subcommittee would come before the board for approval. That is, she said, the subcommittee wouldn’t be “czaristic.”

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to create an energy policy subcommittee.

York Twp. Drain Project

Commissioners were asked to authorize the county’s full faith and credit to back the payment of bonds used to repair sinkholes and replace broken tile in a drain along Saline-Milan Road in York Township. [.pdf of map showing project area]

The amount of the bonds is not to exceed $235,000, and will be retired in part through special assessments against the property owners in that area’s drainage district. Money from assessments will account for 69.16% of the project cost, with remaining project costs prepaid by York Township (20%), and Washtenaw County (10.84%). The Wasthenaw County road commission will pay half of the county’s portion of this project, which is being managed by the county office of the water resources commissioner.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize bonds for the York Township drain project.

Appointments

Immediately prior to the board’s Dec. 7, commissioners held an appointments caucus to review applications to 15 county-appointed boards, commissioners and committees – a bi-annual process.

The start of the Washtenaw County appointments caucus. Other commissioners arrived later in the meeting. From left: Alicia Ping, deputy county clerk Peter Simms, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Leah Gunn, Rob Turner.

Many of the applicants already serve on these groups and were seeking reappointments. Most of the board, commissions and committees require certain categories of people to serve. For example, the brownfield redevelopment authority board required the appointment of someone from a development company (Douglas McClure), a nonprofit (Anna Sandhu), and a municipality (Todd Campbell). There were no other applicants for those slots, and all were reappointed.

In some cases, there were insufficient applicants to fill all the available seats. The local emergency planning committee, for example, has 12 seats to fill, but only one person – Leon Moore – applied.

Some of the other appointments include:

• Washtenaw County Historic District Commission: Paul Darling (general public), Nancy Snyder (general public) and Alice Ralph (architect) were reappointed to terms ending Dec. 31, 2014.
• Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission: Jimmie Maggard, Janice Anschuetz and Robert Marans were all reappointed in the category of general public to terms expiring Dec. 31, 2014. A fourth position was left open, also in the category of general public, although two other people applied. Conan Smith, the county board chair who also serves on the parks & rec commission, said there’s some concern about the aging membership of the commission – about two-thirds of the group is 70 or old, he said, and younger commissioners are needed. He wanted to keep the fourth position open to take time to find someone who loves the work and “will be able to stick around.”
• Environmental Health Code Appeals Board/Public Health Advisory Committee: Jim Carty (general public).
• Community Action Board: Much of the caucus discussion focused on this board, which had nine openings and 16 applicants. Ultimately only six appointments were made: Mary Smith (consumer/Head Start), Joe Dulin (private sector), Deloisteen Brown (private sector), Howard Edelson (private sector), Faye Askew-King (private sector) and Greg Pordon (public sector/Dept. of Human Services). Several other current members did not respond to queries about whether they wanted to be reappointed, and the plan was to attempt to contact them again before making a decision on the remaining appointments. The length of these terms varies.
• Workforce Development Board: Nine positions were open and 12 people applied, but the board only appointed seven people on Dec. 7, with remaining appointments to be made at a later date. The appointees are: Paul Ganz (private sector), Charles Penner (private sector/economic development), Les Alexander (private sector), Howard Edelson (private sector), Steven Gulick (organized labor) and Wes Prater (organized labor). The length of these terms varies.
• Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee: Two reappointments were made to this group, which oversees the county’s natural areas preservation program: Rane Curl (land trust/conservation) and David Lutton (professional real estate or development practice). The terms end Dec. 31, 2013. A third reappointment request – for John Russell (environmental education) – was denied. In explaining the decision to commissioners at the appointments caucus, Conan Smith described Russell as passionate, but not a constructive committee member. Smith said the position will be reposted, and noted that other applications came in after the deadline. Barbara Bergman urged Smith to send a letter of thanks to Russell for his service.

Outcome: At the board’s regular meeting, appointments were approved unanimously. [.pdf of all appointments]

Communications/Public Commentary

There are various opportunities for communications from commissioners as well as general public commentary.

Communications: Parks & Recreation Grants

Conan Smith, who also serves on the county parks & recreation commission, asked parks & rec director Bob Tetens to come forward and report on state grants that were recently awarded to projects in the county. Tetens reported that earlier in the day he’d been notified by Kirk Profit – a Lansing-based lobbyist for the county – that the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund had awarded grants to four local projects: (1) a skatepark  to be built at Ann Arbor’s Veterans Memorial Park, (2) improvements at the Gallup Park canoe livery, (3) improvements at Rutherford Pool in Ypsilanti, and (4) a Michigan Ave. (US-12) Border-to-Border bridge project.

In addition, Tetens said the county had been awarded $2.2 million toward the purchase of a 54-acre parcel near Domino’s Farms in Ann Arbor Township, through the county’s natural areas preservation program. In total, about $3.5 million were awarded to projects within the county, Tetens said. “We were happy.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr., another commissioner serving on the parks & recreation commission, thanked state Sen. Rebekah Warren for her help in securing the funds.

Ronnie Peterson also praised Warren, especially for pointing out this possible funding source for the Rutherford pool, which is located in Peterson’s district. He also thanked Profit and others for working on these projects.

Communications: Pearl Harbor Day, Armistice Day

Rolland Sizemore Jr. noted that Dec. 7 was Pearl Harbor Day, saying that he wanted people to keep that in mind.

Dan Smith said he’d recently come across some relevant state legislation:

MCL 46.11a Armistice day celebration; appropriation by board of supervisors. [The board of supervisors is a predecessor to the current board of commissioners.]

The board of supervisors is hereby authorized to appropriate such sum as they deem fit for the purpose of a public celebration on Armistice day. The board shall provide for the expenditure of this money in any way they see fit.

He noted that Armistice Day is now called Veterans Day, celebrated in September. He said his father served in the navy from September 1945 through August 1946, and was always proud of that naval service.

Public Commentary: Lourdes Salazar Bautista

In addition to the public commentary reported above, six people spoke regarding the imminent deportation of Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista. Many others were in the audience carrying signs of support and applauding those who addressed the board. Some of the speakers had also attended the Dec. 5 Ann Arbor city council meeting and spoken during public commentary there as well.

Speaking Spanish that was translated by an interpreter, Lourdes Salazar Bautista described how she’d lived in Ann Arbor for 14 years, fulfilling a dream of hers to come here. Her father had often come to America to work in the fields, and had spoken highly of the country. Her three children – ages 7, 9 and 13 – were all born here. Everything was going well until agents of the federal Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) office had detained her in front of her oldest daughter last year. They deported her husband, but told her that everything else was fine. Then in September of this year, they told her that she would be deported too – her deportation date is set for Dec. 27. She tearfully asked commissioners to do whatever was in their power to help.

Laura Sanders of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR) said that Bautista’s case is not isolated. Washtenaw County is a target because of its proximity to the border with Canada, and the need for federal immigration official to meet deportation quotas. Thousands of residents are affected, she said. Sanders urged commissioners to sign a letter of support for Bautista, that would be sent to ICE director John Morton and Janet Napolitano, director of homeland security. [.pdf of WICIR's cover letter to commissioners] [.pdf of proposed letter to Morton and Napolitano] Sanders praised county sheriff Jerry Clayton, saying he had been accessible to WICIR on this issue.

Diana Carolina, a PhD student at the University of Michigan, said she was the daughter of an immigrant who was a domestic worker, often coming home with her hands smelling like cleaning products. ICE is tearing families apart, she said, including families with children who, like her, have assimilated to the U.S. She noted the irony of the U.S. government promoting policies that destroyed economies in South America, while at the same time deporting people who were forced to come to America to find jobs.

Carlos Zalval identified himself as a member of WICIR and of the St. Mary Student Parish, where Bautista is also a member. He’s known Bautista for years, and described her as a role model for families, working with children even under this adverse situation. She is a positive influence, and the U.S. would gain a productive and caring person if she stayed. She’s a hard worker and pays taxes, he said. Immigrants move this country forward, and he urged commissioners to help stop her deportation.

Linda Kurtz is a neighbor of Bautista, living across the street from her for more than 10 years. Bautista is a good neighbor and a good friend, Kurtz said, and their children played together for many years. She’s hard-working, quiet, respectful and caring, and turned a run-down house on the block into a nice home. Of the nine houses on the block, two had been foreclosed on and one of those is still vacant. The block doesn’t need another empty house, she said. Bautista pays her bills on time, and is an asset to the community – an embodiment of the American dream, Kurtz said, and it would be devastating in she was deported.

Priscila Martinez read a letter from David DeYoung, the principal of Wines Elementary, where Bautista’s two youngest children attend school. In the letter, DeYoung described the children as model students, and said that Bautista is an active member in the school community. Pulling them out of school would have a devastating affect on their future. Martinez also told commissioners that other letters were being written in support of Bautista by leaders of the Catholic church and by Congressman John Dingell and Sen. Carl Levin.

Three commissioners – Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, and Yousef Rabhi – responded to the public commentary, thanking people for coming and indicating their support. Gunn noted that all the commissioners had signed a copy of the letter to Morton and Napolitano – it had been passed around the board table earlier in the meeting.

Public Commentary: Thomas Partridge

In addition to the public hearing on Ford’s brownfield plan, Thomas Partridge spoke during the four other opportunities for public commentary during the Dec. 7 meeting. He reiterated themes he frequently touches on during commentary at various public meetings, advocating for action to bring more affordable housing, transportation, education and health care to the county’s most vulnerable residents. He urged commissioners to enact protections for the vulnerable, and impose penalties for those who bully the disadvantaged. He asked the board to reverse course and find a way to fully fund programs like Head Start.

Partridge also called on commissioners to oppose the deportation of Lourdes Salazar Bautista, saying that the county’s corporation counsel should go to court to seek an injunction against such an action.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2012 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. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

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!

Voting against the increase was Dan Smith (R-District 2). He noted that the board had just approved the budget at its last meeting, and it was premature to increase funding at this point, especially since the county asked its employees to make sacrifices to balance the budget. He also pointed to the projected $14 million deficit in 2014, which will require additional cuts, saying that the county is in dire financial straits.

Coordinated funds are distributed to a range of nonprofits through a process administered by the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, pooled with money from Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw Urban County, and Washtenaw United Way. The process gives priority for funding nonprofits that serve in six targeted areas: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health and food. [For background on coordinated funding, see Chronicle coverage: "Despite Concerns, Coordinated Funding OK'd"]

Several representatives from groups supported by coordinated funding spoke during public commentary at the Dec. 7 meeting, thanking the board of its support.

At a Nov. 29 administrative briefing to preview the Dec. 7 agenda, county administrator Verna McDaniel said that when she initially presented the proposed 2012-2013 budget at the board’s Sept. 21 meeting, more than three months remained in the current fiscal year, which ends Dec. 31. She indicated that there was still uncertainty about the county’s financial needs for the remainder of this year.

Also, she said, the county received a repayment of captured taxes from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and from a settlement with the townships of Ypsilanti and Augusta over a police services lawsuit. [The county received about $242,000 from the DDA, in a payment related to excess capture in the DDA's tax increment financing (TIF) district. That news had been announced in May 2011. The board voted in July 2011 to accept a $749,427 settlement related to the police services lawsuit. The county was paid in August.]

In explaining the reason for the additional funding at the Nov. 29 briefing, board chair Conan Smith noted that there’s increased need for basic human services, like food and housing. He also cited changes in the office of community development (OCD), which was recently awarded a $3 million grant. [The federal grant, administered by OCD, was awarded to the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project. It's for a project focusing on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township.]

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

Supporters of the Humane Society of Huron Valley in front of the Washtenaw County administration building at Main and Catherine, prior to the Oct. 19 board of commissioners meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Inside during their meeting, county commissioners heard from a stream of supporters for various nonprofits, all urging the board to maintain funding for services – from the care of animals to basic safety net services like housing and food. The proposed budget calls for $1.2 million in cuts to outside agencies, including many nonprofits. Funding levels would drop from about $3 million this year to $1.8 million in each of the next two years. The cuts are proposed to address a projected $17.5 million deficit over the next two years.

Much of the public commentary came from HSHV supporters, who argued that the county is already getting more services than it pays for under its contract with the nonprofit, even before cutting annual funding from $500,000 to $250,000. That contract expires at the end of 2011, and leaders from the county and HSHV will be meeting later this month to try to reach an agreement for providing services – including those mandated by the state.

The budget was the focus of much of Wednesday’s three-hour meeting, which started with the appointment of Felicia Brabec to fill the vacant District 7 seat. Commissioners expressed support for the nonprofits they fund, but several argued that cuts are necessary because of the county’s declining revenues. They also pointed to discussions at the state level of eliminating the personal property tax. A recent analysis prepared by county staff estimates that repeal of the PPT would cut county revenues by $5.559 million, and would eliminate a total of $42.961 million in revenues for all local governments in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of PPT report]

Some commissioners urged the public to contact state legislators and oppose the PPT repeal, while others asked that everyone dig into their own pockets and contribute to local nonprofits that face funding cuts. Several commissioners expressed support for putting a human services millage on the ballot as a way to raise money for these safety net services. It would not be possible to add it to the Nov. 8 ballot, but could be considered for 2012. Wes Prater also argued that not enough cuts have been made in the budget – he believes county departments can find additional ways to trim their expenses.

In the only formal action related to the proposed budget, a resolution proposed by Yousef Rabhi reallocated $26,230 in annual dues (or $52,460 over two years) paid to the Michigan Association of Counties, transferring those funds to the Delonis Center, a homeless shelter in Ann Arbor. The resolution was unanimously approved. It followed action at the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 17 meeting, when councilmembers appropriated $25,000 from the city’s general fund reserve to keep the Delonis Center’s warming center open this winter. At the council’s meeting, mayor John Hieftje noted that the Delonis Center is a partnership between the city and county, and he hoped the county would uphold its end.

Final decisions on the budget haven’t yet been settled. The board must pass a budget by Dec. 31, and has only three more regular meetings scheduled for the year. The budget must first be voted on by the Ways & Means Committee – a committee of the whole board – then voted on a final time at a regular board meeting.

Though much of the Oct. 19 meeting focused on 2012-2013 budget issues, the board gave final approval to several other items, including: (1) creating a study committee to explore a historic district in Salem Township; (2) renewing a two-year contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing-based lobbying firm; and (3) authorizing a contract with Sylvan Township related to the township’s bond repayment schedule.

And in non-budget public commentary, Douglas Smith submitted an appeal to the board for a Freedom of Information Act request that had been denied by the county, related to an incident that he says involves a high-ranking member of the sheriff’s office. The board did not respond publicly to his request, other than to clarify with the county’s corporation counsel that appeals are handled by the county administrator.

District 7 Appointment

The bi-weekly meetings of the county board are actually two back-to-back meetings, beginning with a Ways & Means Committee meeting at 6:30 p.m., followed immediately by the regular board meeting. The board meeting is officially posted to begin at 6:45 p.m., but typically starts much later – most of the deliberations on agenda items occur during Ways & Means, which is a committee of the entire board.

On Wednesday, rather than begin with Ways & Means, commissioners waited until 6:45 p.m. and began the evening by convening the board meeting – for the sole purpose of making an appointment to the vacant District 7 seat. Former commissioner Kristin Judge resigned from the board mid-term – effective Oct. 9 – and two people applied to replace her until special elections are held next year.

County commissioners Wes Prater (D-District 3) and Felicia Brabec (D-District 7).

The board interviewed Felicia Brabec and Christopher Nielsen at a public meeting on Monday, Oct. 17. In response to a question during public commentary at that meeting, commissioners reported that Judge had encouraged Brabec to apply, and had arranged introductions with some members of the board.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Alicia Ping read the resolution appointing Brabec. The same resolution set the special election dates: a primary on Feb. 28, 2012, and a general election on Tuesday, May 8.

The filing deadline for candidates with political party affiliations to run for this office is Dec. 6 at 4 p.m. The filing deadline for independent candidates is Jan. 3 at 4 p.m. Republican Richard Conn has already filed.

There was no discussion on Wednesday prior to the board’s vote.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to appoint Felicia Brabec to serve as District 7 commissioner. Barbara Bergman was absent.

After receiving a round of applause, Brabec was immediately sworn in by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum. Board chair Conan Smith said it was a difficult decision, and that it’s the board’s misfortune that they couldn’t appoint both candidates. [Nielsen also attended Wednesday's meeting.] To Brabec, Smith quipped, “”We will work you to death.” Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked her to introduce her husband, David Brabec, who was in the audience. Sizemore told him that commissioners are the reason Brabec will come home from these meetings in a bad mood. He appeared to be joking.

Funding for Nonprofits

Since county administrator Verna McDaniel formally presented the 2012-2013 general fund budget to the board at its Sept. 21 meeting, commissioners have discussed various elements of it at board meetings and working sessions. They have until the end of 2011 to modify and approve it. After Wednesday’s meeting, only three more regular board meetings are scheduled: Nov. 2 and 16, and Dec. 7.

Funding for outside agencies – $1.8 million for each of the coming two years, down from $3 million this year – is a relatively small part of the $97.7 million budget. Yet it typically receives considerable attention from the board and the community. The category includes funding for a variety of nonprofits, as well as dues and special initiatives, including funding for economic development efforts. [.pdf list of all proposed 2012-2013 outside agency funding]

Outside agency funding includes line items for several nonprofit institutions, including the Humane Society of Huron Valley, the Delonis Center homeless shelter, SafeHouse Center (a shelter for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault) and many others. It also includes a line item for coordinated funding of human services – funds that are pooled with other money from the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw United Way and Washtenaw Urban County. Those pooled funds are allocated to nonprofits in a coordinated way, focusing on six priority areas: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health safety net, and food. [.pdf of coordinated funding allocations]

If the 2012-2013 budget is approved as proposed, money for coordinated funding will drop by $128,538 – from $1,015,000 to $886,462. Several supporters who spoke at Wednesday’s meeting advocated for nonprofits who get funding through this process, which is overseen by the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle after the Oct. 19 meeting, Mary Jo Callan – director of the office of community development – said the intent would be to spread the cuts across all funded agencies, so that every nonprofit takes a small cut. Otherwise, the agencies technically funded by Washtenaw County would have to absorb the entire amount cut by the county, she wrote:

This scenario would be especially unfortunate for those agencies, since it was an administrative decision to assign agencies to specific funders. In other words, no agency specifically applied for county funds, since one application was an application to every funder through coordinated funding. … However, in order to execute the scenario where cuts are spread out across all agencies funded, other coordinated funding partners must agree to that scenario.

The board spent part of its Oct. 13 working session discussing outside agency funding. It was also the main topic of public commentary at Wednesday’s meeting, as well as at the formal public hearing on the budget.

Nearly 30 people spoke about outside agency funding at public commentary, and four people addressed the board on that issue during the public hearing. This report summarizes those remarks thematically. Many others attended the meeting – spilling out of the boardroom into the lobby of the county administration building –  but did not address the board. There was frequent applause in support of speakers’ commentary.

Funding for Nonprofits: Public Commentary – Humane Society

Ten people – volunteers and staff – urged commissioners to restore proposed funding cuts for the Humane Society of Huron Valley. Many other HSHV supporters attended the meeting but did not address the board formally. The proposed budget would cut HSHV funding from $500,000 to $250,000 annually. HSHV is operating under a contract with the county to provide state-mandated services, as well as services that go beyond the state mandate – the contract runs through 2011.

Susan Karp read a letter from Debbie Schutt of the Michigan Pet Fund Alliance. Earlier this year, HSHV received the alliance’s Outstanding Large Shelter Award for 2009. It was recognized for a 75% save rate that year. It will receive the 2010 award as well, according to Schutt. The letter described several shelters that, unlike HSHV, are under fire for their practices – including the Michigan Humane Society and the shelter in Livingston County. Schutt urged the county to work with HSHV. Lisa Birchmeier read a letter from another supporter of HSHV, who characterized Washtenaw County as a community of animal lovers. The county gets a bargain for HSHV’s comprehensive, innovative services, which include support for families that are struggling financially – like the Bountiful Bowls pet food assistance.

Holding her dog Snickers, Deborah Noble tearfully told commissioners that her dog represented the faces of many others that are cared for at HSHV. She served on the Superior Township planning commission, which had to approve the new facility – it’s second-to-none, she said. A year ago, Noble was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer, and “there is no stage 5,” she said. Her doctors didn’t think she’d make it this long, but it’s because of Snickers and her other pets that she has survived, she said. Cutting HSHV funds doesn’t mean the animals get fewer treats – “we’re talking about killing these animals,” she said. Noble concluded by asking commissioners, on behalf of Snickers, not to cut HSHV funding.

Jessica Anderson said she’s been an HSHV volunteer for 17 years. She asked whether people would bring in strays to the shelter if they thought the animals would be killed. It’s not a pretty thought to think about animals running loose, as they did recently in Ohio, she said. [The reference is to the release of dozens of exotic, wild animals – including grizzly bears, lions and tigers – from a farm in Zanesville, Ohio. The owner killed himself after releasing the animals, and law enforcement officials killed many of the animals that couldn't be captured.] Anderson said the board’s decision-making process on funding should begin with an investigation of each organization. HSHV is run better than it’s ever been, she said. Clearly, budget cuts need to be made by the county, she said, but it’s not good to pit organizations against each other for funding.  “As we say in education, it’s not a race to the bottom.”

Karen Patterson, an HSHV educator, described how bonds between animals and humans often can’t be broken. Of all the people who refused to evacuate during Hurricane Katrina, she noted, 44% stayed because they didn’t want to leave their animals. Patterson recalled how a little girl she encountered was worried because the girl’s dog had run away. Patterson said she reassured the girl that the dog could be found and taken to the humane society. In the future, Patterson wondered what she’d be able to tell children like this. How can she tell them that every life is valuable, when the community leaders don’t believe it? She encouraged commissioners to find a way to fund HSHV.

Deb Kern, HSHV’s marketing director, said she didn’t envy the board’s position. She’d worked in Ann Arbor for 28 years and loved the city, and had taken a significant pay cut to leave a corporate job and work at HSHV. She’s proud of their work, and of being able to reunite owners with their pets. HSHV provides great customer service, and the staff have answered over 5,000 calls this year from people looking for their lost animals. People know to come to the humane society’s facility – it would be confusing if there were multiple places to look, she said, and it might result in animals being put down because their owners couldn’t reach the pets in time. It’s not cheap to do outreach and advertising, but HSHV does that. They have the highest return-to-owner rate in Michigan, she noted.

Kern recalled being at the meeting when former county administrator Bob Guenzel embraced the idea for a new facility, and she helped lead the $8.5 million capital campaign to fund it. It seems insane to her that after helping HSHV become an award-winning shelter, the county would now pull away from its contract. [.pdf of Kern's full remarks]

Elise Ramsey, an HSHV animal cruelty investigator, said they’ve investigated over 500 cases in the past year, including over 30 cases that have been handled by the prosecutor’s office – all were found guilty. Nearby counties have a lower population yet more animal control officers, she noted. HSHV’s investigators – whose work ranges from investigating dog fights to dealing with wild animals on public and private property – minimize the amount of time that law enforcement must spend on cases, and that saves the county money. The budget decisions aren’t about choosing sides, she said. It’s about creating a safer environment for the community.

Deb Ledford, an HSHV volunteer, told commissioners that people have a special relationship with their animals, and would be willing to pay more in taxes to support HSHV. She urged them to consider a millage to provide additional funding for the shelter.

Anne Alatalo, an HSHV volunteer who also had spoken at an Oct. 13 board working session, read a quote attributed to Gandhi: “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

Kelly Schwartz, HSHV’s director of volunteers and operational support, said she lives in Pittsfield Township “and I vote.” She criticized the county’s lack of due diligence before making cuts. She noted that the job description for the two animal control officers paid for by the county – at about $180,000 per officer – doesn’t match what those workers actually do. In many cases, they simply pick up dogs and drop them off at the shelter. Picking up 192 stray dogs over a year works out to the county paying about $1,000 per animal. Schwartz expressed frustration at HSHV’s efforts possibly to handle dog licensing that’s now done by the county treasurer. She said HSHV has been told it’s not their purview. Yet HSHV handles dog licensing for Ypsilanti Township, she noted.

Regarding the possibility that the county would issue a request for proposals (RFP) for another agency to provide the state-mandated services that HSHV now does, Schwartz said that HSHV is the only facility in the county that’s licensed by the Dept. of Agriculture. That license requires a set of conditions, such as having a veterinarian on site. It would be a shame if the county didn’t support HSHV’s economies of scale and facility, she concluded.

Funding for Nonprofits: Public Commentary – Housing, Food

Paul Saginaw, co-founder of Zingerman’s and of the nonprofit Food Gatherers, said he appreciated how profoundly difficult the board’s choices are. But the strength of a community is measured by how it cares for its most vulnerable members. Between 2006 to 2008, the number of people needing emergency food assistance increased 138% percent, and those numbers have grown. Since 2008, there’s been a 40% increase in local families needing food stamps. Yet Food Gatherers – which serves a network of food pantries across the county – has seen funding cuts, most recently a 40% reduction in the money it gets from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Barbara Niess-May, executive director of SafeHouse Center, and Paul Saginaw, co-founder of Zingerman's and of the nonprofit Food Gatherers.

Saginaw noted that Food Gatherers already leverages private resources – from donors, volunteers and other partners – to provide public services that used to be handled by the government. They work creatively and efficiently to fight hunger, and are an excellent steward of their resources. He urged the board at a minimum to maintain the $166,000 annual funding for Food Gatherers, which represents 5% of the nonprofit’s annual operating budget.

Six people spoke in support of Ozone House, a shelter for homeless youth. [The coordinated funding budget approved in June allocated a total of $208,557 for Ozone House programs, including $97,625 from the county.] Lisa Jackson, vice president of the board, noted that the nonprofit is the only one that provides a shelter specifically for homeless youth, and it’s a national model. She pointed to the county board’s budget guidelines, noting that second one states that the county will “support programs that address the basic needs of children and families.” That’s what Ozone House does, she said. The county’s funding is a huge part of this community’s safety net, and she asked that they continue funding this critical need in the community.

Three teens – Eric,  Demoni and Tiffany – gave their perspectives on the need for Ozone House, saying they know youth who are homeless and that it’s hard to know what it would be like if Ozone House wasn’t around. Kids deserve a drug-free, alcohol-free, safe environment where they can study and know that they’re not alone. Colleen O’Brien, Ozone House director of youth development, told the board that these three youth represent thousands of others that Ozone House supports. These youth look up to leaders like the commissioners, she said, and if the board doesn’t prioritize basic needs and public safety, she’s not sure they’ll stay in this community when they become adults. Nicole Brown also supported Ozone House, saying it’s important to show youth that the community cares about them.

Paul Leighton, a SafeHouse Center board member, and SafeHouse executive director Barbara Niess-May both spoke in support of the center, which provides help for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. [SafeHouse received $96,000 from the county this year, and is budgeted for $48,000 annually in 2012 and 2013.] Leighton, a criminology professor at Eastern Michigan University, described the impact on victims and the services that SafeHouse provides, including a helpline, crisis intervention, counseling and shelter.

Niess-May described SafeHouse as a “community jewel,” noting that the staff of 24 and 150 volunteers serve well over 4,000 women and children each year through the shelter and advocacy work. She reminded the county that SafeHouse took over sexual assault services from the county in 2003, which at the time had cost the county $200,000 each year. She said that law enforcement officers feel comfortable leaving the scene after an incident when they know representatives from SafeHouse are there. The county is a partner, and she thanked commissioners for their continued support.

Jim Wiseman is a volunteer with Interfaith Hospitality Network’s Alpha House, a family homeless shelter. [The coordinated funding provided $92,400 in funding for IHN.] Of the 4,700 people who were homeless in 2010, 1,500 of those were under the age of 18. He described the consequences of homelessness on youth, including hunger, truancy, poor mental and physical health, learning disabilities, depression and anxiety. Thousands of volunteers support Alpha House, but they need the continued support of the county as well. Wiseman noted that he has two dogs and has volunteered at the animal shelter too, but the basic need for helping the homeless population is greater.

Nicole Adelman, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network, said the county has been a true partner, and IHN still needs their support. Many agencies are working together to increase collaboration, she said, and they all have success stories. She urged commissioners to support nonprofits to the greatest extent possible, so the successes could continue.

Michael Appel of Avalon Housing.

Michael Appel, associate director of Avalon Housing, said he deeply appreciated the county’s support through coordinated funding. [Avalon is budgeted for $140,974 in coordinated funding.] Avalon’s Shelter Plus Care program illustrates how seriously they take the county’s charge to leverage funding and be responsible stewards of public money, he said. Every year, Avalon applies with other local agencies for federal funding through the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that helps move people off the streets and into permanent housing. HUD requires that its housing subsidy be matched with supportive services that Avalon provides – the county helps pay for those services, Appel said. He urged commissioners to continue their support.

Kristin Klevering of SOS Community Services thanked commissioners for their support. [SOS receives $90,859 from the county's portion of coordinated funding, plus $124,577 from other coordinated funding sources.] SOS recently has become the single point-of-entry for people seeking housing assistance in the county. [Its housing access phone number is 734-961-1999.] For its first week in this role, SOS fielded 203 calls for help with housing, including people facing eviction and homeless families seeking permanent housing. Klevering said their staff is booked steadily because of the great need. The single point-of-entry makes it much easier for people who need help, but the staff wouldn’t be able to do it without the county’s support.

Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, described the county as a partner through successful and difficult times – and this is one of the most difficult times they’ve faced. She urged commissioners to pass a resolution that articulates their commitment to human services and outside agencies. The resolution would commit to reinstating funds as soon as revenues permit, and would make that reinstatement of funds the highest priority when revenues recover. Schulmeister also asked commissioners to use their political positions to speak out on behalf of the most vulnerable citizens of the county, and to lobby their friends and professional networks to fundraise and make personal donations to local nonprofits.

Julie Steiner, executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, told commissioners she’d just been to the Michigan Homeless Summit in Lansing, where the head of the state’s Dept. of Human Services reported that Michigan’s income level used to be 14th nationwide, but is now 31st. Her organization can see the impact of that income loss throughout the county. Steiner reported some data from the first week of calls to the SOS housing hotline, and highlighted the fact that 31% of the 203 people who called had no income at all.

The question is how can those folks be helped, and the answer isn’t coming from Lansing or Washington, Steiner said. She noted that the state recently imposed an asset test for people receiving food stamps, requiring them to have less than $5,000 in assets – including their cars, which are the way most people get to their minimum-wage jobs, she observed. This came about two weeks after recipients had been told it wouldn’t happen. “The war on the poor is continuing,” Steiner said, adding that she deeply appreciated all that the county does to support human services.

Funding for Nonprofits: Public Commentary – Literacy

Three people urged continued support for the Family Learning Institute, which provides tutoring to elementary schools students in math and reading.

Dave Knight said he’s been a volunteer reading coach since 2005. “I know that what we do works,” he said. It’s a lifelong skill with a tangible return, and is worth the county’s support. Dave Morris, a math tutor for FLI, described his work with a fourth grader – a smart girl, the daughter of recent immigrants, who’s having trouble in school and is at a critical turning point in deciding that she’s not academic. When she realizes that she can understand, she’s more likely to choose a different path. Volunteers at FLI can make a difference in the lives of students like her, and it’a a value to the community, he said.

Jeff Harrold, FLI’s board chair and an academic standards advisor at the University of Michigan, told commissioners that he’s worked with some of the brightest students in the world, and he’s also seen some people who could have gone down that academic path, but who ended up in jail. The thing that connects them is literacy. FLI provides free supplemental tutoring in math and reading, and their work directly addresses the achievement gap, he said. They operate on a shoestring and can’t afford to lose funding. In a knowledge economy, you have to know how to read. FLI teaches students to read, he concluded, and ”we hope you’ll help us continue to do that.”

Funding for Nonprofits: Public Commentary – General Human Services

Alan Haber said he appreciated the incredible volunteerism that’s on display, and he hopes the county can support all of these organizations. There’s a reason why the county doesn’t have enough money, he said, citing the trillions of dollars that the federal government has spent on war in the last decade, and the $1.4 billion in federal taxes from Michigan that pay for nuclear weapons. Commissioners need to work to change priorities of the country, and to encourage innovative approaches like Camp Take Notice. Haber cited the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations of the “99% against the 1%,” and said there needs to be some kind of redistribution of wealth. Local is part of the global, he noted, and he hoped that commissioners would see the bigger picture. They really need to act on a political level, he said, and to raise their voices about keeping more money in Michigan.

Max Heinrich told commissioners that they have a choice. They can accept the budget cuts that are imposed and make decisions in the least painful way, or they can ask how to be creative and find funding to do the things they need to do. If they simply say there’s not enough money, “the county is going to go down,” he said. He called on the board to identify what matters to them, then find a way to fund it.

Saying that her heart hurts, Lily Au told the board that they need to see the bigger picture. She praised commissioner Ronnie Peterson for speaking out against the coordinated funding process. [Peterson has repeatedly raised concerns about the process, but voted along with all other commissioners to approve the approach at the board's Nov. 3, 2010 meeting, and subsequently voted to approve the recommended allocations at the board's June 1, 2011 meeting.] Au criticized the overhead costs at United Way, one of the coordinated funding partners. She said she wasn’t criticizing people, just the policy. People are suffering and need as much support as possible, she said.

Thomas Partridge called for support of affordable housing, transportation, health care and education for all.

Funding for Nonprofits:  Commissioner Discussion

Yousef Rabhi began by thanking everyone for coming, saying it’s refreshing to see people take an active part in the democratic process. He especially thanked Alan Haber and Max Heinrich for their words. Local government is being squeezed from all sides, he said, and now the state is talking about eliminating the ability of local governments to raise revenues via the personal property tax. Rabhi urged everyone to contact their state legislators and tell them that eliminating the PPT would place a significant burden on the local community. He said he’s especially concerned about the proposed $128,000 annual cut to coordinated funding. The process works well to distribute funds from the county, city of Ann Arbor and other groups, he said.

Regarding the humane society, Rabhi said he loves animals and knows that other commissioners do too. No one denies that the county has a mandate to provide certain services, but it’s not yet clear to him exactly what those mandated services are. The county needs to identify what services are mandated, how much it costs to provide those mandated services, and how much additional funding they can allocate to the humane society. He doesn’t think it will be at the same level in the past, but there are valuable programs at the humane society that are important to support.

Leah Gunn remembered when there was no decent homeless shelter, and the county took a proactive role in creating the Delonis Center, which is now a national model, she said. She remembered when Food Gatherers didn’t exist, and commended Paul Saginaw for the great work that he and others have done. She noted that SafeHouse Center is located in a county-owned building that’s paid for by a county millage.

The county has been extremely generous, Gunn said. But the county’s main revenues come from property taxes, and those revenues are decreasing. If the state eliminates the personal property tax, it would be devastating, she said – the county alone would lose $5 million in annual revenue, and all local governments in the county would lose a total of $43 million. State revenue sharing is also going to run out in 2013, she noted. Gunn urged people to dig into their pockets and donate to the nonprofits that do such good work.

From left: Commissioners Rolland Sizemore, Leah Gunn, and Conan Smith.

Conan Smith also thanked the people who attended the meeting, and those who had advocated for finding additional revenue. He believes in that, too. Much of the spending at higher levels of government is wrong, and would be better spent locally, he said.

Smith thanked Rabhi for contextualizing the humane society situation. He noted that the expenses related to animal cruelty investigations can be charged back to the offenders as restitution. [At that, some people in the audience called out that it's not possible – many offenders are unable to pay.] He agreed it was time to revisit the issue of dog licenses, which are currently collected by the county treasurer’s office. HSHV has previously proposed taking over that service.

Smith said there’s another month to find alternatives, and he noted that he and other county officials will be meeting with HSHV leaders next week. The letter that the county received from HSHV’s board president, Michael Walsh – which stated that HSHV can’t afford to offer the same services at a reduced rate – is what prompted some commissioners to talk about looking for other providers, Smith said. [.pdf of Walsh's letter]

In part, Walsh’s letter states:

Should the County be unable or unwilling to find the additional resources that will allow the HSHV to continue to provide these Animal Control Services, given our long-standing relationship, we are willing to work with you on a short-term basis to provide an orderly transition to either another service provider or to a County-run shelter. This could be accomplished through a limited-term extension of the existing contract at the 2011 funding level.

The mandate doesn’t go away, Smith noted, even if HSHV decides it can’t provide the services. But he hoped the county can work with HSHV to meet that mandated obligation.

The commissioners put a priority on protecting families and children – problems of homelessness and hunger are growing, Smith said. “We are in a dire situation.” He’s highly supportive of exploring a millage to fund human services, as other commissioners have proposed – he believes voters would support that too. Smith concluded by saying that the board will be discussing the budget for several more weeks, and he encouraged people to weigh in. “Your words are our community wisdom,” he said. “Know that everyone on the board will take those to heart.”

Rob Turner noted at the beginning of this year, the board was looking at a $20 million deficit for 2012-2013. In April, when the county equalization report showed that revenues didn’t drop as much as expected, that projected deficit was revised to $17.5 million. To deal with it, the board prioritized, Turner explained, and put an emphasis on safety net services. They also directed the administration to streamline and consolidate, he noted – that led to three departments merging into the office of community and economic development. [That consolidation will take effect in January 2012.]

The staff did a good job at restructuring, and found $8 million in savings, Turner said. Employees gave concessions totaling another $8 million. Yet even with all of this, the county will need to tap its general fund balance, he said, bringing the fund balance to 13% of the total general fund budget – at the low end of the recommended level.

Repealing the personal property tax would hit the county hard, Turner said, resulting in another 5-6% cut to the general fund budget and lowering the fund balance to about 8%. Everyone needs to tell their state legislators that the PPT can’t be cut without first identifying replacement revenues. Turner said he supported a human services millage, but he noted that voters had rejected a countywide schools millage just last year.

There are people who are unemployed now who’ve never been unemployed before, Turner said. No one on the board wants to cut the funding for nonprofits, but that’s the hand they’re forced to play. If revenues increase, commissioners would like to make the funding whole again, but right now, the money’s just not there, he said.

Wes Prater observed that the county has been very generous when times were good. If the personal property tax is eliminated, these organizations will face even deeper cuts, he said. There are no secrets about the budget situation, Prater said – all of the information is available online. He hoped the humane society understood that there would be cuts, and that the nonprofit needs to think about fundraising from its volunteers. It’ll take more revenues to support those services, he said. “I’m sorry to have to say those words, but they’re true.”

Ronnie Peterson noted that the board hasn’t yet adopted the budget, so it’s premature to state that certain items will be cut – the board hasn’t voted on that yet, he said. He told the audience that he appreciated their advocacy, regardless of whether he agreed with their positions. Personally, Peterson said he’s not interested in contracting with an alternative agency to the humane society, and he asked the board chair, Conan Smith, to clarify the status of HSHV.

Smith reviewed that county administrator Verna McDaniel had presented the budget to the board several weeks ago. It was developed based on the board’s direction to her, he said, and includes recommendations to cut outside agency funding. In the case of the humane society, the recommendation is for $250,000 per year, down from $500,000. They haven’t taken a vote on the budget, Smith said, and they are now deliberating it. But whatever decisions they make have to result in a balanced budget, he noted. They can make whatever adjustments they see fit, but the result must be bottom-line neutral.

Peterson asked whether the board was considering an alternative provider for animal control services, rather than HSHV. Smith replied that HSHV has indicated it can’t provide the services at the recommended funding level of $250,000 – that message was in the letter from HSHV board president Michael Walsh. Smith said he appreciated that communication, and HSHV’s offer to serve in a transitional role if the county needs to find another provider.

The county’s current contract with HSHV ends on Dec. 31, and there’s only a limited time to reach a solution, Smith said. No one anticipated that the county would end its relationship with HSHV, Smith said, and there’s wide misunderstanding about what services are mandated. Perhaps a new contract will eliminate non-mandated services, like care for cats, Smith said. There are also possible revenues strategies that can be explored, he said. “By all means, the door is open.”

Peterson then raised the issue of coordinated funding, which he has criticized in the past. Addressing poverty must be a discussion among policy-makers, he said, not relegated to a county department. [Coordinated funding is overseen by the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development.] And it shouldn’t be limited to just county commissioners, he said – there are two major public universities in this area, as well as several private ones. Those institutions have resources, he said, and should be concerned about quality of life in this community. “We cannot do it by ourselves,” Peterson said, and it’s unfair that nonprofits should have to fight over funding.

As he has in the past, Rolland Sizemore Jr. called for a working session to discuss all potential new millages, including those for road repair and to fund human services. He recommended that the public attend those working sessions to give their views about the millages – he believes raising revenues is the only way out of the current budget situation. He also called for more information about the budget, including administrative salaries.

Funding for Nonprofits: More Funds for Homeless Shelter

Yousef Rabhi indicated that priorities for him in this budget are coordinated funding and the homeless shelter. Given the increased homelessness in this community, he thought the county should step up funding for the shelter. The county’s membership in the Michigan Association of Counties (MAC) has been useful in the past, he said, but it’s time to prioritize the homeless over that. He then moved to eliminate $26,230 in annual dues to the Michigan Association of Counties, and transfer those funds to the Delonis Center, the homeless shelter at 312 W. Huron. Over the two-year budget period, a total of $52,460 would be added to the Delonis Center funding.

Chuck Warpehoski of the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice talks with Julie Steiner of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

Conan Smith supported the motion, saying that the county has ample representation in Lansing through its lobbyist, Governmental Consultant Services Inc. [Later in the meeting, the board voted to give final approval to a two-year contract with GCSI at at $54,250 per year. Kirk Profit is the primary GCSI lobbyist dealing with the county.]

Dan Smith said that as a new commissioner elected in November 2010, he had gone through a training session in December – MAC had been one of the organizers, and it had been a valuable experience. However, after he was sworn in the county staff have provided even more orientation, so he was comfortable dropping MAC membership at this time. He hoped that when the board reaffirms the 2013 budget in a year, they’ll revisit membership for MAC and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), if the board decides to drop SEMCOG too. [The board will adopt a two-year budget for 2012 and 2013, but then at the end of 2012 they will make readjustments and vote to reaffirm the 2013 budget.]

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he’d support Rabhi’s motion, but he wondered why they were voting on one item now, and not waiting until they’d made decisions about all changes.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to amend the proposed budget by eliminating its membership in the Michigan Association of Counties, and shifting its $26,230 in annual dues for 2012 and 2013 to the Delonis Center homeless shelter. The budget itself will receive a vote later this year. 

2012-2013 Budget: Continued Discussion

Following the discussion on outside agency funding and a vote on shifting funds to the Delonis Center, the board discussed the 2012-2013 budget more broadly.

They initially discussed how to proceed with making changes to the budget, without handling it piecemeal. Rolland Sizemore Jr. noted that it’s getting to be “crunch time” – there are only three more regular board meetings scheduled before the end of the year, and if they want to give final approval at the Nov. 16 meeting, as planned, they’d need to take an initial vote at their next meeting, on Nov. 2. He suggested that commissioners email any changes they had to the administrator, who could then forward all proposed changes to the entire board.

Wes Prater noted that in the list of eight revenue categories for the general fund, only two categories – fees & services, and fines & forfeitures – show an increase from 2011 to 2012. He expressed frustration that 16 departments showed increases in their expenditures compared to 2011. The line item for information technology, for example, grows from $5.28 million in 2011 to $6.49 million in 2012. The budget for the board of commissioners also is increasing, he noted, rising from $496,587 this year to $505,664 in 2012. This can’t continue, he said – they need to get expenses under control. ”I think there’s some money there we can find [to cut], and I want to try to find it.”

County administrator Verna McDaniel responded, saying that the departments aren’t just being given money to go spend indiscriminately. The increases relate primarily to increased personnel costs, including health insurance, as well as to higher amounts for each department’s cost allocation plan (CAP).  [The CAP sets a charge that’s levied on each county unit and designed to cover general costs like administration, technology, building use, and insurance, among other things. It’s intended to reflect the county’s true cost of doing business.]

McDaniel said her staff would write up a report explaining these increases, and distribute it to commissioners.

It would be great to get that information, Prater replied, but the bottom line is that there are still cuts to be made.

Commissioner Dan Smith talks with Kelly Belknap, interim deputy county administrator.

Dan Smith recalled the process leading up to this point, beginning with board retreats early in the year, and continuing with extra working sessions in the summer devoted to the budget. There are mandated services that must be funded, and that leaves the county in a difficult situation. The board had a healthy debate in developing its budget priorities, Smith noted – all of this was conducted in public. It’s been a long process and these aren’t easy decisions, he said, but they must work with the money they have to produce a balanced budget. That’s the law.

In response to Prater’s concern about the board of commissioners budget, Smith said it’s a topic of an upcoming working session, and they can discuss it in more detail then.

Leah Gunn noted that the board has discussed this already. She referred to the budget “puzzle” that McDaniel had presented earlier this year, which sought to overcome a projected $17.5 million deficit with roughly $8 million in concessions from employees, $8 million in departmental restructuring and cuts, about $1 million in cuts to outside agencies, and another $1 million in additional revenues. But even though some items have been cut – like health care – that doesn’t mean the total expenses will decrease, she said. It just means the increases won’t be as high. The bottom line is that they have a balanced budget, she concluded, and an acceptable fund balance.

There was some discussion about whether to address some of these issues at an upcoming working session. Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the working sessions, noted that there’s not much time between now and the point of passing the budget – the goal is to take a final budget vote at the Nov. 16 meeting.

Ronnie Peterson responded that the board can take until Dec. 31 to pass the budget, and they should take as much time as necessary. The fact that they reallocated funds earlier in the meeting – from the Michigan Association of Counties to the homeless shelter – indicates that there’s flexibility in the budget, he said. He’s also interested in reconsidering the proposed elimination of SEMCOG membership. They can look at the entire budget to find funds, he said, and it’s their responsibility to do so. If a commissioner just wants to rubber stamp the budget, Peterson said, then they shouldn’t run for office. They should have been looking more closely at these decisions months ago, he said.

Gunn said she found it difficult to respond to Peterson. She’s spent a solid year on this budget, and it’s been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. McDaniel and her staff have done an excellent job in presenting a balanced budget, and Gunn said she has no major problems with it. Her main issue is that the county is spending millions of dollars to subsidize police services for the townships, Gunn said, but she’s not going to argue about that because she doesn’t have the votes to change it. She’d like to see the board pass this budget and move on.

Conan Smith noted that the board has had this budget for a long time. [McDaniel formally presented it at the board's Sept. 21 meeting.] They’ve delved into it at previous meetings and working sessions throughout the year, and it’s an excellent document with a tremendous amount of information, he said. Smith said you can read it, as he has, and understand it with enough clarity to be confident in your decisions. “It’s a boring read,” he conceded, but the information is there.

Using the IT department as an example, Smith noted that a detailed explanation in the budget for that department indicates that much of the increased expenses relate to the administration’s decision to “unleash the CAP.” That’s reflected in the line item for internal service charges, which jumps from $436,343 in 2011 to $1.586 million in 2012.

Smith agreed with Gunn in praising McDaniel and her staff for presenting a balanced budget. He urged the board not to dwell on smaller items – like the board’s own line item – but to look for larger structural reforms that could yield greater savings. He believes the board should pass the budget by mid-November, or by the first meeting in December at the latest.

Prater replied that he wasn’t saying it’s a bad budget, but simply that there’s room for more cuts. It’s possible for departments to cheat when reporting their projected expenses, he noted. Every expense should be absolutely necessary, and he’s not convinced that’s the case. If there are unnecessary expenses in the budget, he’ll vote against it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said there are a lot of questions for which he needs answers – including what services are actually mandated by the state for animal control. He also wants comparisons with budgets from other counties, noting that he’s repeatedly asked for this information in the past. There’s also the question about whether cutting ties with SEMCOG will jeopardize the county’s ability to secure certain types of federal grants. Until he sees answers, Sizemore said he won’t approve the budget.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to move this budget discussion item to the agenda of their next meeting, on Nov. 2.

Other Business: Sylvan Bonds, Lobbyist, Salem Historic District

Aside from budget issues, the board voted on several items during the Oct. 19 meeting that were not discussed, but that had received initial votes at their Oct. 5 meeting. Here are the highlights.

Other Business: Lansing Lobbyist

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to renew a two-year contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing-based lobbying firm. The contract would run from Nov. 1, 2011 through Oct. 31, 2013 at $54,250 per year. That’s the same rate that the county currently pays, and is already built into the proposed 2012-2013 budget. [.pdf of draft contract]

GCSI lobbyist Kirk Profit and his colleagues most recently gave a formal update to the board at their March 2, 2011 meeting. GCSI provides lobbying services at the state level for several local units of government, including the city of Ann Arbor.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the two-year contract with GCSI.

Other Business: Salem Township Historic District

Commissioners were asked to appoint a committee to study the creation of a historic district in Salem Township. The district would be at 7991 North Territorial Road, where the Jarvis Stone School and the Dickerson Barn are located.

Terry Cwik, president of the Salem Area Historical Society, had attended the board’s Oct. 5 meeting and spoke during public commentary, urging commissioners to approve the study committee. The one-room schoolhouse is owned by the historical society. It was built in 1857 and in continuous use until 1967. The historical society now uses the school as its headquarters. It would be the second historic district in Salem Township – the first one is Conant Farm on Napier Road.

Cwik is one of the members of the study committee appointed on Wednesday. Other members are: Jean Bemish, Sue DiMilia, Helen Gierman, Jane Griffith, Marie Turppa, and Marcia Van Fossen and Nancy Snyder. The appointments were recommended by the county Historic District Commission.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to create the study committee for an historic district at 7991 North Territorial Road in Salem Township.

Other Business: Sylvan Township Bond Deal

On the agenda was a resolution giving final approval to a contract with Sylvan Township related to the township’s bond repayment schedule. The township has been struggling to make payments on $12.5 million in bonds issued in 2001 to build a water and wastewater treatment plant intended to serve future development. The township expected that connection fees would cover the bond payments, but the development never materialized.

Now Sylvan Township – located west of Ann Arbor, near Chelsea – is facing default on its bond payment in May 2012, which the county will need to cover. The township board voted to put a proposal for a 4.75 mill, 20-year tax on the Nov. 8, 2011 ballot for township residents, with proceeds to repay the cost of the bond payments that would be made by the county.

The millage proceeds alone would not be sufficient to cover the entire cost of the bond payments, however, and the county would need to tap its capital reserves as well. After the bond is repaid, the millage proceeds would continue to be used to repay the county to cover the amount used from its capital reserves, as well as interest. The millage proceeds would also be used to repay the county treasurer’s office, which advanced about $1.2 million to the township in 2007 and 2008 related to this project.

The contract between the county and township is contingent on voters passing the 4.75 mill tax. If the millage fails and the township defaults, the county could file suit against the township for breach of contract in failing to meet its debt repayment obligation, according to a staff memo. The county would also need to make the bond payments, to avoid having its bond rating negatively affected.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the bond deal with Sylvan Township.

Other Business: Drain Projects

Drain projects in Ann Arbor – including two related to the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project – were on the agenda for final approval at the board’s Oct. 19 meeting.

The county water resources commissioner’s office was asked by the city of Ann Arbor to design and build stormwater control measures for the bridges along Stadium Boulevard between Kipke and South Industrial, according to a staff memo. The Allen Creek East Stadium bridges drain project and the Malletts Creek East Stadium bridges drain project will require in total no more than $415,000 for bonds issued with the county’s full faith and credit. The bonds will be repaid through special assessments on property in the drain district for this project.

Separately, county commissioners gave initial approval to an Allen Creek drain project in Ann Arbor. The project involves installing an underground infiltration system on the west side of the Veterans Park Ice Arena and putting in a rain garden near the entrance of the ice arena on the east side of the building. Rain gardens will also be installed next to Fire Station #3 at 2130 Jackson Ave., and trees will be planted in the city right-of-way throughout neighborhoods on the city’s west side.

The Allen Creek project had been previously approved by the board at its July 2011 meeting, as one of several drain projects authorized at that time. The overall cost of the projects approved then is now expected to be $1.45 million less than originally estimated. However, the $330,000 approved for the Allen Creek project turned out to be an underestimate – that project is now expected to cost up to an additional $65,000. That $65,000 – covered by bonds issued with the county’s full faith and credit – was the amount commissioners were asked to approve at Wednesday’s meeting.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the drain projects for Allen Creek and East Stadium bridges.

Misc. Commentary, Communications

During the meeting there were multiple opportunities for public commentary, and for communications from the administration and commissioners.

Misc. Comm/Comm: Public Commentary

Douglas Smith told commissioners he was submitting an appeal for a Freedom of Information Act request that had been denied by the county. He described an incident at Ypsilanti Township hall, where a court employee had reported that $20 was stolen out of her car in the parking lot. She had requested video surveillance footage, but instead of providing it to her, the building’s security officer had emailed the sheriff’s office, Smith said. That apparently prompted an internal investigation, he said, involving a high-ranking member of the sheriff’s office.

Several FOIA requests have since been made, Smith said, but all have been denied. One of the reasons given is that the matter is part of a personnel file. But there can be a balance test applied, Smith said. He indicated there’s a stronger public interest in ensuring there’s no coverup by law enforcement, which outweighs the interest of an employee’s privacy. He asked the board to reconsider his FOIA request and release the surveillance video.

In commissioner follow-up to public commentary, Wes Prater asked Curtis Hedger – the county’s corporation counsel – to explain how the appeal process is handled. Hedger noted that for FOIA appeals, there’s a shorter time to respond, and that’s why the law gives the option of having the head of a public body – in this case, the county administrator – to handle it. Otherwise, the board would need to call a special meeting each time there’s an appeal, he said. He noted that the county administrator doesn’t just rubber stamp the decision, adding that former county administrator Bob Guenzel had overturned decisions several times on appeal. [Guenzel, who retired in May of 2010, is an attorney who had served as the county's corporation counsel before becoming county administrator.]

In addition to the commentary reported above, Thomas Partridge spoke during three other opportunities for public commentary at Wednesday’s meeting. He criticized the commissioners for holding discussions that sounded like corporate insiders talking to each other, rather than talking to the public. The county should find more ways to raise revenue, such as increasing its grant-writing efforts. They shouldn’t neglect animals, but there are families, children and senior citizens who are also abused and neglected, and who need the county’s help. He also advocated for the recall of Republicans and Republican-acting Democrats, and urged the county to provide affordable housing, transportation, education and health care for all residents – and not to outsource those services.

Misc. Comm/Comm: Communications from Commissioners

Rob Turner gave a liaison report from the Washtenaw County road commission. Road commissioners are concerned that the county is considering dropping its membership in the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), and urged the board not to cut that funding, Turner said. The road commission benefits directly from SEMCOG, he said – most of the $1.355 million in benefits that were outlined in a memo to the board from SEMCOG relate to road commission work. [.pdf of SEMCOG memo] Turner reported that the road commission might be willing to pay part of the county’s $125,000 in annual membership dues, and road commissioners are interested in meeting with the county administration to discuss that possibility.

Turner also reported that the Literacy Coalition of Washtenaw County is in a funding crisis. [See Chronicle coverage: "Literacy Coalition Faces Uncertain Future"] The group is asking its member organizations – including the county – to pick up some of the coalition’s work, such as administrative tasks like answering emails and maintaining the coalition website. There was no further discussion about this among commissioners.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Barbara Bergman.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011 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. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

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!

At left, Amy Goodman, executive director of Washtenaw Literacy (a different entity from the Literacy Coalition of Washtenaw County), led the Sept. 26 membership meeting of the Literacy Coalition of Washtenaw County.

At the time, the Literacy Coalition of Washtenaw County had just hired its first executive director – Vanessa Mayesky – and reported progress in goals outlined in the county’s ambitious Blueprint to End Illiteracy.

But at a recent working session of the county board, commissioner Rob Turner reported that the coalition is now in crisis.

Mayesky resigned earlier this month to take a job at the University of Michigan, and funding for the coalition’s efforts is nearly depleted. Amy Goodman, chair of the coalition’s steering committee, had sent out an email on Sept. 20 stating that the coalition is at a crossroads. Based on the coalition’s financial situation, action needed to be taken, she wrote – and one of the options is to dissolve the coalition.

Goodman’s email was also a call for supporters to attend a Sept. 26 membership meeting at the NEW Center, to give input on the future of the coalition. At that meeting, which The Chronicle attended, Goodman and other steering committee members outlined the status of coalition finances. The faltering economy has tightened funding from both private and government sources, and the situation has been made even more challenging by a new coordinated funding approach being used by the county, city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw United Way and other funders.

The coordinated funding focuses on six community priorities, ranging from homelessness to health care. But despite intense lobbying from coalition members – who noted that illiteracy is at the root of nearly every other social challenge, including unemployment and poverty – literacy is not on that list of coordinated funding priorities.

Options discussed at Monday’s meeting include: (1) trying to operate the coalition at a fully-funded level, which would entail raising funds for an annual budget of at least $71,000; (2) operating at a significantly reduced capacity, with a part-time coordinator and annual budget of $45,000; (3) creating a volunteer group to continue the effort; or (4) dissolving the coalition completely.

Coalition Background: A Countywide Initiative

Under the leadership of former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, the county government has backed several countywide plans related to community needs. Among them is a 10-year plan to eliminate homelessness, which was published in 2004 and is being shepherded by the Washtenaw Housing Alliance [.pdf of Blueprint to End Homelessness]. Guenzel in particular was instrumental in bringing together other community leaders to support that effort, which also received funding from the county.

In many ways, the literacy coalition is modeled on that plan. The county board established the literacy coalition by a board resolution in July 2007, and the Blueprint to End Illiteracy was published the following year. [.pdf of Blueprint to End Illiteracy]

The coalition was never intended to provide services directly – there are nearly 90 agencies that are working in some way on literacy issues in Washtenaw County. Rather, the aim was to raise awareness about the pervasive problem of illiteracy – in reading, as it’s most commonly perceived, but also for illiteracy in finance, health and workplace skills. The coalition would gather and track data, coordinate efforts of the county’s many disparate groups that are already addressing aspects of literacy education, and seek funding for joint projects that couldn’t be tackled by any single provider.

The specific initial goals of the coalition were three-fold: (1) to develop a directory of literacy service providers; (2) to launch a website for the coalition, with resources and other information; and (3) to raise public awareness about illiteracy.

Guenzel and Josie Parker – director of the Ann Arbor District Library – served as co-chairs of the coalition’s initial steering committee. The county, AADL and the nonprofit Washtenaw Literacy were the largest providers for in-kind contributions of staff time, materials and other support. Initial funding was provided by the Washtenaw United Way ($50,000), James A. & Faith Knight Foundation ($17,000), and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation ($10,000).

In 2010, the county took a step back from its leadership role. In a presentation at the April 7, 2010 meeting of the county board of commissioners, Guenzel – who retired as county administrator the following month – called the coalition’s transition a kind of graduation. He said the county wasn’t abandoning the effort, but was handing it back to the community.

At the Sept. 26 membership meeting for the Literacy Coalition of Washtenaw, from right: Josie Parker, director of the Ann Arbor District Library, and Donna DeButts, community relations coordinator for the Ypsilanti District Library.

While Guenzel and other county leaders – including commissioners Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson and Conan Smith – had been actively involved in the steering committee up until that point, they no longer regularly attend meetings of the coalition. The current county representatives on the steering committee are Patricia Denig, head of the county’s employment training & community services (ETCS) department, and Patricia Horne McGee, director of the Washtenaw County Head Start program, which is administered by the county. [The county's proposed 2012-2013 budget calls for severing ties with Head Start, however.] None of these officials attended Monday’s coalition meeting.

Rob Turner, one of of the newest county commissioners, who took office in January 2011, was tapped to be the county board’s liaison to the coalition, but he does not serve on the steering committee. At Monday’s meeting, he told coalition members that the project had not been portrayed to him as a priority by other board members or the administration.

Amy Goodman, executive director of Washtenaw Literacy – which has been serving as a fiduciary for the coalition – noted that the community had in the past shown strong support for addressing illiteracy by providing funding from several different sources. But the current major funding source – a two-year grant at $75,000 per year from the county’s ETCS department, authorized by the ETCS community action board – is coming to an end on Sept. 30. By the end of September, the coalition will have an account balance of about $1,000.

Literacy Coalition: Status Update

The coalition membership took action on some housekeeping issues at Monday’s meeting, related to the current transition. Washtenaw Literacy is ending its contract as fiduciary, and that role is being taken over by another nonprofit: Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County. Until now, the coalition’s fiscal year has mirrored the one for Washtenaw Literacy, which runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The fiscal year for CSS is based on a calendar year, so the membership voted to change the coalition’s fiscal year to begin on Jan. 1 as well.

Goodman reported that efforts to increase the size and composition of the steering committee are also in progress. Initially, a majority of committee members worked for entities that provided literacy services. This hampered their ability to fundraise for the coalition, since it would be an ethical conflict with their jobs – they couldn’t raise money for both their own organization and the coalition. So it’s been a priority to recruit new members from the community at large, and about half of the 10 steering committee members now fall into that category, including Gabe Marinaro, an attorney with Dykema, and Brian Royster of Edward Jones, who both attended Monday’s meeting.

The coalition has accomplished a lot since its “graduation” from the county 18 months ago, Goodman said. A directory of service providers is completed, and the website was launched. [Excel spreadsheet of literacy service directory]

The coalition is about two-thirds of the way toward financial sustainability, she said, but corporate support hasn’t materialized as they’d hoped, and funding for this next phase is uncertain. “We have some serious decisions to face here,” she told the membership.

Julie McFarland, vice chair of the steering committee, reported that the coalition has a $22,000 grant from Washtenaw United Way, but there are conditions attached to it. Of that amount, $12,000 must be spent by Dec. 31, 2011, she said. The remaining $10,000 would be available as of Jan. 1 only if the coalition presents a plan for financial sustainability, and if that plan is approved by the United Way.

Another $7,500 remains for a coalition project at the Parkridge Community Center in Ypsilanti – it’s part of a $10,000 project grant awarded through the coordinated funding process, and is used primarily to pay the service providers for a family literacy program at the center. The Parkridge project is an outgrowth of another coalition effort called Learning Is a Family Thing, or LIFT – a series of two-hour interactive sessions for families focused on different aspects of literacy, including financial, health, reading, and workplace skills.

McFarland also noted that as part of the coalition’s transition, its office has been moved out of space provided by Washtenaw Literacy at the NEW Center on North Main. The Washtenaw Intermediate School District is now providing a cubicle for the coalition’s use, at no cost, at the WISD headquarters on Wagner Road.

Goodman summarized several other grants for which the coalition has applied or plans to apply, but that aren’t yet secured:

• $50,000 from the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, for the Parkridge literacy project. About 20% of that would be used to fund coalition operations, with the rest directly funding literacy service providers. If awarded, it would be the community’s first grant from the foundation, Goodman said.
• $4,280 from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), also for the Parkridge project.
• Another $4,280 from the AAACF, for coalition operations.
• $20,900 from the AAACF through the coordinated funding process, for coalition capacity building – training and other support to shore up the organization’s infrastructure.

Three additional grants are being drafted, Goodman said.

If awarded, none of these funds would be available until early next year, so it didn’t seem feasible to hire someone to replace Mayesky at this point, Goodman said. It might have been possible to hire a part-time coordinator if the $10,000 United Way funding could have been stretched through next spring, she said, rather than using it by year’s end. But even if that had been an option, a part-time person wouldn’t have time to do fundraising, she added.

Goodman said coalition members lobbied hard to make literacy a priority in the coordinated funding process, but that didn’t happen. [The six priorities for coordinated funding are housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health safety net, and food. The process is managed by the office of community & economic development, a joint county/city of Ann Arbor department. For an overview, see Chronicle coverage: "Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned"]

The situation came to a head when Mayesky turned in her resignation earlier this month, Goodman said. She praised Mayesky, saying the former coalition director worked long hours and did great work. But Mayesky knew that funding was uncertain, Goodman said, and needed to do what was best for her family by taking a secure job with UM.

In reviewing the status of current projects, Goodman said the effort at Parkridge – which the coalition hopes will serve as a model for intergenerational literacy programs – can continue, since the activities there are being offered by individual service providers. That project launched earlier this month.

The coalition is also a partner in the local Dolly’s Imagination Library, which distributes free books to pre-school kids and their families.

There are also four working committees of the coalition, which are continuing their efforts, Goodman said. They are: (1) data collection and measurement, chaired by Celeste Choate, an associate director at the Ann Arbor District Library; (2) public awareness/marketing, chaired by Colleen Murdock; (3) sustainability/resource development, chaired by Erin Howarth of Washtenaw Literacy; and (4) expansion of services/programming, chaired by Alison Austin of Washtenaw Literacy.

What’s Next?

Part of Monday’s coalition meeting was spent working in small groups, evaluating four options that had been floated by the steering committee:

• Hire a full-time coordinator to continue to grow the coalition and work toward goals of the Blueprint to End Illiteracy, including fundraising. Projected annual budget of $71,000.
• Hire a part-time coordinator to maintain basic support of current projects, and work toward some of the blueprint’s goals. No fundraising would be possible by the coordinator under this scenario. Projected annual budget of $45,000.
• Transition the coalition to a volunteer-only network. No budget would be required. Collaboration would continue, but not be coordinated. There would not be shared data tracking or shared services, and blueprint goals would be met only if addressed by individual service providers.
• Dissolve the coalition.

As a group, the 17 members of the coalition who attended Monday’s meeting discussed the impact of each of these options, with many of them noting that much would be lost if the coalition is disbanded. Individual learners would likely not see an immediate impact, because service providers like Washtenaw Literacy, the Family Learning Institute and others would continue their work. But there would be far less coordination and no champion to raise awareness of the issue throughout the community, several members observed.

Josie Parker, director of the Ann Arbor District Library, noted that if they decide to operate the coalition as a volunteer-only group, the community at least would be in a better position than before the coalition launched, based on the work that’s been done so far. They could continue to seek funding, perhaps trying to find one major funder to keep the coalition going. It would be wise to set a timeline, she said – a point at which to evaluate whether the coalition is failing or succeeding under a volunteer structure.

From left: Dan Rubenstein, development director for the Family Learning Institute in Ann Arbor; Washtenaw County commissioner Rob Turner (R-District 1); and Gabe Marinaro, an attorney with the law firm Dykema.

Parker cautioned that any funding the coalition receives will be “soft” – that is, because the coalition isn’t part of an established organization, like county government, the library or a civic group like the Rotary, it can’t count on a stable, long-term funding source.

Parker noted that in some communities, large corporations have recognized literacy skills as crucial to maintaining a strong workforce, and those corporations are willing to fund efforts similar to the literacy coalition, which in turn draws the interest of other funders. But there are fewer large companies in Washtenaw County than there used to be, she observed. [Pfizer, which was a major funder of local nonprofits, closed its Ann Arbor operation a few years ago. Automakers like GM and Ford were another large source of philanthropic funding for the community, but have also downsized and closed plants locally.]

“We have to start looking at what we have, who we have, and how go from there,” Parker said.

As the meeting wrapped up, Wendy Correll – a steering committee member and executive director of the Ann Arbor Public Schools Educational Foundation – said the steering committee would meet again and develop a recommendation, based in part on input from Monday’s meeting. At that point, they’d bring the recommendation back to a general membership meeting for a vote. In the short-term, they were looking for volunteers to donate staff time for tasks like responding to email and phone messages left for the coalition, she said.

When Goodman asked for closing thoughts from the group, county commissioner Rob Turner weighed in. He was relatively new to the group, he noted, since he’d just been assigned as a liaison from the county board earlier this year. He noted that he’d served for nine years on the Chelsea school board, and said that measuring outcomes is important. It wasn’t clear to him what metrics are being used to evaluate the coalition’s effectiveness. And while he knew about the Parkridge project, he wasn’t aware of any other concrete efforts that the coalition is pursuing. It would help him understand the situation if he could have more information, he said.

Goodman replied that it was never the coalition’s mission to provide services directly. Their work focuses on coordinating other service providers and developing projects that involve partnerships with those providers. Parkridge is a good example of that, she said.

Dan Rubenstein of the Family Learning Institute noted that the coalition’s premise is that the community will be better served – and individual providers will be more effective – if literacy efforts are coordinated. Parker cited the Learning Is a Family Thing (LIFT) as another example of that coordinated effort.

Turner said those programs are important to highlight – coordinating and providing connections is a service. If the coalition has been instrumental in making those connections, then that’s important to know, he said. But if the coalition can’t measure its positive impact on the community, in a way that no other organization can provide, then perhaps it’s best to dissolve, he said.

Turner added that in the past, the literacy coalition had clearly been a board priority. But based on his experience so far, it didn’t seem that it was seen by county officials as a priority any longer. Literacy is important, Turner added, both for young children and adults. He pointed to programs in the Chelsea school system, like its funding for all-day kindergarten, as efforts that he supports.

However, in supporting those programs, he said he needed to see metrics, and the same is true for the literacy coalition. What things are happening because the coalition exists, that wouldn’t have occurred otherwise? Especially since money is tight, that’s what funders want to see, he said.

Goodman said that taking an intergenerational approach to literacy education is one of the coalition’s goals, and projects like LIFT and Parkridge are examples of that. She noted that the coalition as an entity is able to seek grants that aren’t available to individual service providers – like the grant pending with the Barbara Bush Foundation.

The data-gathering work of the coalition is also important, Goodman said, to measure community need. When she tells people that one out of every six people in Washtenaw County is functionally illiterate, they often don’t believe her. A report card on literacy in the county, which is being developed by the coalition, “would be a shocking come-to-Jesus,” she said.

Goodman wrapped up the meeting by observing that some of the things Turner is looking for are goals for the coalition, and they’ve been progressing toward those goals. This funding crisis has simply occurred before they could reach those goals in the organization’s timeline.

A recommendation for the next phase of the coalition is expected to be brought by the steering committee to a membership meeting tentatively set for Monday, Oct. 24.

From left: Washtenaw County public health officer Dick Fleece, newly appointed public health medical director Monique Reeves, interim deputy county administrator Kelly Belknap, and county commissioner Wes Prater. Commissioners approved the hiring of Reeves at their June 1 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

While the board’s previous meeting drew supporters from a range of human services groups, on Wednesday most public commenters spoke against funding of one specific nonprofit: Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan. Their arguments on financial and moral grounds were ultimately unpersuasive to commissioners, who voted unanimously to approve support for Planned Parenthood and several other agencies, totaling $1.015 million through fiscal year 2013, including $53,040 from the county for Planned Parenthood.

Two commissioners raised concerns that county funding for human services in general is inadequate, especially in light of proposed changes that could bump thousands of beneficiaries statewide off the welfare rolls later this year.

In a vote that also holds budget implications, the board’s move to set the price for a contract sheriff’s deputy was remarkable mainly for its lack of debate – historically it’s been a contentious issue. Commissioners gave initial approval without comment. The price set in 2012 for a police services unit (PSU) is $150,594 – unchanged from this year. That’s followed by 1% annual increases through 2015. The difference between the actual cost of a PSU and the amount charged – roughly $25,500, based on current figures – would be covered by the county. The item will return to the board’s July 6 meeting for a final vote.

Meanwhile, a 2006 lawsuit filed against the county over the amount it charged at that time for contract deputies remains unresolved. Judge Joseph Costello of the 38th Circuit Court Chief has ordered the county and Augusta and Ypsilanti townships into non-binding facilitation, in a meeting set for June 22.

During Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners also approved a raft of other items, including: (1) the hiring of Monique Reeves as new medical director; and (2) five drain projects in Ann Arbor that require bonds backed by the county’s full faith and credit. The board also voted to add five new working sessions to its calendar: on June 16, July 21, Aug. 18, Sept. 15 and Oct. 13. All are focused on the 2012-2013 budget.

Finally, at the end of its meeting the board went into executive session for about an hour to address three issues: (1) a collective bargaining strategy; (2) possible settlement of pending litigation; and (3) review of a legal opinion.

Funding for Human Services Nonprofits

On the agenda was a resolution for final approval to allocate $507,500 in children’s well-being and human services funding for 2011, as well as additional funds in 2012 and 2013, contingent on the board’s approval of those budgets later this year. In total, the board was asked to allocate $1.015 million through 2013.

The allocations for these awards were recommended by a coordinated funding review committee. The committee focused on six priorities for the entire county: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health and food. The process is being managed by the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, which is coordinating the funding efforts of the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Washtenaw Urban County. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is participating in other parts of the effort. [.pdf of funding recommendations]

The board had given initial approval for funding at its May 18 meeting, when they also heard from about 20 people during public commentary, mostly urging commissioners to continue support for various nonprofits. Three people at that meeting spoke against funding Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan.

At the June 1 meeting, most of the public commentary came from 10 residents who opposed funding for Planned Parenthood. Two people spoke in support of funding Planned Parenthood. Commissioners did not change the recommended allocation – a total of $67,440 was earmarked for the nonprofit, including $53,040 from the county.

Ccommissioners had approved the coordinated funding process at their Nov. 3, 2010 meeting. They had been briefed on the effort at an Oct. 7 working session, and most recently discussed the process at their May 4 meeting. The governing bodies of all other coordinated funding groups have now approved the allocations, including the Ann Arbor city council, which took a final vote at its meeting on Tuesday, May 31.

Related to this funding, the office of community development released a 16-page report last week that attempts to quantify the economic impact of the local nonprofits that are funded by the county and city. In 2011, the combined investments from the city and county in those nonprofits totaled $2.7 million. According to the report, those funds leveraged more than $34 million in non-local revenue.[.pdf of nonprofit investment report]

Funding for Human Services Nonprofits: Public Commentary

At Wednesday’s meeting, a dozen people spoke on the issue of funding for human services, 10 of them objecting to funds allocated to Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan (PPMSM). Here’s a summary:

Brigid Kowalczyk of Ann Arbor said she applauded the board’s support of nonprofits, but urged them to defund Planned Parenthood. She noted that several people were at the meeting to outline reasons for defunding, and that they had provided a handout to commissioners as well. [.pdf of document given to the board – the 2008 IRS Form 990 for PPMSM, and portions of the nonprofit's 2009 annual report.] Kowalczyk highlighted some of the funding data from the nonprofit’s tax return, concluding that Planned Parenthood didn’t have a problem raising money, and didn’t need money from the county. There are other organizations more deserving and that help people who are truly in need, she said.

Karen Walacavage of Superior Township told the board that she had looked at the tax returns for some of the other nonprofits that the county planned to fund, and that none of them get as much revenue and grant funding as Planned Parenthood. It’s fiscally irresponsible for the county to fund Planned Parenthood, she said.

Joshua Wade and Jeffrey Brown – both Ann Arbor residents – and Joe Lipa of Lodi Township also argued against funding PPMSM. Wade noted that the large amount of contraceptives provided, as well as the number of abortions, resulted in fewer births of Washtenaw County taxpayers. The nonprofit doesn’t care about children’s well-being, he said. Lipa pointed out that there are other options for low-income women, including clinics at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and the Corner Health Center, as well as federal health care centers in surrounding counties.

Paul Malocha of Ann Arbor urged commissioners to fund nonprofits that don’t provide contraceptives and abortions. Planned Parenthood asks people to view pregnancy as a sort of sickness, he said, when it’s clearly normal and healthy. The Planned Parenthood view results in more out-of-wedlock pregnancies, he said, and promotes a disordered and amoral society.

Paul Dobrowolski of Pittsfield Township said he’d learned that a commissioner had talked with the head of the county’s human services department about funding of Planned Parenthood, and was told it would be almost impossible to remove the funding. If Planned Parenthood funding was pulled, then others on the board would ask that county funding be pulled from faith-based organizations, using a separation of church and state argument. But laws exist for freedom of religion, he said, not freedom from religion. It’s disturbing that some people would apply blackmail and pressure tactics. He noted that the county was hiring a firm to do an internal audit – maybe looking at this issue is a good place to start, he said. Dobrowolski reminded the board that president Barack Obama and former president George Bush both supported faith-based initiatives, especially for social services.

John Donnelly of Ypsilanti said there is videotaped evidence of Planned Parenthood workers offering no objection when a man posing as a pimp tried to get deals on abortions and contraceptives for his prostitutes. Donnelly said it proved Planned Parenthood was willing to do anything to make the prostitution ring possible. [Donnelly was referring to a videotape released by the anti-abortion group Live Action and filmed at a Planned Parenthood clinic in the Bronx. The incident and video were reported in a Feb. 11, 2011 New York Times article.] Donnelly described other instances in which he said that Planned Parenthood staffers urged underage clients to lie about their age when they became pregnant by older men. “I don’t know how we can tolerate this,” he said.

Steve Gendregske of Superior Township and Sandra Weathers of Pittsfield Township each read from medical texts with graphic descriptions of late-stage abortion procedures. Gendregske said he got hung up over the words “decapitate” and “dismember,” and he hoped that commissioners did, too. He didn’t want his tax money supporting Planned Parenthood. Weathers said she wanted her tax dollars to fund St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and the Corner Health Center in Ypsilanti, both of which offer prenatal programs.

Two people spoke in support of Planned Parenthood. Bernie Klein of Pittsfield Township said he was a volunteer for the nonprofit. He said that contraception causes abortions like umbrellas cause rain. One of the anti-Planned Parenthood speakers regularly comes to the PPMSM clinic and yells at women, he said, telling them they should go to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital or Corner Health Center. The answers that women give, he said, are that St. Joe’s doesn’t take their insurance, and Corner Health Center is full. Planned Parenthood provides the services that women want, Klein said. ”I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

Later in the meeting, Thomas Partridge also voiced his support for funding Planned Parenthood.

Joshua Wade again spoke during an additional opportunity for public commentary, asking commissioners to address the concerns directly that they’d heard expressed about Planned Parenthood. He said the speakers during public commentary were deeply interested in the board’s opinions, and he asked that those opinions be openly shared and discussed.

Funding for Human Services Nonprofits: Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners gave no follow-up to public commentary, nor did they discuss Planned Parenthood funding specifically.

Ronnie Peterson, who has previously raised concerns about how the process for allocating this funding has been handled, again asked for clarification about the process, and how much each funder would be paying.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county's office of community development, and Brett Lenart of the economic development & energy department work on their laptops during a break in the June 1 county board of commissioners meeting.

In total – including funds from the county, city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw Urban County and Washtenaw United Way – 63 programs will receive $4,027,933. Mary Jo Callan, director of the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, reviewed the coordinated funding process and emphasized that nonprofits realized the second year of a two-year funding cycle was contingent on budgets that haven’t yet been approved.

Peterson commended the Ann Arbor city council for its generosity in funding these nonprofits. [At its May 31 session, the council allocated $1,159,029 – amending the amount to include 9% more than the review committee had recommended.] He said the issue is how to attack problems that face the county in the future, especially in light of proposed legislation that would tighten the amount of time that residents are eligible for welfare. If signed into law, an estimated 12,600 welfare beneficiaries who’ve been receiving aid for more than 48 months would no longer get benefits.

Some of those people live in Washtenaw County and will turn to local governments and nonprofits for assistance, Peterson said, calling it an unfunded mandate. The county needs to prepare for this storm, he said.

Barbara Bergman agreed, saying the money they’ve allocated to nonprofits won’t begin to address the need. She called the proposed reform criminal, adding that the county doesn’t have the resources to adequately respond. Bergman noted that the current director of the state Department of Human Services, Cynthia Maritato, is from this area – she was former director of the Washtenaw County department of human services. They should organize a meeting with Maritato and other community leaders, Bergman said, to strategize about how to deal with this problem.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved allocating the recommended amounts to human services nonprofits. Yousef Rahbi was not in the room at the time of the vote, and Rob Turner was absent. Although Dan Smith had voted against the allocations when they were given initial approval at the May 18 meeting – citing an objection to funding Planned Parenthood – he voted in favor of all the allocations for this final approval.

Sheriff’s Contract Deputy Pricing

With no discussion, commissioners gave initial approval to the price that municipalities will pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015. The police services steering committee recommended setting the price in 2012 for a police services unit (PSU) at $150,594. The board had been briefed on the recommendation by sheriff Jerry Clayton at a May 19 working session.

The price in 2012 will remain unchanged from the 2011 rate of $150,594, which was a 4% increase over 2010 rates. In each of the following three years, the price per PSU increases about 1%: to $152,100 in 2013; $153,621 in 2014; and $155,157 in 2015.

In late 2010, the committee brought forward a recommendation to the board that set the cost of providing a PSU at $176,108. At its Dec. 1 meeting, the county board voted to accept that amount, with the understanding that commissioners would need to make a much harder decision at a later date – about the price that the county would charge for a PSU. The difference between the cost of a PSU and the amount charged – roughly $25,500, based on current figures – would be covered by the county.

Clayton attended the June 1 meeting, but was not asked to address the board. The only comment made by commissioners came from board chair Conan Smith, who commended the sheriff, the county’s finance staff and members of the police services steering committee for their work in putting together the proposal.

For additional background on this issue, see Chronicle coverage:

• “What’s Next for Washtenaw Police Services?” (Jan. 4, 2011)
• “County Board Acts on Budget Items” (Dec. 4, 2010)
• “Washtenaw Board Debates Budget Issues” (Nov. 22, 2010)
• “Washtenaw Police Services: What’s It Cost?” (Nov. 8, 2010)

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to set the price of a police services unit (PSU) at $150,594 in 2012, with 1% annual increases through 2015. A final vote is expected at the board’s July 6, 2011 meeting.

On a related note, a lawsuit filed against the county in 2006 over the price of contract deputies remains unresolved. Three townships – Augusta, Salem and Ypsilanti – originally sued the county, disputing the amount that was charged for police services. The court has held that the townships are liable to the county for additional amounts to cover police services that the county provided to them between Jan. 1 and Dec. 5, 2006 – at $24 an hour more than the townships had paid under a previous contract.

In mid 2010, the county settled with Salem Township, which agreed to pay the county $48,000. The county has been seeking more than $2 million from the other two townships – the bulk of that from Ypsilanti Township, which has the largest number of contract deputies.

The case is being handled by 38th Circuit Court Chief Judge Joseph Costello, who has ordered the townships and county into non-binding facilitation before James Rashid, a retired Wayne County Circuit Court judge. Rashid’s business, Judicial Resource Services, provides mediation and facilitation for these kinds of cases. The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 22.

Medical Director, Other Appointments

Diana Torres-Burgos, the county’s public health medical director, recently announced her resignation – she’ll be leaving her job later this month. At their June 1 meeting, commissioners were asked to approve the hire of her replacement – Monique Reeves – at an annual salary of $125,000. She’ll start the job on June 20.

Reeves was introduced by Dick Fleece, the county’s public health officer. He told commissioners that she has more than 10 years of experience in emergency medicine, with a medical degree and a masters degree in public health, both from the University of Michigan. She’s been working as a resident with the county in preventive medicine – she’s intelligent, funny, and will do a wonderful job, Fleece said.

Under the Michigan Public Health Code (Public Act 368 of 1978), Medicare services provided by the county – including immunizations and the maternal infant health program – require that a licensed medical doctor on staff bill Medicare, via the state, for reimbursement.

Commissioner Wes Prater described Reeves’ resume as impressive. Rolland Sizemore Jr. thanked her for attending the meeting, saying it was always good to see how they’re spending the county’s money. Conan Smith also complimented Reeves, but joked that he didn’t see anything on her resumé indicating that she was qualified to handle Fleece.

Reeves spoke briefly, telling commissioners that after nearly 11 years in emergency medicine, she decided she wanted to do more than just put a Band-Aid on the problems she’d been treating. She felt public health was the best way to do that, even though it meant she’d be taking a significant pay cut.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the hiring of Monique Reeves as the county’s public health medical director.

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners approved appointments to two of the county’s volunteer boards and committees. There was no discussion on these items.

Bob Grese was named to a two-year term on the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee, which oversees the county’s natural area preservation program. The term expires Dec. 31, 2012. Grese is director Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum and a professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment.

The board also appointed Mark Creekmore to a three-year term expiring March 31, 2014 for the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) board, a partnership between the county and UM. Creekmore is founder and executive director of the nonprofit Community Service Systems Inc.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the appointments of Bob Grese and Mark Creekmore.

Drain Projects in Ann Arbor

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to five projects planned by the county’s water resources commissioner.

Commissioner Dan Smith talks with Janis Bobrin, the county's water resources commissioner.

The projects, which require the county to back bond payments totaling up to $6.54 million, are all located in Ann Arbor: (1) Allen Creek drain cistern installation, downspout disconnection and tree planting – up to $330,000; (2) County Farm drain stream bank stabilization – up to $1.2 million; (3) Malletts Creek drain/Burns Park porous alley; Malletts Creek cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting; and Malletts Creek stream bank stabilization – up to $3.48 million; (4) Swift Run cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting – up to $75,000; and (5) Traver Creek cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting; and Traver Creek stream bank stabilization – up to $780,000.

Leah Gunn asked Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, to describe the projects and the grants she’s received to help pay for them.

Bobrin told commissioners that 50% of the project costs would be funded with a low-interest loan – now at 2.5% – from a state revolving loan fund. More importantly, she said, the remaining 50% would be funded through federal stimulus dollars. The projects met certain “green” requirements that many other applicants didn’t meet – that news resulted in a round of applause from commissioners.

Dan Smith pointed to an item of communication in the board’s meeting packet – a resolution passed by the Gratiot County board of commissioners, urging support of state legislation that includes creation of a delinquent special assessment revolving loan fund. He noted that the Gratiot resolution mentioned revenue from special assessment districts – used to make bond payments – is declining, because of decreasing property values. The proposed Ann Arbor drain projects would be in special assessment districts, and he asked Bobrin to talk about that.

Bobrin said that Ann Arbor is the chief partner in virtually all these bonds, and it collects stormwater utility fees from all residents to pay for these types of projects. All of these projects are in the city’s capital improvements plan, she said, and funding has been secured. There are no rate increases associated with the projects.

Conan Smith observed that although the projects being approved that night were all in Ann Arbor, other drain projects are often done throughout the county.

Outcome: The board gave initial approval to the five drain projects in Ann Arbor. Commissioners are expected to take final action on these items at their July 6 meeting.

Brownfields: LaFontaine, Packard Square

The brownfield plan for the LaFontaine Chevrolet redevelopment project in Dexter was up for final approval from commissioners at their June 1 meeting. Though heightened attention had been given to another brownfield project – the Packard Square development at the former Georgetown Mall site – there was no discussion of the LaFontaine project at Wednesday’s meeting. The plan had received initial approval at the board’s May 18 meeting.

The LaFontaine brownfield plan would enable the use of up to $330,330 of tax increment financing (TIF) for four years to pay for cleanup work, including asbestos and lead abatement. Of that amount, $25,410 would support the county’s brownfield program management, and $50,820 would be deposited into the county’s Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund. The project is expected to retain 76 jobs and create 50 new ones, and to increase the annual tax revenues to the county from $4,516 to $11,119 after the TIF ends.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the LaFontaine Chevrolet brownfield plan.

Brownfields: Packard Square

There was no agenda item on June 1 related to the Packard Square development. At their May 18 meeting, commissioners had approved the project’s brownfield plan, as well as a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $48 million development.. Wes Prater had voted against both those items.

Also at the May 18 meeting, the board had postponed action on a $1 million loan application to the MDEQ for Packard Square, as well as a request to authorize designation of the county’s full faith and credit as a guarantee for any loan that might be awarded, up to $1 million. They also discussed but ultimately postponed action on a broader public-private investment policy they’re developing, a policy spurred in large part by the request to back the MDEQ loan.

They’d initially planned to take up both those topics again on June 1. But at a May 24 agenda briefing, the board learned that Packard Square developers had decided not to pursue a state loan. That prompted commissioners to defer action on the broader policy issue, with the intent of taking more time to develop it before bringing it back to the board for consideration.

At the June 1 meeting, Prater asked staff to give an update on the status of Packard Square. Brett Lenart of the county’s economic development & energy department told commissioners that the loan request had been pulled, and that the brownfield grant application would likely be submitted to the state next week. He said no other board action would be required.

Prater told Lenart he still had questions about the project, including who would ultimately be responsible for the brownfield remediation. There was no other discussion about the project.

Budget & Finance: Millage, New Work Sessions, Internal Audit

Commissioners acted on several other items related to budget and finance at Wednesday’s meeting.

Budget & Finance: General Operating Millage

At their May 18 meeting, commissioners had given initial approval to establish the 2011 county millage rate at 5.6768 mills. That includes the general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills, unchanged from the current rate. Several other county millages – including those for parks and recreation, emergency communications and the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority – are levied separately, bringing the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills. One mill equals $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s state equalized value, or SEV.

On Wednesday, a public hearing was held on the action. One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke. He said the county doesn’t have sufficient revenues to meet its current obligations, especially not in this economy. As he outlined some of the county’s needs, Partridge was advised by board chair Conan Smith to stick to the topic of the public hearing – the millage rate. Partridge replied by challenging Smith’s leadership, saying the commissioner was not pushing to set property taxes at a level that would support county services adequately. “Do you not understand that?” Partridge asked.

[With a few minor exceptions, the county board does not have authority to levy taxes independently. Millage increases, new millages or an action to reset a millage at its original rate (known as a Headlee override) would require voter approval.]

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners voted to give final approve to set the total tax for Washtenaw County at 5.6768 mills.

Budget & Finance: Working Sessions

A resolution was added to the agenda at the meeting, adding five new working sessions to the board’s calendar focused on the 2012-2013 budget. The dates are June 16, July 21, Aug. 18, Sept. 15 and Oct. 13 – all Thursdays.

Currently, the meetings are scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. However, it’s possible that some or all of the added working sessions will be held elsewhere, at locations throughout the county. Those decisions will be made at a later date.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to add five new budget-related working sessions to its calendar.

Budget & Finance: Internal Audit

The board was asked to give final approval to hire the professional services firm Experis (formerly known as Jefferson Wells) to perform internal auditing services for the county for one year, with the possibility of extending the contract over additional years. The board had authorized the county administration to issue requests for proposals for these services at its Dec. 1, 2010 meeting. The county received 10 responses, and a review team narrowed the selection and held interviews with three firms. The team’s recommendation for Experis was unanimous, according to a staff report.

The total cost for internal audit work in 2011 is $87,500. It would include: (1) overall internal control review and risk assessment; (2) more detailed internal control review for two county departments; (3) establishing a fraud hotline; and (4) eight hours of internal control training for county staff.

The contract was originally proposed for a five-year period. At their May 18 meeting, several commissioners raised concerns about the expenditure to an outside firm, and the resolution was amended to shorten the contract to one year.

Representatives from Experis attended the June 1 meeting, but commissioners did not ask them to address the board.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to hire Experis for internal auditing services.

Grants: Community Corrections, Weatherization, Summer Food

On the agenda for final consideration were several grants that had received initial approval at the May 18 meeting.

Final approval was sought for a grant application for the county’s community corrections program, operated by the sheriff’s office. The grant of $421,801 – for the period from Oct. 1, 2011 through Sept. 30, 2012 – is only a portion of the program’s $1.01 million budget.

Other revenues include $215,983 from the county’s general fund, $76,386 from the program’s fund balance, and an estimated $295,890 in program-generated revenues, including fees from tethering and drug testing.

Programs run by community corrections are designed in part to provide sentencing alternatives to the Washtenaw County Trial Court. Programs include pre-trial screening, drug testing, electronic tethering, supervised release, and educational efforts, such as the “Thinking Matters” program offered in partnership with the nonprofit Dawn Farm.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to give final approval to the community corrections grant application.

Two items on the June 1 agenda related to the county’s employment training and community services (ETCS) department.

Commissioners were asked to approve the acceptance of $455,000 in federal stimulus funds – from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – to pay for weatherization assistance. The funds were originally granted to other municipalities but weren’t used, and are being redistributed. Washtenaw County has already been granted $4.3 million in weatherization funds from 2009-2011, and has finished work on 611 residences. The new funding will pay for about 70 additional residences. The services – including home inspections, refrigerator efficiency testing and consumer education – are available to residents with an income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. That’s $23,448 for a single person, or $45,088 for a family of four.

A grant application to fund a summer food program for children was also on the agenda. Nearly $116,000 in federal funds, distributed through the state Dept. of Education, are available to pay for breakfasts, lunches and snacks to low-income children at 30 sites throughout the county.

Outcome: Final approval was given to the weatherization and summer food program grants.

Urban County Annual Plan

On the agenda was a resolution for final approval of the Washtenaw Urban County annual plan from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012.

The plan must be submitted to the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), outlining specific projects and programs that the Washtenaw Urban County will undertake with HUD funding from several sources: the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; HOME grants; and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG). The county is expected to receive $3,602,480 from these programs during the coming fiscal year. A $448,920 in-kind county match is required. [.pdf of fiscal year 2011 Washtenaw Urban County plan]

The Urban County is a consortium of 11 local governments that receive federal funding for programs that serve low-income residents and neighborhoods.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to the Washtenaw Urban County annual plan.

Misc. Communications

During her report to the board, county administrator Verna McDaniel noted that this was the last week on the job for Joanna Bidlack.

Joanna Bidlack talks with Bob Tetens, director of the county's parks & recreation department. Bidlack has served as a management analyst with the county, a role that in part included working as support staff for the county board. June 3 was her last day on the job.

Bidlack has been a management analyst in the county administrator’s office, a role that in part included serving as support staff for the county board. For example, she was the point person for compiling agendas, and previously led the board’s agenda briefings.

Bidlack has taken a job with General Electric’s operation in Van Buren Township. McDaniel told the board it would be a huge loss for the county – Bidlack is intelligent, loyal and a great communicator, she said. They’ll all miss her, McDaniel said, but they wished her well.

Commissioners and others attending the meeting gave Bidlack a round of applause.

Misc. Communications: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke five times during the evening – at a public hearing, and the four opportunities for general public commentary. In addition to the commentary reported earlier in this article, Partridge also:  (1) urged commissioners to support the recall of Gov. Rick Snyder; (2) questioned funding of the county’s public outreach team (PORT) because it supports a homeless soccer team with money that could be used for shelter or other services; (3) chastised the board for not seeking the maximum available revenue from grants and other sources to pay for needed county services; and (4) advocated for an agenda item that would address protection of residents from exposure to medical marijuana and other harmful substances.

Executive Session: Labor, Legal

At the end of the meeting, the board went into executive session for about an hour to address three issues: (1) a collective bargaining strategy; (2) possible settlement of pending litigation; and (3) review of a legal opinion. Under the Michigan Open Meetings Act, public bodies must state the reason for entering into a closed session. They can – but are not required to – provide details about the topics they’ll be discussing. In this case, no additional information was provided.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, and Dan Smith. Rob Turner was absent for most of the meeting, arriving after the start of the board’s executive session.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

The board will also hold a Thursday, June 16 working session focused on the budget and starting at 6:30 p.m. in the county administration building, 220 N. Main.

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on 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 report highlights six “return on investment” categories: (1) stabilizing the workforce and community by providing services like childcare, food and affordable housing; (2) leveraging millions of dollars in additional funding; (3) providing jobs – if combined, human services nonprofits funded by the city and county would employ over 855 people, representing the county’s fifth-largest employer, according to the report; (4) supporting for-profit businesses directly through the purchase of goods and services, and indirectly from spending by employees; (5) tallying 365,000 hours of volunteer time in 2011, or the equivalent of $7.8 million in wages; and (6) enhancing the social safety-net services of local government.

This is the second report on the economic impact of local nonprofits – the first one was released in 2009. It’s delivered in the context of budget approvals being sought this week from both the Ann Arbor city council and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, for funding through 2013. [See Chronicle coverage: "Nonprofits lobby for human services support" and "Budget issues – human services, fire protection – loom"]

Symbolic paper cranes were on display at the May 18, 2011 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. The cranes represent the number of people in the county last year who used homeless support services. On screen in the photo's background is Michael Appel of Avalon Housing, urging commissioners to support such services. (Photos by the writer.)

After much discussion, commissioners gave final approval to a brownfield plan for the Packard Square project, which will help fund environmental cleanup on the site of the former Georgetown Mall. The board also approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $48 million development. Commissioner Wes Prater voted against the brownfield plan and the grant application.

The board postponed action until June 1 on a $1 million loan application to the MDEQ, as well as a request to authorize designation of the county’s full faith and credit as a guarantee for any loan that might be awarded, up to $1 million. They also discussed but ultimately postponed action on a broader public-private investment policy they’re developing, a policy spurred in large part by the request to back the MDEQ loan.

The policy discussion will likely be pushed back even further. At a May 24 briefing to review the June 1 agenda, commissioners learned from county staff that The Harbor Cos., developers of Packard Square, decided not to apply for the MDEQ loan. In light of that decision, the board is expected to take more time to flesh out details for its policy on public-private investment. And some commissioners – notably Leah Gunn – aren’t sure such a policy is even necessary. [Full Chronicle report on the May 24 briefing: "Loan Request Pulled for Packard Square"]

The other major item on the May 18 agenda related to funding for local human services nonprofits. The recommendations were made as part of a coordinated funding approach, combining support from the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Washtenaw Urban County. More than 20 people spoke on the issue during public commentary, urging continued support for the county’s most vulnerable residents.

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to $507,500 in human services funding for 2011. Additional funds for 2012 and 2013 were also approved, contingent on the board’s passing those budgets later this year – it’s possible that allocations will change, as the county works to eliminate a $17.5 million deficit. Commissioner Dan Smith voted against the allocations, citing an objection to one line item. He later clarified for The Chronicle that he objected to funding for Planned Parenthood.

The board acted on several other items during its May 18 meeting, including: (1) approval of a brownfield plan for LaFontaine Chevrolet in Dexter; (2) setting the 2011 rate for the county’s general operating millage; and (3) initial approval to hire Experis (formerly known as Jefferson Wells) to perform internal auditing services for the county.

The board also gave inital approval to apply for a federal Dept. of Justice grant worth nearly $500,000 to support the Washtenaw County Cyber Citizenship Coalition (WC4). Commissioner Kristin Judge, who spearheaded the WC4 initiative, reported that Gov. Rick Snyder has asked the coalition to host with him a statewide “cyber summit” later this year.

Funding for Human Services Nonprofits

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a resolution allocating $507,500 in children’s well-being and human services funding for 2011. The board was also asked for tentative approval of additional funds in 2012 and 2013, contingent on the board’s approval of those budgets later this year.

The allocations for these awards were recommended by a coordinated funding review committee. The process is being managed by the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, which is coordinating the funding efforts of the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Washtenaw Urban County. [.pdf of funding recommendations]

The county board of commissioners approved this coordinated funding approach at its Nov. 3, 2010 meeting. Commissioners had been briefed on the effort at an Oct. 7 working session, and most recently discussed the process at its May 4 meeting. The Ann Arbor city council, at its meeting on Monday, May 16, tabled action on its human services allocations – along with all other budget-related items – until a continuation of the meeting, which is now set for May 31.

Human Services Funding: Public Commentary

About 20 people addressed the board on the topic of funding for human services. Many of them represented nonprofits that provide basic services, like food and housing, and many of them had previously spoken during public commentary at the Ann Arbor city council. Three people objected to funding of Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan.

This report summarizes their remarks, organized thematically.

Human Services Funding: Public Commentary – Housing

Susan Beckett of Scio Township told commissioners that she’s a volunteer working with Groundcover News, a monthly publication focused on issues of poverty and homelessness. It’s sold on the streets by vendors who are homeless, and she’s been told they’re the nicest vendors in the country – that’s because of the support services that are available to them, she said. These are people whose lives have been destroyed and whose future is horribly uncertain, she said, but you don’t see the kind of desperation in their faces that you see in others.

When Beckett moved to Scio Township about 20 years ago, it was during the last recession and her home was broken into more than once. “I don’t want to see us go back to that kind of desperation, where people are doing whatever they can to make ends meet,” she said. Beckett said the county’s Justice Project Outreach Team (JPORT) used to provide tents to the homeless. Recently a man she knows went to get one, but JPORT has stopped that service. The Delonis Center – the county’s homeless shelter – is full, she said, so the man has to sleep under a bridge.

Brian Nord talks with Julie Steiner before the May 18 county board meeting. Both spoke in support of continued funding for human services. Nord is board president for the nonprofit MISSION, which supports Camp Take Notice. Steiner is executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

Brian Nord told commissioners that he’s lived in Ann Arbor for 6.5 years, and has worked for the last 2.5 years with Camp Take Notice. [Nord is president of the board for MISSION, a nonprofit that supports the camp.] There’s the lowest spot that people can reach on the grid, he said – Camp Take Notice is a step above that. Right now, there are already 30 people at the camp. Last year, it took until the end of the summer to reach that number, he said. People need support services, he said. “Where are they going to go if there’s no place to go after Camp Take Notice?” [Camp Take Notice and MISSION don't receive money from the coordinated funding pool.]

Jim Reisinger of Dexter spoke in support of Alpha House, run by the Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County. It provides a good return on investment for county dollars, he said. Focused on families, the nonprofit provides shelter, food, counseling and other services. Volunteers contribute the equivalent of $330,000 in donated hours – that’s a good return, he said. [The funding ecommendations call for IHN to get $92,400 in funding.]

Three people spoke on behalf of the Ozone House, which provides shelter and other services for youth. Colleen O’Brien, who works at the drop-in center in Ypsilanti, thanked commissioners for their support. The drop-in center helps primarily African-American, low-income youth who have no place else to go, she said. Ten years ago, she said, they had about 100 visits each month – now there are 500 monthly visits from young people looking for a safe place to stay or a meal. Ozone House couldn’t provide its services without support from the county, she said. [The coordinated funding committee is recommending a total of $208,557 for Ozone House programs, including $97,625 from the county.]

Tyra Weatherspoon and Patricia Gwinner also came forward to talk about their support for Ozone House, saying they were there to speak on behalf of youth who need the services provided by the nonprofit. Gwinner said she knows what it’s like to be homeless. She asked: If the county cuts funding, where will young people go to get the help they need?

Ellen Schulmeister, director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, told commissioners that the county has been a partner for the past 13 years – the Shelter Association couldn’t do its work without the county’s support. She gave the example of Matthew, one of the men who came to the Delonis Center, the county’s homeless shelter in Ann Arbor that’s run by the association. He thought he owned 40 Internet businesses and that he was a friend with the University of Michigan president. The staff at Delonis helped him, she said. Schulmeister asked the board not to give up on Matthew or any of the 1,300 other individuals that they see at the shelter. [The Shelter Association is slated to receive a total of $316,649 in coordinated funding.]

Charlie Andenberg, a case manager at the Delonis Center, gave an example of a woman who came to the shelter after she was laid off from her job and became homeless. She lacked health insurance, which exacerbated her medical problems. The example illustrated the need for social support services.

Paper cranes from Avalon Housing were transported to the lobby of the Washtenaw County administration building, awaiting display at the board of commissioners meeting.

Michael Appel, associate director of Avalon Housing, brought four others to the podium with him, each of them holding hangers loaded with a total of 4,738 paper cranes. The cranes represent the number of people who received homeless support services from a local agency in 2010. It’s a beautiful and stark reminder of people affected by homelessness, he told commissioners. He thanked the board for its policy leadership, including support of a task force that led to creation of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and the Blueprint to End Homelessness. The coordinated funding approach shows that the county and other local governments and agencies can move forward together.

“The work we do saves money, ultimately,” Appel said, measured in fewer trips to emergency rooms, for example, and in more students graduating from high school and having a better opportunity for employment. They’re all leveraging money for a greater impact on the community. [Recommendations call for Avalon to get $140,974 in coordinated funding.]

Paul Lambert of Ann Arbor said he’s been a recipient of aid from Avalon Housing for more than 12 years, and a homelessness activist for many more years than that. There’s a real need for human services to be fully funded in this town, he said.

Kristen Klevering of the nonprofit SOS Community Services reminded commissioners that she had addressed them at their May 4 meeting in support of Barrier Busters. This time, she’d come with the development director of SOS, Ellen Offen, as well as a board member. She related a story about a woman with three young children who got sick and had fallen behind in her rent. The woman came to SOS recently on the verge of being evicted. SOS was able to help, and now Klevering is her case manager, working with her stay on top of things. Without the social safety net supported by the county, Klevering said, “people like her will be homeless.” [SOS is set to receive $90,859 from the county's portion, plus $124,577 from other coordinated funding.]

Human Services Funding: Public Commentary – Support Services

Barbara Niess May, executive director of SafeHouse Center, thanked the board for their support. Funding for human services from the county, city of Ann Arbor and other entities leverages millions of dollars back into the community from other sources, she said. Niess May described the services of SafeHouse, which provides a range of support – including emergency shelter and counseling – for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. They serve people from all across the county, she said, not just Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The county’s funding is critical, and allows SafeHouse to leverage funds from the federal government as well as foundations nationwide. [Recommendations call for SafeHouse to receive $143,263 from the coordinated funding pool.]

Later in the meeting, Dawn Hertz of Dexter also spoke in support of SafeHouse, saying she volunteered there. Domestic violence doesn’t discriminate, she said, and SafeHouse serves all those who need their help.

Margie Hagene, chair of the board for Food Gatherers, was there to request the county’s ongoing support for that nonprofit as well as its social safety net partners. [Food Gatherers is slated to receive $87,486 in allocations from Washtenaw County's share of the coordinated funding pool.] She was aware that the county faces budget issues, but as they prepare to make tough decisions, she asked that human services not be reduced. Hagene reported that 138% more people sought food assistance from Food Gatherers and its partners in 2010 than in 2006. There is a need, she said, and they are grateful to the county for its long-standing commitment to serving the community’s most vulnerable residents.

Pam Smith, executive director of the Child Care Network, described the services of the 33-year-old nonprofit, which helps families find child care and provides scholarships to help pay for child care. Parents are successful because of the county’s support for Child Care Network, she said, noting that after food and shelter, child care is a household’s third-largest expense. [It's recommended that Child Care Network receive a total of $358,436 from the coordinated funding pool, including $218,378 from the county.]

Nancy Paul, executive director of Faith in Action, told commissioners that the nonprofit serves the Dexter and Chelsea areas, and has been providing support for residents in need for 31 years. For the past 5 years or so, they wouldn’t have been able to meet those needs without support from their alliances, including Food Gatherers. They can go after community grant funding now, because of their partnerships – if they were on their own, they wouldn’t be able to meet the needs of residents, she said. Paul urged commissioners to continue their support for human services.

Chuck Warpehoski, director of the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice, said he knew the county was facing some difficult budget decisions, and he thanked them for their work. Caring for the vulnerable is one of the few things that diverse religious groups can agree on, he said. Because ICPJ doesn’t receive county funding, in some ways he’s a disinterested party, Warpehoski said. But as a resident, he’s not. An elderly neighbor of his with multiple sclerosis gets meals delivered to her home. Meal delivery isn’t a housing support service, he noted, but it helps her stay in her home – that’s good for her, her family and the neighborhood. It means one less vacant property on the block. The same is true for a summer youth program in Ypsilanti – families don’t have to pay for child care, so it helps them out financially. Support programs like these are good for the long-term self-interest of the county.

Lily Au of Ann Arbor spoke during two of the evening’s four opportunities for public commentary. During her second turn, she explained that her initial commentary had been a metaphor, to illustrate the need for direct funding to those in need – rather than using public funding for developers or administrative overhead. She held up a hand trowel, and explained that when residents at Camp Take Notice needed to go to the bathroom, they have to dig a hole seven inches deep to cover up the smell. These are the people who need help.

Human Services Funding: Public Commentary – Planned Parenthood

Paul Dobrowolski of Saline requested that the board not fund Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan. [Funding recommendations would give a total of $67,440 to the nonprofit, including $53,040 from the county.] They don’t need the money, he argued, and many of the women they serve don’t live in Washtenaw County. Abortions account for 20-30% of their revenues, he said, and they make money from selling oral contraceptives. Their CEO was paid $167,000 in 2008, Dobrowolski said. Finally, he noted that there are alternatives available – St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and Corner Health Center in Ypsilanti provide similar services, he said.

Karen Walacavage of Ypsilanti said she was there to help commissioners understand why they shouldn’t fund Planned Parenthood. The services are redundant – they’re offered elsewhere, she said. She doesn’t want the county funding a “mega-nonprofit.” Walacavage also objected to Planned Parenthood spending money to lobby against organizations that oppose abortions.

Anne Mitzel of Milan was concerned about Planned Parenthood’s “triple-dipping” – getting money from the local, state and federal government. She said that abortions for blacks are disproportionate to the percentage of blacks in the general population. Planned Parenthood writes grants claiming they work to prevent abortions, she said, but looking at their target demographic – the black community – suggests otherwise. She concluded by saying, “We as taxpayers deserve better.”

Human Services Funding: Commissioners’ Response to Public Commentary

Several commissioners expressed thanks to the people who’d spoken. “It’s beautiful to see you here,” Yousef Rabhi told them, saying that the funding doesn’t mean anything without the people who provide the services. He noted that during the board’s budget retreat earlier this year, human services had emerged as a board priority. He hoped commissioners would keep the commentary they’d heard close to their hearts and find a palatable funding solution for everyone.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county's office of community development, talks with Derrick Jackson of the county sheriff's office, prior to the start of the May 18 county board meeting. Callan's office oversees the coordinated funding model used to allocate funds for human services nonprofits.

Kristin Judge said it was humbling to have the nonprofits thank the board, when it should be the other way around. It shows we live in a community that cares, she said. She thanked Chuck Warpehoski for putting human services into the context of the economy’s bottom line – it’s hard to quantify the net affect on tax revenue, but it’s there. Judge praised Brian Nord and Caleb Poirier, president and vice president of MISSION’s board of directors, for their work with Camp Take Notice. They’ve created a safe, amazing community, she said, that’s way more than just a step above homelessness.

Rob Turner noted that the board has talked about how the county can streamline operations so that there’ll be more funds available for human services. He noted that the board isn’t in the trenches – the people who’d just spoken to them are on the front lines. “We’re not boots on the ground – you are.” Turner said that when he served on the Chelsea school board, his favorite meetings were those when the boardroom was packed – as the county boardroom was that night. It’s important for people to come to these meetings, he said, and not just once a year. He concluded by saying that before he was elected to the county board, he hadn’t been aware of all the services and support the county offered. There is a safety net available to help people go from despair to self-reliance, he said.

Barbara Bergman said she recognized many of the people who had spoken during public commentary – many of them are friends, she said. “I wish we had more money,” she said. “I wish we could solve the problems of the county.” One of her goals, she said, is to turn every kid in this county into a taxpayer. They can do that by providing sufficient funding for schools, housing, food, recreation, mental health and family assistance, she said. “When we turn them into taxpayers, that means we can solve the problems in this county.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he disagreed with Turner – the board is also in the trenches, just in a different way. They all care about the homeless, but it’s a question of what can they afford. That’s the bottom line, he said. At future meetings, other groups will come to lobby for funding too, he noted. The economy has caught everyone in a bind, he said, and they’ve never been in this position before.

Human Services Funding: Commissioner Discussion

Ronnie Peterson began the discussion by saying it was misleading to state that the board accepts these recommendations. The money isn’t there yet, he said – the board can’t commit to the funding, because they haven’t voted on the budget for 2012 and 2013.

County administrator Verna McDaniel explained that the board had already authorized $507,500 in children’s well-being and human services funding, as part of the 2011 budget that was approved last year. For the remainder of the total $1.015 million to be allocated, the assumption is that the board will allocate those funds as part of the upcoming budget process, she said.

Peterson maintained that the resolution they were being asked to approve would authorize the allocations – and that required that they authorize the funding itself. But they haven’t made a decision on the budget for next year, he noted – no money has been set aside for human services next year.

Kristin Judge said she shared some of Peterson’s concerns. She noted that when McDaniel presented a strategy for dealing with the county’s projected $17.5 million deficit in 2012-2013, one part included $1 million in cuts to human services funding. If they cut that budget, how can they stick to these funding recommendations?

McDaniel again stated that about half of the funding – $507,500 – was already allocated in the 2011 budget. In the background memo that accompanied the coordinated funding recommendations, she said, staff tried to make it clear that commissioners weren’t obligating the funds for 2012-13. She noted that in addition to the coordinated funding pool, the county funded other human services agencies for a total of about $3 million this year. All the agencies being funded know that the funding for 2012-13 hasn’t yet been set, she said.

Judge wondered what approach the county would take, if funding is cut. Would it be an across-the-board percentage from all agencies that are funded? McDaniel said that’s an option – it would depend on what the board wanted.

When Judge then asked if there was a reason why the board needed to vote on it that night, McDaniel said they wanted to move ahead on the 2011 allocations, since it had already been approved in the 2011 budget.

Judge said that in the future, it would be good to know what the strategy will be for funding cuts, if they are necessary.

Barbara Bergman argued against making across-the-board percentage cuts, saying that’s the least constructive thing they could do. She’d only support a more strategic approach, if cuts are necessary. Judge later clarified that she hadn’t been advocating for a percentage reduction, and that she agreed they should be strategic.

Dan Smith felt they needed to clarify language in the resolution. The only “resolved” clause stated that they were approving the allocations for 2011-2013, he said. The only money they’re really approving right now is the $507,500.

Wes Prater pointed out that part of the difficulty is in coordinating budget cycles for different entities. The city of Ann Arbor works on a fiscal year that begins July 1, while the county works on a calendar year. The state has yet another budget cycle, he noted – its fiscal year begins Oct. 1. He thought Peterson was correct in stating that they weren’t approving allocations beyond 2011, and he asked the county’s attorney, Curtis Hedger, whether they should change the wording of the resolution.

Hedger felt the issue was sufficiently addressed in the “whereas” clauses. However, if commissioners wanted to, they could amend the resolved clause to add that allocations are based in part on currently authorized funding of $507,500 and contingent on passage of the 2012-13 budget.

Conan Smith observed that the board goes through this process every year – it’s not unusual. Commissioners develop a two-year budget, but by law they can’t encumber the second year, and very frequently they make adjustments later. [For example, the county's 2010-11 budget was approved by the board in late 2009. Then in December 2010, the board approved adjustments to the 2011 budget as part of a budget affirmation process.]

C. Smith said he was in favor of this current funding resolution, because it put a stake in the ground and indicated their support for human services. It gives people a way to hold the board’s feet to the fire. He added that he’s 100% behind the funding recommendations, and he won’t vote for a dollar less when the board is asked to approve the 2012-13 budget.

Peterson said he clearly wasn’t advocating for cuts. But the fact is that commissioners don’t know how they’ll cut the millions of dollars they need to balance the budget, he said. It’s difficult for him to tell employees that they’ll have jobs next year, when he knows that pink slips will likely be flying in November and December. It’s the county board’s job to set the budget, he said, and they shouldn’t be delegating that role to a committee – referring to the review committee that made coordinated funding recommendations for human services. The board needs to consider the future of its employees, too, he said.

Judge took issue with C. Smith’s remarks about not making cuts to the funding recommendations. They’ve already said that there’s a target of $1 million cuts to human services funding in 2012 and 2013, she noted. She wanted to be clear with the nonprofits that if the county’s budget changes, those allocations will be different.

Yousef Rabhi felt that one of the whereas clauses could address the concerns that other commissioners were raising:

Whereas, the full award of these funds is contingent on passage of the 2012 and 2013 Budget allocation process;

Prater pointed out that budgets are estimates of both anticipated revenues and expenses. “Budgets are not written in stone,” he said. At the end of each year, they always make adjustments to the next year’s budget, he added.

Dan Smith observed that the budget process has only begun in earnest about a month ago, with the release of the county’s equalization report. He moved to amend the coordinated funding resolution as Hedger had suggested, adding to the resolved clause [italics indicate amended text]:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby approves the FY 2011-2013 Children’s Well-Being and Human Services funding awards to the nonprofit entities listed below, based in part on the currently authorized funds of $507,500 and contingent on passing the 2012-13 budget, and authorizes the Office of Community Development to negotiate contractual agreements in accordance with the County’s purchasing procedures, subject to approval as to form by the Office of Corporation Council, the annual recommendation is as follows: [.pdf of full amended resolution, with list of funding allocations for Washtenaw County]

Bergman said it would be easier to follow the discussion about the board’s resolutions if the lines of text were numbered. Deputy county clerk Jason Brooks indicated that it would be possible to do that.

Outcome: The board gave initial approval to the funding recommendations, as amended. Commissioner Dan Smith voted against the allocations, citing an objection to one line item, which he didn’t specify during the meeting. He later clarified for The Chronicle that he objected to funding for Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan. For the county’s allocations, final approval is expected at the board’s June 1 meeting.

Packard Square Brownfield Proposal

On the board’s agenda were several items related to the Packard Square project in Ann Arbor, on the site of the former Georgetown Mall, including requests for approval of a brownfield plan, a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $48 million development, a $1 million loan application to MDEQ, as well as a request to authorize designation of the county’s full faith and credit as a guarantee for any loan that might be awarded, up to $1 million.

Board chair Conan Smith passes out copies of the policy he drafted to guide county investment in public-private partnerships. In the foreground is commissioner Alicia Ping.

Within the context of Packard Square – prompted by the developer’s request for the county’s full faith and credit – commissioners also discussed a broader public-private investment policy, a subject they had initially debated at a May 17 special working session. Based on the discussion at the working session, board chair Conan Smith had drafted a policy that he distributed to commissioners a few hours before Wednesday’s meeting.

The Packard Square project has been the topic of some controversy at the county level. The board had been asked at its May 4 meeting to give initial approval to the grant and loan application. It was the loan guarantee that raised concerns among some commissioners, who were uncomfortable putting the county potentially on the hook for a private developer – especially since back taxes were owed on the property, and the county is facing a large deficit in the coming years.

Instead of voting on May 4, the item was taken up at a May 5 working session, and again at a special working session called for May 17.

The brownfield plan would enable the developer to use up to $5,840,558 of tax increment financing over 14 years to support cleanup of the site, where a dry cleaning business operated. In addition to cleanup activities, TIF funds would have been used to repay the $1 million loan and to pay $23,000 annually for administrative fees to the county’s economic development & energy department, which manages the brownfield program. The development includes 230 apartments, plus retail and office space. The Ann Arbor city council approved both the Packard Square site plan and brownfield plan at its May 2, 2011 meeting.

At its May 18 meeting, the county board considered these items at both their Ways & Means Committee meeting and their regular board meeting – held back-to-back. Typically, initial votes are taken at Ways & Means, then moved to the regular board meeting two weeks later.

The board also held a public hearing on the topic of Packard Square’s brownfield plan. In addition, two residents spoke about the project during the meeting’s general public commentary.

Packard Square Brownfield: Public Commentary

Local attorney Jim Fink said he was speaking on behalf of his friend and client, Albert Berriz, CEO of the real estate firm McKinley Inc., who wasn’t able to attend the meeting. Fink then read aloud a letter that Berriz sent to county administrator Verna McDaniel. Berriz called the development of the former Georgetown Mall a “very risky venture,” and that he wasn’t sure why the county would do this given its other financial challenges and limited resources.

Berriz stated that he and his partners have invested tens of millions of dollars buying and renovating real estate in the county. “We are proud to claim over 500-plus McKinley team members gainfully employed in the region operating those assets. Before we risk our county’s balance sheet in this way, I urge [you] to consider that those of us risking our own balance sheets, and creating real jobs in the county, are doing so without coming to you and asking the county to provide capital for our efforts.”[.pdf of Berriz letter]

Jim Burns of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 252 in Ann Arbor said he was standing in solidarity with his colleagues in Detroit. He pointed out that Bloomfield Park – a failed commercial project by The Harbor Cos., the same developer as Packard Square – was a complete bust and a terrible eyesore. It’s partially constructed, and sits as a monument to how the developer bungled the job, Burns said. On behalf of the roughly 1,000 members of IBEW Local 252, Burns urged the county to stay out of the business of financing private development.

Packard Square Brownfield: Public Commentary – Commissioner Response

Rob Turner pointed out that the county is not investing in Packard Square – they’re not taking money away from human services to put into private development. The issue they’re considering is whether to use the county’s full faith and credit to back a loan for the developer from the state, he said. If they can help create jobs and clean up a blighted area, he added, that’s their priority – it’s not a priority simply to help a developer.

Packard Square Brownfield: Public Policy

The first issue that the board took up related to the broader public policy question about conditions for investing in public-private partnerships. Though the policy was prompted by debate over when the county should issue its full faith and credit, the policy was also being designed to apply to issuance of bonds, adoption of tax increment financing plans, or cash investments.

Board chair Conan Smith, who drafted the policy, said he tried to incorporate elements from the previous night’s working session. He reviewed the main points of the policy, which lists five criteria for investment. Projects must have: (1) a clear public benefit; (2) local government support; (3) no outstanding tax liabilities; (4) a minimal risk of loss; and (5) a limitation on the total county liability. [.pdf of full draft policy]

The final criterion – a limitation on total county liability – hadn’t previously been discussed in detail. C. Smith explained that he wanted to ensure that in the absolute worst case scenario, the county would still have three weeks of operating capital on hand and as much protection as possible, in case a project goes belly up. That part of the draft policy stated:

VII. Limitation of Total County Liability

The total liability for general obligation bonds or encumbrances of the County’s full faith and credit related to public-private partnerships shall not exceed the following limits:

i. If the County’s unrestricted fund balances are less than eight percent of regular general fund expenditures, the limit shall be three percent of regular general fund expenditures;

ii. If the County’s unrestricted fund balances are greater than eight percent but less than seventeen percent of regular general fund expenditures, the limit shall be seven percent of regular general fund expenditures;

iii. If the County’s unrestricted fund balances are greater than seventeen percent of regular general fund expenditures, the limit shall be twelve percent of regular general fund expenditures.

Wes Prater clarified that the policy referred to unrestricted fund balances of the general fund.

Washtenaw County commissioners, from right: Rob Turner, Ronnie Peterson, Barbara Bergman, Yousef Rabhi.

Barbara Bergman said she wanted to include something about the track record of the developer, their successes and failures, as well as the amount of time they’ve worked on local projects. C. Smith replied that based on their previous discussion, the consensus seemed that local government partners would be in a better position to evaluate that. In the past, it would have been handled by the county’s planning department and planning advisory board, he said, but those entities no longer exist. It would be a substantive and costly process for the county to vet developers in that way, he said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. agreed with Bergman, saying there were too many examples of developers simply changing their company’s name after a failed project. The county should do some research on the developer before getting involved, he said.

Wes Prater wanted to include more information about the credit history of the individual or company.

Yousef Rabhi said he was a little uncomfortable with the criterion regarding local government support. That section states:

IV. Local Government Support

The County shall not invest in a project that does not have the support of the local unit of government in which it would be developed. Local government support may be evidence by any of the following:

a. Issuance of the local unit of government’s full faith and credit for the project or evidence of other financial involvement in the project;

b. Approval by the governing body of a land use plan or other development plan;

c. Resolution of the governing unit; or

d. A letter of support signed by a majority of the members of the governing body.

Rabhi said he wanted to make it stronger – the last item simply asked for a letter, and that didn’t seem sufficient. He suggested requiring two of the four items showing support, rather than just one.

Prater suggested that instead of requiring a letter of support, they could ask for a resolution of support, so that the local government would need to vote on it. Ronnie Peterson noted that some local governments have limited resources, and a resolution might be all they can offer.

Dan Smith felt very uncomfortable with the options for local government support, except for the first one – showing financial involvement. If a local municipality isn’t willing to put any skin in the game, he said, he wasn’t sure why the county should invest. In general, he wasn’t comfortable using government money to support private development except under very limited circumstances, and he wasn’t sure the policy made that clear.

Rob Turner said he wouldn’t want it to be an obstacle if a local government wasn’t capable of giving its full faith and credit – that shouldn’t stop a project. He agreed that asking for a letter of support was too weak, and preferred asking for a resolution of support instead. And they should be welcoming outside developers who haven’t previously worked in this area, he said – there are ways they can be vetted, but the county shouldn’t be putting up roadblocks.

Kristin Judge thanked C. Smith for his leadership, and said it was great they were developing a policy. However, she was concerned that they were rushing this through because of one project. Board policies are a big deal, she said, and they should take the time to flesh it out. She confirmed with Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, that he hadn’t had time to research it.

Peterson said he was ready to take the initial vote that night. They’d had a very healthy discussion the previous evening, he said, and he felt comfortable because this was just a policy – they weren’t making any commitments to investing, and not one dime would be spent until they approved it.

D. Smith said he didn’t feel comfortable voting on something they’d just been given a few hours before the meeting. He appreciated the work involved in getting a draft done so quickly, but preferred to postpone action until the board’s June 1 meeting. Prater agreed, and moved to postpone.

Outcome: The board voted to postpone action on the policy until its June 1 meeting – voting against postponement were Barbara Bergman, Conan Smith, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi.

Subsequent to the May 18 meeting, at a May 24 briefing to review the June 1 agenda, commissioners learned from county staff that the developers of Packard Square decided not to apply for the MDEQ loan. In light of that decision, the board is expected to take more time to flesh out details for its policy on public-private investment. [Full Chronicle report on the May 24 briefing: "Loan Request Pulled for Packard Square"]

Packard Square Brownfield: MDEQ Grant

As part of the brownfield cleanup, Packard Square developers want to apply for a $1 million loan from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. The funds would be used for removing contaminated soil on the property, as well as monitoring, testing, and other related activities.

Originally, the grant application and a $1 million loan application were presented as a single item on the agenda, but before deliberations they were separated out and considered independently.

Wes Prater asked if there were still unpaid taxes on the property. Dan Smith noted that the county treasurer, Catherine McClary, had emailed commissioners to report that back taxes hadn’t yet been paid, and that they would need to be settled before the grant could be accepted. [Earlier in the month, McClary reported that Harbor Georgetown LLC owes 2009 taxes totaling $178,025.26 and 2010 taxes of $159,845.57, if paid on or before May 31, for a total of $337,870.83. Interest increases each month. The 2009 taxes are in forfeiture – that is, if not paid by next year, the property would face foreclosure.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval for the brownfield grant application to the MDEQ for Packard Square. Later in the meeting, they also voted to give final approval for the grant, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Packard Square Brownfield: MDEQ Loan

The board was asked to consider a $1 million loan from MDEQ for the Packard Square project, as well as a request to authorize designation of the county’s full faith and credit as a guarantee for any loan that might be awarded, up to $1 million.

Loan funds would have been used to pay for some of the demolition on the site, as well as for work associated with treating the new development with vapor intrusion barriers and other measures to minimize the potential environmental hazards to the new development. The intent was for the developer to repay the loan with brownfield tax increment finance (TIF) revenue.

County staff told commissioners that an irrevocable letter of credit would be required as a condition of the county offering its full faith and credit to back the loan. Together, the loan and grant would shorten the TIF period from 18 to 14 years – after that, taxing entities would receive the full amount of taxes from that property.

During a discussion about the loan at the May 18 meeting, Yousef Rahbi said that since the board hadn’t yet finalized the public policy regarding county investments in private developments, he’d feel most comfortable moving consideration of the loan to the June 1 meeting.

Alicia Ping objected, saying they’d talked about it for hours at board meetings and two working sessions. Everyone knows how they’ll vote, she said. Kristin Judge agreed, saying she’d received an overwhelmingly negative response to the loan from the community. Barbara Bergman said that people don’t want the loan – she wasn’t sure if it was because of this specific project, or because of the broader public policy issues. At any rate, she was against postponing.

Outcome: On a 7-4 vote, commissioners postponed action until their June 1 meeting on the $1 million loan application to the MDEQ for Packard Square. Dissenting were Barbara Bergman, Kristin Judge, Alicia Ping and Wes Prater. The developers subsequently decided not to apply for the MDEQ loan.

Packard Square Brownfield: Brownfield Plan

Yousef Rabhi began the discussion by noting that this is a traditional brownfield plan, just like many others they have previously approved. There is no use of the county’s full faith and credit, he said, and the developer can’t get any TIF (tax increment finance) revenue until the project is completed. Nor can TIF revenue be tapped if taxes aren’t paid. [.pdf of Packard Square brownfield plan, without attachments]

Outcome: The board gave initial approval of the Packard Square brownfield plan at its Ways & Means Committee meeting, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Rabhi moved that the brownfield plan and grant be forwarded immediately for consideration at that evening’s board meeting, when commissioners could take a final vote.

Outcome: The board approved moving both the Packard Square brownfield plan and grant for consideration at their board meeting later that evening, with dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Packard Square Brownfield: Brownfield Plan – Public Hearing

Two people spoke during a public hearing on the brownfield plan at Wednesday’s board meeting.

Bruce Measom of Bloomfield Hills-based Harbor Companies, the project’s developer, listed several public benefits to the project. He noted that the contamination from the dry cleaning business was perched on an underground clay layer, but needed to be cleaned up – especially for residential development on the site. [According to the brownfield plan, installation of sub-slab vapor barriers to contain the contamination is estimated to cost $950,360.] Measom also highlighted the underground stormwater detention system they planned to install, noting that currently there is no management of runoff on that site.

They also plan to upgrade 1,500 feet of the city’s sanitary sewer, at a cost of about $400,000, plus make upgrades to water mains on the nearby side streets. Among the other public benefits he cited: (1) the creation of about 45 jobs after the facility is complete, plus hundreds of local construction jobs while it’s being built; (2) a new “pocket park” on the western side of the site, which will be open to the public; and (3) residential density as part of an infill project, which meets city goals.

Thomas Partridge also spoke in support of the project. He criticized commissioners for not attending Ann Arbor city council meetings to unite the efforts of the city and county. It’s disappointing, he said, that the board hasn’t done its homework about this project. This area needs the jobs that Packard Square will create. Partridge said that commissioner Yousef Rabhi, a Democrat representing one of Ann Arbor’s districts, is acting like a Republican by throwing up hurdles. He urged commissioners to advance this project.

Packard Square Brownfield: Brownfield Plan – Final Discussion

After the public hearing, the board continued discussion of the Packard Square brownfield plan. Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked Measom whether the construction jobs would be union or non-union. If they were non-union, would they abide by the Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreement? Meason said it would likely be a combination of both union and non-union jobs.

Conan Smith questioned whether CUB would apply to a brownfield project. Part of the county’s procurement policy, CUB agreements call for contractors to use union labor, or to abide by the existing collective bargaining agreements of the appropriate labor unions. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, wasn’t sure if the developer could be required to abide by a CUB agreement.

County commissioner Wes Prater.

Yousef Rabhi said that at a meeting of the county’s brownfield redevelopment authority board, the developer had indicated that he’d make an effort to hire local workers. They also said they’d try to find local businesses for Packard Square’s retail space, Rabhi said. He noted that the 601 S. Forest development, which had been awarded brownfield status, had received complaints from local labor unions, saying the developers there had used non-local, non-union labor. Rabhi stressed that it’s important to create jobs, but he hoped they would hire from the local skilled workforce.

Wes Prater asked Measom if his firm had talked with leaders of the county’s building trades – if they’re serious about working with labor unions, they need to start a dialogue. Measom said they’d already been speaking with local contractors, and are well into the process of soliciting bids. Because the project has received an invitation letter from the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) for financing, they need to pre-screen contractors for their HUD experience, he said.

Prater noted that if the developer accepts HUD financing, they’ll be required by federal law to comply with the Davis Bacon Act, which requires that public works projects pay prevailing wages. In that case, Prater said, the developer might as well do a CUB agreement too, to guarantee there would be no work stoppages whatsoever.

In addition to the HUD financing – which Measom said could total $20-$22 million – Prater wanted to know what other funding sources they’d be using. Anne Jamieson-Urena – director of brownfield and redevelopment incentives for AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services, who’s working with the developer – said they could provide that information.

Rob Turner pressed Measom about the contractors they’d be hiring for the project. Measom said they haven’t awarded the contracts yet – they don’t have a signed construction agreement. Turner strongly urged Measom to consider local contractors for the work. He was also interested in whether the CUB agreement would apply to this project.

Rabhi told commissioners that the issue of CUB is something he hopes to discuss with the brownfield development authority board. Hopefully they can put more stringent rules in place for future projects, he said.

Alicia Ping clarified that taxes would be paid before the county accepted grant funds on behalf of the project, and that no monies would be dispersed until the taxes are paid in full. Measom noted that the developers have tax appeals pending for the 2009 and 2010 amounts, and that once they reach an agreement on that, they’ll take care of the outstanding taxes.

Outcome: The board gave final approval to the Packard Square brownfield plan, with dissent from Wes Prater.

LaFontaine Chevrolet Brownfield

On the agenda was an item asking for initial approval of the brownfield plan for the $5.3 million LaFontaine Chevrolet redevelopment project in Dexter.

Brett Lenart, left, of the county's economic development & energy department, which manages the county's brownfield redevelopment authority, talks with Lou Stultz of Canopus Environmental Group. Stulz is working on the LaFontaine Chevrolet redevelopment project, which is seeking brownfield status.

The LaFontaine brownfield plan would enable the use of up to $330,330 of tax increment financing (TIF) for 4 years to pay for cleanup work, including asbestos and lead abatement. Of that amount, $25,410 would support the county’s brownfield program management, and $50,820 would be deposited into the county’s Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund. The project is expected to retain 76 jobs and create 50 new ones, and to increase the annual tax revenues to the county from $4,516 to $11,119 after the TIF ends. [.pdf of LaFontaine brownfield plan, without attachments]

LaFontaine Chevrolet Brownfield: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during the public hearing. Josh Bloom of Bloom General Contracting spoke on behalf of the owner, Matt LaFontaine, in support of the brownfield plan, saying they are very excited about the project. He pointed out that it would result in LaFontaine being a LEED-certified [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design] auto dealership. Bloom thanked the board for their consideration.

Lou Stultz – a senior project manager with Ypsilanti-based Canopus Environmental Group – was also on hand. He would be working on the project and was there to answer questions, if the commissioners had any for him. They did not.

Thomas Partridge also spoke, saying more information is needed about the project. It was an important development, he said, and he questioned why all the details about this project and Packard Square hadn’t been made available.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the LaFontaine Chevrolet brownfield plan. A final vote approval is expected at the board’s June 1 meeting.

2011 County Millage Rate

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to establish the 2011 county general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. Several other county millages – including those for parks & recreation, emergency communications and the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority – are levied separately, bringing the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board unanimously voted to approve setting the 2011 general operating millage rate. A final vote is expected at the board’s June 1 meeting. A public hearing on the millage rate will also be held at that time.

Urban County Annual Plan

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to the Washtenaw Urban County annual plan from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. The plan must be submitted to the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), outlining specific projects and programs that the Washtenaw Urban County will undertake with HUD funding from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, HOME grants and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG).

The Urban County is a consortium of 11 local governments that receives federal funding for programs that serve low-income residents and neighborhoods.

The county is expected to receive $3,602,480 from these programs during the coming fiscal year. A $448,920 in-kind county match is required.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the Washtenaw Urban County annual plan. Final approval is expected at the board’s June 1 meeting.

Internal Auditor Contract

The board was asked to give initial approval to hire the professional services firm Experis (formerly known as Jefferson Wells) to perform internal auditing services for the county for five years. At its Dec. 1, 2010 meeting, commissioners had authorized the county administration to issue requests for proposals for these services. The county received 10 responses, and a review team narrowed the selection and held interviews with three firms. The team’s recommendation for Experis was unanimous, according to a staff report.

The total cost for internal audit work in 2011 is $87,500. It would include: (1) overall internal control review and risk assessment ($25,000); (2) more detailed internal control review for two county departments ($55,000); (3) establishing a fraud hotline ($7,500); and (4) eight hours of internal control training for county staff (no charge).

Internal Audit: Commissioner Discussion

Barbara Bergman began by saying she had a lot of questions about this item. She felt that $7,500 for setting up a fraud hotline was expensive, since there were already other ways to get information about potential fraud. She referenced the “great WCHO fraud” of 18 months ago, and said a fraud hotline wouldn’t have caught the person – she added that she wasn’t going to describe what happened, because she didn’t want to give directions for someone to repeat it.

Bergman also noted that the county has received awards for its audits. And in the context of their budget situation, the amount they’re being asked to spend each year – $87,500 – would pay for two mid-level employees, she said. The internal audit seems too generalized, and she didn’t understand the motivation for doing it.

Conan Smith said he shared Bergman’s concerns, but wondered if they could insert a one-year-out clause into the contract, which would allow them to assess performance after a year and end the contract if it wasn’t worth the expense. County administrator Verna McDaniel said they could negotiate that into the contract.

C. Smith said they might also find weak internal controls that, if modified, would result in savings to the county. He thought it was appropriate to test the process at least for a year.

Wes Prater pointed out that the county’s auditors, Rehmann, state in their letter of engagement that they aren’t doing an internal audit. They offer the county the option of hiring them to do an internal audit, he said, but he didn’t think it was appropriate to have the same firm do both jobs.

Rob Turner clarified that the cost was $87,500 per year, not the total for the five-year period.

Yousef Rabhi also felt uncomfortable with the amount, though he did like the idea of a fraud hotline. He noted that the staff memo indicated part of the work would be to assess the “tone at the top.” What did that mean? he asked. Pete Collinson, the county’s accounting manager, explained that of the different aspects of internal controls, the most important one is the “control environment” – that is, is an organization ethical? Are the board and top administrators committed to ethical values? Setting that tone has an important impact on the rest of the organization, he said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he wasn’t at all happy about this contract – spending about $400,000 over five years to have someone come in and tell them how to run their business. He said he keeps asking the same thing – did staff check with other counties, to find out what peer organizations are doing?

Kelly Belknap, interim deputy administrator, told Sizemore that she knew the finance departments at some counties had their own internal control staff – Washtenaw County previously had staff do that, she said, but the task had been eliminated over the years due to budget cuts. She said she hadn’t called other counties to see how they handled internal audits.

Commissioners Kristin Judge and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Sizemore said if the staff couldn’t pick up the phone and call other counties, “then I’ve got a major problem with that.” He said he’d support it initially, but he hoped the administration would return with some comparative information before the board’s final vote. Belknap said they’d make some calls.

Bergman asked again about the fraud hotline. What was the $7,500 buying? Sizemore said he didn’t know why they needed an outside firm to set up a hotline, when the county already had an IT (information technology) staff.

Belknap said it was a trust issue – the hotline is intended to be anonymous, but if a county department sets it up, employees might doubt that they can truly keep their identity secure. However, Sizemore elicited from Belknap that finance department staff would be checking the messages. So how did that ensure trust and anonymity? he asked.

Sizemore also objected to the fact that no one from Experis had bothered to come to the meeting, yet they wanted over $400,000 from the county.

Rabhi clarified that Collinson had been the staff member who previously did internal audits as part of his job, but Belknap said that even then the county didn’t have the resources to do audits at the same level as Experis could. Rabhi said it hurt him a little that they were hiring an outside agency for something that had been done in-house.

Belknap noted that staff issued the RFP at the request of the board. They were asked to look into this as an option, and they did the best they could, she said – even negotiating for a lower price than was originally proposed.

Wes Prater said he hoped they’d approve the contract. He reminded commissioners that a county employee had embezzled about $1 million over 16 years. He hoped the internal audit wouldn’t uncover anything, but the board is responsible for financial oversight.

Ronnie Peterson said he shared Sizemore’s concerns, and wanted more comparative information. Overwhelmingly the county’s employees are loyal and devoted, he said, but things happen. He suggested that employees could be trained to do the internal audits in the future.

Bergman proposed an amendment that called for a one-year contract, rather than the originally proposed five-year period. Prater objected, preferring C. Smith’s suggestion of negotiating an opt-out clause after a year.

Outcome: The amendment passed, with dissent from Wes Prater and Alicia Ping.

Outcome on full resolution: Commissioners unanimously approved the resolution as amended to shorten the contract to one year, with the possibility of extending the contract over additional years. A final vote is expected at the board’s June 1 meeting.

Cyber Crime Prevention Grant

On the agenda was an item for initial approval to apply for a federal Dept. of Justice grant worth nearly $500,000 to support the Washtenaw County Cyber Citizenship Coalition (WC4), a community‐policing model focused on preventing cyber crime.

The grant would support the hiring of a senior management analyst, with the goal of creating and distributing the WC4 “best-practice toolkit” to other communities nationwide. The funding would also help develop a pilot program that would be set up to respond to cyber crime complaints. Similar to 911, it would be a single number that could be called if someone falls victim to a cyber crime. WC4 is working with the FBI Cyber Division in Washington, D.C. and the Southeast Michigan United Way 211 program on this initiative.

Outcome: Without comment, commissioners approved the grant application to support the work of WC4. Final approval is expected at the board’s June 1 meeting.

Later in the meeting, Rolland Sizemore Jr. commended Kristin Judge for spearheading the WC4 initiative – she received a round of applause from the board. Judge reported that Gov. Rick Snyder has asked the coalition to host with him a statewide “cyber summit” later this year. She said it doesn’t hurt that David Behen – Washtenaw County’s former deputy administrator – is now in Lansing. [Behen is the state's chief information officer.]

Weatherization, IT Collaboration, Veterans Affairs Director

Commissioners gave final approval to several items that were initially approved at its May 4 meeting.

The board voted to accept funding from a U.S. Dept. of Energy weatherization assistance program that would provide $241,863 in federal dollars to the county. Administered by the county’s Employment Training and Community Services (ETCS) department, the funding would help weatherize 31 properties for eligible residents – homeowners or renters with a family income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level ($45,088 for a family of four).

The hiring of Michael G. Smith, Jr. as the county’s veteran services director, effective May 23, 2011, was also given final approval.

Also approved on May 18 was an interagency agreement with the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA), allowing the two entities to collaborate with the county on technology services. [.pdf file of draft interagency agreement] The agreement includes an extension, through 2015, of the contract for a network manager job that’s shared between the county and city. That contract, first signed in 2008, expires in June of 2011. The two entities save about $81,577 annually because of the shared position. The board also gave final approval to share costs with the city for a deal with the firm EMC, paying for storage area network and backup services.

Misc. Communications, Public Commentary

Some commissioners made reports during the time available for communications from the board.

Kristin Judge highlighted a letter they’d received from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Michigan Council 25, asking for a letter from the board opposing state House bill 4059. The bill would limit the times when labor could meet with county administration, which AFSCME felt should be a decision for local officials to make. [.pdf of AFSCME letter to the board]

Judge told her fellow commissioners that she planned to bring a resolution to an upcoming meeting, to support AFSCME on this issue.

Barbara Bergman passed out brochures with information on the Regional Alliance for Health Foods, noting that the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) is participating in the program. The school-based health centers provide services to Ann Arbor Public Schools, Ypsilanti Public Schools and the Willow Run Community Schools.

Misc. Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke during the evening’s six opportunities for public commentary, including the two public hearings reported above, for a total of 26 minutes. During his four other public commentary times, Partridge pressed two primary themes: (1) criticism over the county’s handling of the Packard Square and LaFontaine Chevrolet brownfield projects; and (2) the need for better representation by elected officials at all levels.

He called for the support of a recall effort against Gov. Rick Snyder, and noted that President Barack Obama has backed away from his commitment to the American people. Partridge said it’s incumbent upon everyone to make sure that there are competent candidates to contest elections at all levels.

Partridge also expressed concerns about the integrity of local law enforcement officials, and objected to the use of medical marijuana. He called for a countywide master plan to deal with controlled substances.

Commissioners Response to Public Commentary

Yousef Rabhi wanted to clarify that the brownfield plans had received scrutiny – a long process had occurred before they were brought to the board for approval. In addition, the board had discussed it at previous meetings – including a special working session the previous night, devoted to policy issues related to public-private partnerships, and to the Packard Square proposal. The resolution they had approved earlier that evening, he noted, was so that Packard Square developers could apply for a state grant – county money isn’t being given away.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Kristin Judge, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Leah Gunn

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, at Tuesday's meeting of the Washtenaw Urban County. (Photo by the writer.)

“I am bringing you some troubling news,” said Mary Jo Callan, director of the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development. “Do you want to start with the bad news, or the worst news?”

Callan reported that the two major programs that fund projects for low-income neighborhoods – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership programs, both operated by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – have been targeted by Congress and President Obama for significant cuts in both the current fiscal year and in 2012. Washtenaw County communities receive about $2.4 million annually from the CDBG program alone.

Though at this point it’s unclear exactly what the final federal budget will include, Callan said it’s nearly certain that some funding cuts will occur – her staff is planning for a 10% reduction in grants from those two programs for fiscal 2012. “It’s pretty bleak,” she said.

Federal Funding Outlook

The Urban County is a consortium of 11 local municipalities that receive federal funding for low-income neighborhoods. Members include Washtenaw County, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield, Scio, Superior, Northfield, Salem, and Bridgewater. “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, making them entitled to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs.

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects. Based on a quarterly report presented to Urban County members at their January 2011 meeting, since July 2009 roughly $5.6 million in CDBG and HOME projects have been completed or are underway in Urban County jurisdictions, ranging from housing rehab or acquisition to road improvements and sidewalk repair. [.pdf file of Urban County quarterly project report]

At Tuesday’s monthly meeting of the group’s executive committee, Callan updated members on both the funding status for the current fiscal year 2011, as well as the upcoming 2012 fiscal year.

President Barack Obama recently released his 2012 federal budget, which proposed a 7.5% cut to Community Development Block Grant funds and a 10% cut to HOME funds. The budget provides for increases in some other HUD programs, she said, but the funds coming to the Urban County will almost certainly be decreased.

For the remainder of the current 2011 fiscal year, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a continuing resolution – a bill that calls for 65% cuts to the CDBG program, from about $4 billion to $1.5 billion nationwide. A less dramatic decrease is proposed for HOME funds, from $1.85 billion to $1.65 billion. That bill is expected to be modified in the Senate – but the final version will still likely contain cuts, Callan said.

There are a lot of advocates for CDBG and HOME funding, she said, and supporters managed to kill an amendment that would have eliminated the CDBG program entirely. Callan urged Urban County members to contact their federal representatives to let Congress know how important the funding is for the community.

Dramatic decreases have also been proposed for the Community Services Block Grants (CSBG), Callan noted. Obama’s budget calls for a 50% cut to that program, which provides job training and other services for low-income workers. The other 50% will be available only through competitive grants – currently, the funds are allocated through entitlement programs. [Locally, the Washtenaw County Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS) department is designated to receive all CSBG funds for this county. In a follow-up email to The Chronicle, ETCS interim director Patricia Denig said CSBG funds account for about 6% of the department's annual budget, or nearly $600,000.]

At Tuesday’s meeting, several members of the Urban County executive committee had questions about the funding. Bill McFarlane, Superior Township supervisor, observed that it looked like funding for 2011 was uncertain, and wondered what that might mean for projects that had already been approved but that hadn’t yet started. Callan said they should keep moving ahead with their planned projects. Her staff is getting regular updates about the situation, and they’ll reach out to Urban County members to keep them updated as well, as things change.

For the 2011 CDBG and HOME funding, Callan said they hope to know by April what changes will occur. It’s less clear when they’ll learn about cuts for 2012 – Callan said her staff is planning for a 10% drop in funding, though it could be more than that.

She noted that another complicating factor is that they’re dealing with differently defined fiscal years. For example, HUD operates on a fiscal year that begins July 1, as do many local entities like the city of Ann Arbor. The fiscal year for the overall federal government, however, begins Oct. 1 – that’s also the start of the state of Michigan’s fiscal year. Washtenaw County’s fiscal year mirrors the calendar year.

Leah Gunn, a Washtenaw County commissioner who chairs the Urban County executive committee, clarified with Callan that in the event of cuts, all jurisdictions that are members of the Urban County would see funding cut proportionately, based on population size.

After the meeting, Callan told The Chronicle that they’ll need to explore all options in response to the decrease in federal funding, including possible staff cuts to her office, which employs 13 full-time workers. While they’ll try to keep as many of the projects, programs and services as possible, at some point funding cuts will inevitably affect the people who deliver those programs and services, she said.

Public Hearing: 2011 Needs Assessment

The office of community development is putting together an annual plan for the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), which provides funding for low-income housing and neighborhood projects in the county. The plan will include a list of proposed projects located within the Urban County area that would be eligible for HUD funding.

As part of that process, Tuesday’s meeting included a public hearing to gather input from residents about community needs. Lily Au was the only speaker. As she has in the past at meetings for many different public bodies, Au criticized the amount of administrative fees that are used by the office of community development staff to administer their grant-funded programs.

Saying she was worried about those who live in poverty, Au also objected to the demolition of Parkhurst Apartments at 1500 Pauline in Ann Arbor, a low-income housing project spearheaded by the nonprofit Avalon Housing. [The project's site plan was recommended for approval at the Jan. 20, 2011 Ann Arbor planning commission meeting and approved at the Feb. 22, 2011 city council meeting.] Au criticized Avalon’s plan to demolish the existing apartment complex, which is located west of Fritz Park, between Seventh and West Stadium and has 48 apartment units that house federally subsidized low-income residents. The plan calls for constructing a new five-building complex with 32 units, a playground and community center, at an estimated cost of $8 million. Au showed photos of the exterior of the current complex, saying it had been renovated just a few years ago and was in good shape. She also criticized another Avalon housing project – Near North, on North Main Street. She said that developers made Avalon pay too much to acquire the property for its project.

Public Commentary: Staff Response

Later in the meeting, Jennifer L. Hall, housing manager for the office of community development, responded to some of Au’s comments. The exterior of the Parkhurst complex – which Au had shown in photos – tells you nothing about the condition of the buildings, Hall said. The buildings are constructed on land that slopes, she said, and for years water has been infiltrating the structures, causing walls to bow and support beams to rust. Emergency repairs had been undertaken to keep the buildings from being condemned.

Neither Avalon nor the Urban County had sufficient funds alone to embark on a major renovation or reconstruction, Hall said – they needed the resources of the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) for the project. However, after MSHDA engineers inspected the complex, the state agency refused to put more money into the housing unless it were torn down and rebuilt, she said. If MSHDA had walked away from the project, she added, they would have lost that housing completely. The new project has fewer units because that’s the number of units that conform to current zoning, she explained.

As for Near North, Hall said that private developers bought the nine parcels at that site in 2003-04, when the local real estate market was still robust. The developers had planned to build market-rate housing, she said, but when the economy tanked, they couldn’t get financing for their project. Hall said that Avalon’s funders required them to get an appraisal for the property, and she guaranteed that they didn’t pay more than market rate at the time. She also said it was misleading to take the cost of the entire Near North project and divide it by the number of units there, to calculate a cost-per-unit. The project also included retail and office space, as well as a greenway – there are multiple funding sources that involve non-housing portions of the project, she said.

Misc. Updates

Staff of the office of community development gave brief updates on several housing-related projects at Tuesday’s meeting.

Deals have been negotiated on two apartment complexes – Parkside, at 701 Miller in Ann Arbor, and Gateway on West Michigan Avenue in Ypsilanti Township. Both were formerly owned by the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp., now an all-but-defunct nonprofit. Gateway in particular has been a problem for well over a year – Jennifer L. Hall, OCD’s housing manager, had briefed the Urban County in detail at its March 2010 meeting:

It was the first and largest rental project undertaken by the Urban County, which allocated $310,000 in 2002-03 to the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. WAHC, which owns Gateway Apartments, had used the Urban County money to rehab the 43-unit property.

WAHC had taken out a $1 million loan to buy the property, but now the nonprofit is “essentially out of business,” Hall told the Urban County executive committee. Avalon Housing, an Ann Arbor nonprofit, has taken over WAHC’s operations, including management of Gateway. WAHC’s board will be deciding how to dispose of its properties, Hall said. And if Avalon isn’t interested in buying Gateway or continuing to manage it, another buyer or property manager will need to be found.

The loan to WAHC is held by three banks: National City, Michigan Commerce Bank and the Bank of Ann Arbor. If a sale is made, the bank loan would be paid first. And if the sale to a party other than Avalon isn’t sufficient to cover the remaining loan balance plus the $310,000 Urban County grant, then the county would be on the hook for repaying that amount to HUD.

Why would HUD need to be repaid? Because the HUD funding stipulates that all of the apartments must be offered at affordable housing rates through December 2012. If not, the Urban County would be considered out of compliance, and would have repay the entire $310,000 to HUD, according to Hall.

On Tuesday, Hall said the three lenders that held liens on both Gateway and Parkside agreed to renegotiate terms. That allowed the nonprofit Avalon Housing to acquire Parkside, she said, and Gateway has been listed for sale. The banks were willing to lower the Gateway mortgage and give them another six months to find a buyer, Hall said – she hopes they’ll be able to sell the property for a price that will cover the debt. Leah Gunn described Gateway as a “big bugaboo,” and hoped they found a buyer quickly.

Hall also reported that the homeownership assistance program managed by the OCD has used up all its Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funding, which was part of the federal stimulus package. OCD staff is now talking with its partners to see how they can fund future homebuyer education programs. As part of that effort, they’re meeting with local lenders who might be interested in participating in order to receive Community Reinvestment Act credits.

In Ypsilanti Township, OCD is working with township staff and Habitat for Humanity of Huron Valley to deal with the township’s long-term abandoned residential properties. There might be funds available from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) and Federal Home Loan Bank, Hall said.

Damon Thompson, OCD operations manager, said their office continued to get calls from low-income residents in need of emergency furnace repair or replacement. Last week they’d received a call from a man who was taking care of two small children and was heating their home with his stove, Thompson said. He urged Urban County members to refer residents to the OCD if they need help. In a follow-up phone conversation with The Chronicle, Thompson said that grants are provided – generally in amounts up to $3,000 – through an emergency repair program that’s paid for with CDBG funds. Residents who need this assistance can call 734-622-9025.

Next meeting: Tuesday, March. 22, 2011 at 1 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave. [confirm date]

Leading up to the city administrator’s proposed budget in April, the city council is also holding a series of work sessions on the budget. Their typical scheduling pattern is for the weeks between council meetings. That was the case on Jan. 31, 2011 when the council held its budget work session on the community services area, which includes human services, parks and planning. Another session was held on Feb. 7, prior to the council’s regular meeting, regarding the 15th District Court. A report on the Feb. 14, 2011 session, which focused on police and fire, will follow.

At the podium is community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl. Partially obscured by the podium is councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Leafing through the budget impact sheets that the council had been given just prior to the meeting is Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). (Photo by the writer.)

The Ann Arbor city council’s budget work session on Jan. 31, 2011 covered a broad range of topics – from the city’s affordable housing stock, to planning and development, to parks and recreation (including golf courses), to human services funding. All these issues fall under the city’s community services area, which is led by Sumedh Bahl.

In a budget year where maintaining the same level of activity in every department is projected to result in a $2.4 million shortfall, city departments have been given reduction targets between 2.5% and 4%. Targets vary across departments depending on health care costs for employees in those departments.

So at their work session, councilmembers heard from heads of individual departments about the specific ways those targets might be met.

For example, Mary Jo Callan, who’s head of the city/county office of community development, told councilmembers that an unrealized $98,000 federal grant would pose an additional challenge. All other things being equal, Callan would meet the reduction target by reducing the city’s allocation to nonprofit human services agencies by $116,714 – from $1,275,744 to $1,159,030. The budget is planned in two-year cycles, even though it’s adopted just one year at a time, so Callan’s reduction strategy for next year’s FY 2013 budget would be to reduce the nonprofit allocation by an additional $48,700.

The planning department plans to meet its reduction target in part by charging the construction fund for 10% of the historic district coordinator’s time, factoring in projected revenue increases due to increased development activity, and leaving a rental housing inspector position vacant. The rental housing inspection activity would be maintained at appropriate levels by using construction inspectors for rental housing inspections as needed.

The city’s housing commission – which maintains more than 350 units of public housing throughout the city – is not proposing to meet reduction targets, but rather to hire what officials say are two crucially needed positions: a financial analyst and a facilities maintenance manager, which together are expected to cost an additional $154,000 per year.

Parks and recreation would meet their targets in part through savings derived from energy improvements that have been made to various recreational facilities over the past few years.

The council focused some of its session on the city’s golf courses, with a council consensus seeming to emerging that for the next two years, the council will be content to stick with the status quo – operating the Leslie Park and Huron Hills facilities as golf courses, and not changing them to other uses.

But the council was also asked to consider a question on which it could be harder to achieve consensus: Should the city continue to help fund park operations, as it has for the last four years, by tapping the city’s general fund reserve for $287,000 annually? The history of the issue dates back to the parks capital improvements and maintenance millage, which was approved in 2006, and which was followed by the council’s approval of its FY 2008 budget the next spring.

That history is rooted partly in a question that the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, addressed in a straightforward fashion at the work session: What exactly does it mean for a department to have a budget reduction target of 2.5%? 

In this report, we take a look at: (1) how the city’s financial staff define budget reduction targets; (2) how and why those targets vary across departments; (3) how reduction targets relate to the parks budget controversy of FY 2008 and the current $287,000 question; and (4) the range of work session topics discussed by the council.

What Is a Budget Reduction Target?

The city is currently in the middle of its 2011 fiscal year – which ends on June 30, 2011 – and is developing its FY 2012 budget. If the city’s chief financial officer has established a 2.5% budget reduction target, how does he check to see that the target has been met?

Percents are all about comparing numbers, so a natural inclination would be to compare this year with next year – that is, the FY 2011 budget expenses with the FY 2012 projected revenue. In more detail, you might think to calculate 2.5% of the FY 2011 expenses, subtract that number from the FY 2011 expenses and ask: Is that number equal to my FY 2012 budgeted revenue? Arithmetically:

[FY 2011 expense] — [FY 2011 expense]*.025 ?=? [FY 2012]

If that checks out, then from this year to next year, we’ve cut the budget by 2.5%, right?

But that’s not what a 2.5% budget reduction target means for the city. When the city’s financial staff calculate a reduction target of 2.5%, they’re not comparing this year’s expenses with next year’s projected revenue. They’re comparing next year’s projected expenses, with next year’s projected revenue.

At the Jan. 31, 2011 city council work session, the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, explained this concept to council members as a stepwise process:

1. Assume the same activities will be maintained next year at the same level they exist this year [staffing levels will remain the same; the same services will be provided; etc.].
2. Project to next year how much it will cost to maintain that same level of activity. [If the cost of electricity is expected to increase by 10%, that's calculated in; if union contracts stipulate that there's a 1.5% salary increase, that's calculated in.]
3. Compare next year’s projected cost with next year’s projected revenue. If cost exceeds revenue, that defines the percentage reduction the organization needs to achieve as a whole.

Arithmetically, the equation looks like this:

[FY 2012 expense] — [FY 2012 expense]*.025 ?=? [FY 2012 revenue]

By way of a made-up example, consider a perfectly balanced FY 2011 budget where expenses and revenues are $100,000. Let’s say that due to contractually obligated salary increases, overall inflation, and a rise in oil prices, it’s possible to project that the same activities/services the city obtained for $100,000 in FY 2011 will instead cost $101,000 in FY 2012. Let’s say that revenues are expected to drop in FY 2012 to $98,475. So the crucial question for the city is how to reduce $101,000 down to $98,475. On this scenario, measured in dollars, the city is looking for some way to trim $2,525. What’s that dollar target in terms of percent?

2,525/101,000 = .025

Let’s say on that scenario, the city does achieve its reduction target of 2.5%. That is, let’s say the city finds a way to cut expenses for FY 2012 down to $98,475. That would mean a reduction target of 2.5% has been met for FY 2012, even though comparing FY 2012 to FY 2011 would indicate only a 1.525% cut.

Different Reduction Targets for Different Departments

Part of the city’s specific labor strategy is to try to convince its unions to adopt a health care and pension plan that would cost the city less – by requiring greater contributions from employees. The public relations component of that strategy was reflected at the Feb. 7, 2011 city council meeting, when Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), chair of the city council’s budget committee, addressed his colleagues. He contrasted the level of health care benefits received by city union workers with benefits received by city non-union workers and by employees at institutions like the University of Michigan.

In addition to the public relations piece, the city’s labor strategy has a budgetary component. As early as the first budget retreat in December 2010, city administrator Roger Fraser and CFO Tom Crawford explained to councilmembers that this year they will align the city’s labor and budget strategies. What that means in terms of budget reduction targets is that different departments will be given different reduction targets, depending on how many employees in the department have adopted the city’s new benefits plan.

All departments have a baseline 2.5% target, with additional reductions assigned to departments depending on the extent to which employees in each department are still on the city’s old benefits plan.

In a hypothetical department where all employees were on the new heath and pension plan, the reduction target would be 2.5%. In a department with a large number of union employees who have not yet adopted the new health plan, the reduction target this year can be as high as 4%. The numbers extracted from budget impact sheets submitted by each department for the Jan. 31 work session illustrate how the percentage reduction targets vary across departments. The targets all fall between 2.5% and 4.0%:

                   Community     Plan/Dev     Planning        Parks
Projected FY 012   2,008,008    1,497,874      829,796    3,612,367
Reduction Dollars     55,521       55,182       29,613       92,083
Reduction Percent       2.76         3.68         3.57         2.55

-

Reduction Targets and the 2006 Parks Millage: $287,000

The city’s method for computing reduction targets based on next year’s projected expenses and next year’s projected revenues is not new this year – this is simply the way it’s been done. But that method of computing budget targets is inconsistent with the last-year-vs.-this-year comparison that many people are drawn to when they think about percentages. That inconsistency led to considerable controversy in early 2007 when the city council adopted its FY 2008 budget.

The controversy involved the combined parks maintenance and capital improvements millage that was approved by voters in November 2006. Before passage of the combined millage, the city levied two separate millages at 0.5 mill each – one for parks maintenance and the other for capital improvements. Now, within the combined millage, taxes are collected at a rate of 1.0 mill, but money is allocated to maintenance or capital improvements on a more flexible basis than the previous legally enforced 50-50 split that was expressed by the specialized purpose of each millage.

However, there’s not complete flexibility to allocate money to maintenance or capital improvements within the unified millage. Percentage allocation is guided by a city council resolution passed in October 2006. The resolution specifies a range of 60% to 80% for maintenance, with the remainder going to capital improvements.

Another part of that resolution was intended to address a fear expressed by some in the community at the time: Even though more money for parks might be generated through the new millage, the amount of money actually spent on parks could be reduced – if the city reduced funding for parks from its general fund. So the intent of the resolution was to allay that fear. In relevant part, the October 2006 resolution reads:

4. If future reductions are necessary in the City’s general fund budget, during any of the six years of this millage, beginning with Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the general fund budget supporting the parks and recreation system for that year will be reduced by a percentage no greater than the average percentage reduction of the total City general fund budget;

5. If future increases occur in the City’s general fund budget during any of the six years of this millage, beginning with Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the general fund budget supporting the parks and recreation system for that year will be increased at the same rate as the average percentage increase of the total City general fund budget;

By spring the following year – as the council was prepared to adopt the FY 2008 budget – objections were raised when general fund support for parks in the proposed FY 2008 budget was less than in FY 2007. Those who objected, including prominent leaders of two environmental groups, pointed to the increase in the overall general fund budget from the previous year, and contended that parks should enjoy the same increase, not a decrease. From a May 19, 2007 Ann Arbor News account, written by Tom Gantert:

Mike Garfield, director of the Ecology Center, and Doug Cowherd, chairman of the Sierra Club-Huron Valley Group, said the city should do what it said it would do in an October 2006 resolution. That resolution stated that if the city’s general fund budget increased, the parks system budget will be increased at the same rate as the average percentage of the total general fund budget.

According to the city, the general fund budget rose from $78.5 million to $80.3 million, an increase of 2 percent. Yet, the parks system budget dropped from $6.7 million to $6.0 million, a decrease of about 11 percent. To get to that 2 percent increase as the resolution states, the city would have to add about $763,000.

On the night the council adopted the FY 2008 budget, an attempted budget amendment – proposed by then-councilmember Bob Johnson – would have added $638,900 to the parks budget from the general fund reserve. But the amendment failed, receiving support only from councilmembers Johnson, Ron Suarez and Stephen Kunselman.

For that vote, the majority of councilmembers seemed persuaded that the intent and purpose of the October 2006 resolution was served by treating the parks budget targets – as they’ve been laid out in the first section of this article – the same as all other departments. At the time, an Ann Arbor News account from May 16, 2007 had Crawford explaining the apparent discrepancy this way:

But now chief financial officer Tom Crawford says the [October 2006] resolution was too simplistic and just looked at overall budget figures and didn’t follow the city budget methodology in place for several years.

For example, because the parks system doesn’t have as many employees as other departments, its budget doesn’t increase as much for rising expenses such as employee health care.

Because of problems in the ordinance language like that, Crawford said the parks would be getting more money than other larger departments that are paying for such benefits.

Crawford said the parks department was treated the same as the other departments in the city.

But later, in October 2007, Johnson brought the issue back to the council with a smaller number to be added to the parks budget from the general fund reserve – $287,000. And that resolution was passed by the council.

Originally the general fund supplement to the parks budget was supposed to be a non-recurring item from the general fund reserve in FY 2008 and FY 2009. But it recurred in the FY 2010 and FY 2011 budgets, as well.

So at the Jan. 31, 2011 council work session, community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl asked the council for guidance: Should the city simply set the parks budget at $287,000 higher, continue to tap the general fund reserve, or discontinue the supplement? Mayor John Hieftje wanted to know if the city’s park advisory commission had become more versed in how the budget targets work. Crawford told the mayor he thinks PAC understands it.

Stephen Rapundalo said this is not the first time over the years when the council has talked about tapping the reserve fund balance for recurring operational needs – it needs to stop, he said, because the council was just “kicking the can down the road.”

But Crawford was keen to stress that in general the council has been disciplined about not tapping the general fund reserve for operational expenses. The parks supplement was an old decision, he said, and now it’s time to check and see where the council’s consensus is on the question.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that it is a decision the council would make during the budget process. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered how that would be achieved: Do they do that by resolution? The answer was unclear.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that out of a $7.8 million community services budget, $287,000 is a relatively small order of magnitude. Rapundalo cautioned that the right number to compare the $287,000 against is just the parks portion – around $3.6 million.

Kunselman inquired when the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage is up for renewal, and Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, clarified that it would be on the November 2012 ballot.

Concerning the differing viewpoints on the intent of the October 2006 resolution, city administrator Roger Fraser seemed conciliatory. It was a matter of interpretation, he said, and both groups had made good arguments about whether the budget complied with the intent of voters.

Budget Impact Sheets

The Jan. 31, 2011 budget work session was oriented around budget impact sheets for each department. The city of Ann Arbor is maintaining a separate page in its online budget guide as a repository for the impact sheets. [.pdf of combined budget impact sheets from Jan. 31, 2011] The impact sheets include in detail all the items identified for savings or additional revenue, as well as any items that would increase costs.

Budget Impact Sheets: Planning and Development

Among the ways that the city’s planning and development services departments are meeting their reduction targets, Sumedh Bahl highlighted the following: making sure that staff time is being billed appropriately to other departments; and an additional $3,000 in revenue from already-implemented fee increases in the city’s historic preservation program.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he liked the additional $10,00o in revenue from increased development activity. He wanted to know if there were more development proposals in the pipeline? Yes, answered Bahl.

In the course of questioning, Bahl went on to explain that part of their plan to meet reduction targets is to leave an inspector position vacant and to use construction inspectors for rental housing inspections. Increased efficiency in rental housing inspections is expected to yield an additional $50,000 in revenue.

In response to councilmember questions, Bahl said that regionalization of inspections – using inspectors from surrounding municipalities – is a future possibility. The city is also looking into the establishment of an administrative hearing bureau (AHB), which would help expedite dealing with nuisance properties, Bahl said. That might take around a year to establish, he said.

[Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has, over the last several months, pointed out specific properties in his ward that he says have become nuisances, and are contributing to blight. At the budget retreats, he has also urged that the council and staff  think about ways to address the problem – money for demolition can be clawed back through a lien, for example. Establishment of an AHB is one mechanism that the state's Home Rule Cities Act makes available for dealing with such properties. The city of Ypsilanti established an AHB last year.]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) noted that he’d made a request at one of the budget retreats for a cost/benefit analysis of doing mandatory home inspections upon sale of a property. It’s something that would generate some amount of additional revenue. Is that on the list? he asked. Bahl confirmed that looking at the issue was at the top of his list.

Budget Impact Sheets: Housing Commission

The Ann Arbor Housing Commission oversees around 350 affordable housing units across the city. The housing commission’s impact sheet did not propose to meet the reduction target. Instead, it called for hiring two new positions: a facility maintenance manager and a financial analyst.

Bahl explained that the facility maintenance position  is vacant. The job includes overseeing the maintenance of buildings, plus the mechanicals like boilers and furnaces. Bahl stressed the need to maintain equipment as a way to extend its life, which delays capital expenses.

Bahl recalled his recent experience as head of the city’s drinking water facilities. [Bahl assumed the leadership of the community services area last year when Jayne Miller left the city for another position. Before that, Bahl was head of the drinking water facilities.] His focus was always on maintenance, he said. By way of example, he described for the council how they had gas engines from 1965 and pumps from 1949 that were still in service. That’s how you prolong the life of equipment – by having a good maintenance program.

[The request for two positions for the housing commission comes in the context of a wholesale replacement of the housing commission's board last year. Additional Chronicle coverage: "Housing Commission Reorganizes," and "Investments: Housing, Bridges, Transit." Last year, the council agreed to a $138,000 allocation to the housing commission to help transition it into an operation that is less dependent on the federal HUD program. The transition included making full-time positions of the executive director and deputy director of the housing commission.]

Mayor John Hieftje asked Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – the city council’s liaison to the housing commission – if funding would be available to perform the maintenance, if the maintenance manager position were funded.

Derezinski explained that maintenance was part of needs assessment that had been done [by Schumaker & Company]. The commission is currently “backhoeing” a lot of the deferred maintenance, he said. It’s things like changing filters. [There is also currently an open request for proposals (RFP), with a Feb. 25 deadline, to bid on replacing furnaces at many of the housing commission properties.] They need the management position to organize the staff to do it the regular maintenance.

City administrator Roger Fraser said that $330,000 had been spent on furnaces and boilers in the last year. There are two resident managers who work with people in facilities to do some maintenance, he said, but they don’t have time to look at the capital side.

Fraser reminded the council that in last year’s budget, they’d approved additional money for the housing commission – over $130,000 – but this current request is “not a repeat of that money.” For some of the capital investments necessary, Fraser said, the commission had received grants. [To match those grants, the housing commission has recently asked the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for support, but the DDA has not yet acted on the request.]

About the maintenance issues, Derezinski compared it to opening a drawer and finding more snakes. He said the maintenance issues in the housing units are reflected in the complaints you hear at the housing commission’s board meetings. Two years ago, he said, there were a dozen people at every meeting, but that’s decreasing. The staff is now “on top of it.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) inquired whether maintenance could be done by third party. If you have a schedule for changing filters, could they call up someone in the phone book and have them perform that task? he wondered. Bahl allowed that some tasks could be outsourced to a third party – they take a combined approach. Some maintenance is done by staff, and some is done by contracted sources – for example, for chillers that require a worker with specialized training. But Bahl said that someone has to monitor and manage everything.

Kunselman noted that as part of the reorganization last year, the commission had eliminated two union positions for maintenance. Kunselman wanted to know how that was consistent with needing a maintenance manager. The part of the maintenance that has been outsourced, instead of using union positions, Bahl said, is done when the units turn over to a new occupant. The commission still needs someone to make sure that all the regular maintenance work is getting done.

Earlier in the work session, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) drew out the fact that there is currently $118,000 in the Ann Arbor housing trust fund. Kunselman wanted to know if that included the Burton Commons project. Mary Jo Callan, head of the combined city/county office of community development, explained that four years ago the commission had committed funds the  Burton Commons housing project. Two years ago, she said, the city told “wanted-to-be developers” it could not continue the commitment. So, where’s the money? Kunselman wanted to know. Fraser explained that it was put in back in the trust fund, and it’s been used. Smith inquired about future payments that are due to the fund by developments – specifically, the one at Plymouth Green. Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, explained that based on the Plymouth Green development agreement, two payments of $15,000 had been made and there would be two more, at $15,000 each for next two years.

Smith noted that Avalon Housing is a nonprofit organization in town similar to the housing commission, and Avalon Housing has divested itself of smaller, single-unit housing. Did the needs assessment for the housing commission include consideration of the type of housing stock? She pointed out that it could be a question of replacing 100 furnaces versus one.

Derezinski said that the furnaces that had been replaced were in smaller units. He also said that the question of an appropriate mix of housing stock was receiving attention from the commission. They’d looked at the mix in the Grand Rapids housing commission’s collection of housing, for example.

Fraser wrapped up the discussion of the housing commission by noting that he’d been in public service long enough to see the federal government essentially get out of the business of domestic spending on housing. A lot of the housing we’re dealing with now, he said, dates to the late ’60s and ’70s. The units had 30-year mortgages to guarantee affordability. Fraser noted that the council had previously discussed multi-family units going to market rate. The pressure has rolled downhill to the smallest units of government closest to the people, he said, and the dilemma is only going to get worse.

Fraser pointed to President Obama’s remarks during his state of the union speech, and the new leadership in the U.S. Senate and House, as well as Michigan’s own legislature – all of them have been targeting domestic spending for cuts, he said, and we’ll have to live with it.

Budget Impact Sheets: Community Development

Mary Jo Callan, the director of the combined city/county office of community development, delivered a grim picture for human services allocations to nonprofits. She would meet the budget reduction target in FY 2012 by reducing allocation to nonprofits that provide human services by $116,714 – from $1,275,744 to $1,159,030. Callan’s strategy to meet the target for next year’s FY 2013 budget would be to reduce the nonprofit allocation by an additional $48,700.

Councilmembers appeared slow to grasp the full significance of the numbers on the budget impact sheets. Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked: How did you come up with that number? Where will it hit?

Callan explained that she did not yet know which specific nonprofits would be affected. She said that her department is in the process of gearing up for the new coordinated funding process, beginning July 1, 2011.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) remarked that it was a significant percentage cut, with Teall chiming in that it was greater than 2.5%.

Callan explained that her department had anticipated receiving a $98,000 federal grant from HUD the previous year, to cover administrative costs incurred from city finance and administrative staff. The grant had not materialized – HUD requires documentation that is fairly specific, she said. In a followup email in response to a Chronicle query, Callan described the documentation issue in more detail:

The documentation requires not only the amount of time spent on a specific grant (e.g. CDBG, HOME, CDBG-R, NSP), but also the specific project worked on (e.g. single family demolition, 701 Miller rehab, human services). Community Development has our whole finance and time tracking system set-up to accommodate this documentation threshold, since the vast majority of our funding comes from these sources. City finance and administrative staff however, do not track their time in this detailed way, since the vast majority of their work relates to the general fund.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) mistakenly concluded from Callan’s remarks that the $116,000 reduction did not mean reduction in nonprofit allocations after all – the reduction would be $116,000 minus the $98,000, he ventured. That would make it more palatable in terms of actual service agency cuts, he concluded.

But Callan clarified that they would not be subtracting $98,000 from anything. Rapundalo sought to clarify why support to nonprofits would be reduced if the $98,000 was originally intended to support administrative staff.

City administrator Roger Fraser sought to bring some clarity to the situation by saying that if administrative staff is reduced, the city loses capacity to administer the program. The office of community development had tried to keep the allocations to nonprofit agencies stable, he said. The city’s recommendation is consider the trade-off: What does it take to run the operation, and how much direct support to nonprofits can be provided? The city is trying to figure out how to pay for staff to run the program at the same level, while continuing to provide direct support to programs.

Rapundalo ventured that the budget impact sheet was not a specific proposal for allocating the cut between administrative staff and direct support to programs. Fraser replied that the city was suggesting a balancing act: “These are the adjustments we think are necessary.” Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) zeroed in on the significance of the numbers the council had been given: “So it really is a direct reduction?” Yes, said Callan. She continued by saying her department is a lean organization: “We don’t bring this to you lightly.”

Hohnke summarized the situation by saying that one way the city had been working to maintain funding was to identify federal funding opportunities – the proposed cut reflects the fact that federal funding didn’t materialize.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) characterized the situation as Callan believing the department is as lean as it can go and it has gotten what revenue is gettable – the only way to meet it is to reduce funding to human services agencies.

Fraser stressed that there was no effort yet to balance the choices in human services funding against other choices in the city’s organization. The office of community development was asked to meet the reduction targets just like every other department, and it was presented in “raw form.” In the proposed budget in April, he said, they might propose a different scenario, but the impact sheet simply recognizes that $98,000 is gone.

Budget Impact Sheets: Parks and Recreation – Basics

Among the dollars identified at the work session by Sumedh Bahl for savings in parks and recreation was $65,083 in energy savings due to improvements done at facilities. He also pointed to $10,000 saved in materials and supplies used for upkeep in facilities. Upgrades in facilities means that for a certain time, there’ll be a reduction in maintenance costs, he said. Additional budget savings would result from adjusting water charges to reflect what actual usage is. And they’re eliminating some software licenses. Some of the software, Bahl said, isn’t used by the staff that much, “so we’re taking it away from them.”

Bahl also pointed to an additional $52,000 in anticipated revenue, starting in FY 2013, from new kayaking and tubing, resulting from the planned construction of the Argo Dam bypass, which was recommended by the city’s park advisory commission and approved by the city council last year.

Mayor John Hieftje wondered about a proposed increase in fees at the city’s outdoor pools for FY 2013 – $4 to $5 for adults and $3.50 to $4 for youth and seniors – which the budget impact sheet showed would generate an additional $40,000 in revenue in FY 2013.  He noted that historically, fee increases had caused revenue to drop. Bahl said he felt the prices would still be pretty competitive.

Colin Smith, manager of the city’s parks and recreation program, allowed that fee increases leading to less patronage and lower revenues had happened – but that was a number of years ago, he said. At that time, he said, the increase had been for season passes and it was extraordinary. During the last fee adjustment cycle, the prices on season passes were raised by 10% and the city didn’t get any “hard feedback” on that, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know: What’s “hard feedback”? Smith explained that this meant negative public input about the increase.

But Higgins noted that this is the first year that the city would see the impact of the 10% fee increase – this spring. She clarified that these are additional fee increases planned for the following year. Smith confirmed that’s the case – he didn’t want to implement two kinds of fee increases at once.

Budget Impact Sheets: Parks and Recreation – Huron Hills

Included in the materials provided to city councilmembers was a memo that outlined various options for Huron Hills golf course. [The city also owns the Leslie Park golf course.]

[Last year the city issued an RFP to privatize of some the operations at the course, but ultimately decided not to accept either of the proposals that were made – one from Miles of Golf and the other from a citizen group that envisioned turning the course operations over to a nonprofit.]

Bahl summarized the result of the implementation of recommendations made by a consultant – Golf Convergence, hired by the city in 2007 – to improve patronage at the city’s two golf courses. All of the recommendations have now been implemented:

Rounds Played
Season  Huron    Leslie
2007    13,913   21,857
2008    15,558   27,078
2009    21,150   30,973
2010    22,500   32,000

-

Bahl noted that there’d been a dramatic improvement in the number of rounds played, but there are signs that it’s flattening out.

A memo provided to the council outlines the financial impact of various options for use of the Huron Hills land, including continuing to operate the golf course. In summary strokes, the options for Huron Hills and their costs over the next four years would be:

• Golf course: $162,000-187,000 annually
• Walking trails: $68,000-$309,000 annually
• Naturalization: at least $500,000 annually, falling to around $100,000 after seven years
• Soccer fields: no cost estimate
• Disc golf: no cost estimate
• Farming: no cost estimate

There’s a wide range of cost estimates for the walking trails option. By way of explanation, Bahl noted that for non-golf scenarios at Huron Hills, it’s necessary to include the “legacy costs” for two people currently employed at Huron Hills, both in union positions – one AFSCME and one Teamster. By union contract, he said, those employees cannot be laid off if the city has any temporary, seasonal, or contract worker employed at the city. And the city relies heavily on these types of workers, so laying off the two union workers at Huron Hills is not a realistic option. The net cost to the city of replacing seasonal workers with the Huron Hill’s workers would be around $175,000, Bahl said. Also in the mix is $42,000 in municipal service charges and $24,000 in IT charges that the golf enterprise fund accounting currently pays from the enterprise fund into the general fund.

The lower range of cost reflects a scenario in which the two Huron Hill’s union workers can be placed elsewhere in the city, while the higher cost in the range is a scenario where neither worker can be placed elsewhere.

Colin Smith, manager of the city’s parks and recreation program, stressed that under the walking trails option, the result would not be a natural area, but rather an “unkept golf course.” Converting it to a natural area would require considerably more investment – listed out as a separate option. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed with Smith that under the walking trails option, there was money factored in for mowing of the 8th and 9th hole areas that are used for sledding in the winter. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) drew out the fact that there is not money in that option for mowing areas where people might cross-country ski.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wondered why the parks capital improvements and maintenance millage could not be used for non-golf options. Smith’s answer was that because maintenance would be mowing, which must be paid out of the city’s general fund.

Commenting on the legacy costs, mayor John Hieftje noted that if positions elsewhere in the city opened up, they could be held open for the Huron Hills workers. City administrator Roger Fraser allowed that this would be the city’s strategy, but could not guarantee that positions would open up.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that the walking trails options outlined a range of possibility, but he wanted to know what the range of likelihood is. Bahl told Taylor that chances of finding an opening for the AFSCME employee are better, because of the relatively large pool of such workers. On the Teamster side, the pool is smaller. Summarizing the city’s best realistic estimate for the legacy costs for non-golf options, Colin Smith said it’d be $150,000 and above in the first couple of years.

Higgins stated that the city had committed to five years before evaluating the success of the Golf Convergence recommendations – when does that end? she wondered. Colin Smith clarified that the five-year evaluation period ends in 2013 – there are two years left.

City administrator Roger Fraser weighed in, saying the staff was not suggesting the council had to implement changes before two more years is up. It’s a matter of considering what a sustainable approach to city services is. When the city talks about community engagement to solve problems for the city’s future, the different scenarios for Huron Hills should be a part of the discussion, he concluded.

There seemed to be little enthusiasm from councilmembers at the work session for contemplating anything but a golf course at Huron Hills for the next two years.

Damon Thompson, operations manager for the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, talks with Ypsilanti city planner Teresa Gillotti after the Jan. 25 Urban County meeting.

Nonprofits are vying for funds from the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Urban County, and Washtenaw United Way. Nearly 60 nonprofits applied to the first phase of the process, in which they were asked to supply basic financial and governance documents. Of that group, 51 were qualified to respond to a request for proposals (RFP) that was issued Jan. 28.

It’s still unclear how much funding will be available, but it could be less than the nearly $5 million that was awarded from these groups last year. Budgets for Ann Arbor and the Urban County haven’t been finalized, and the 2011 county budget is facing about $1 million in as-yet-undetermined cuts.

At last week’s meeting, three members of the Urban County’s executive committee – Pittsfield Township deputy supervisor Barb Fuller, Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber and Ann Arbor city councilmember Margie Teal – were appointed to review applications for the coordinated funding process. All governing boards of the four entities involved in this cycle’s funding will appoint members to a review committee. The fifth partner – the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation – will fund capacity-building grants to nonprofits identified as needing help with internal operations, like infrastructure and staff development.

Also at last week’s meeting, Urban County members got an update on an annual plan being developed for the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), which provides funding for low-income housing and neighborhood projects. The plan will include a list of proposed projects located within the Urban County area that would be eligible for HUD funding. To gather more input, a needs assessment public hearing is set for the Feb. 22 meetings of both the Ann Arbor city council and the Urban County.

Two people spoke during public commentary, both criticizing Avalon Housing for its handling of two low-income housing projects: 1500 Pauline, and Near North. The nonprofit was defended by Leah Gunn, who chairs the Urban County executive committee – she called Avalon one of the “stars of community development.”

Coordinated Funding Update, Appointments

Mary Jo Callan, head of the county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development (OCD), gave an update on the new coordinated funding approach for local nonprofits. It’s a project that was in the works for well more than a year, and was finally approved by local funders – the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Urban County, Washtenaw United Way and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation – late last year.

The idea is for the county’s major local funders of nonprofits to coordinate their efforts, managed by OCD staff and focused on six main areas: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, “safety net” health and food/hunger relief. In the past, these five funding entities have provided about $5 million annually for local human services nonprofits. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Urban County Finalizes Funding Model"]

In an email to The Chronicle, Callan said the amount of total available funding isn’t yet determined. In past years, funding from the five groups has totaled nearly $5 million, but that could be lower this year. Last year, the city of Ann Arbor awarded almost $1.3 million, but at a Jan. 31 working session of the Ann Arbor city council, city staff discussed potential cuts to that amount. Washtenaw County funded $1.1 million to human services last year, while the United Way gave out $2.3 million – though a portion of that went to grants for capacity building and planning/coordination activities, according to Callan. The Urban County provided $300,000 last year to human services nonprofits, using funds from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.

At the Urban County meeting, Callan explained that the funding process is being handled in two phases. The OCD issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) and received 58 responses from nonprofits. The RFQ asked for basic finance and governance documentation, such as audits and bylaws. Based on those materials, seven nonprofits were eliminated from further consideration.

In the next phase, a request for proposals (RFP) – issued on Jan. 28 – will be followed by a mandatory pre-bid meeting on Feb. 4. It’s an online application process, Callan said, and proposals will be due on March 4.

A review committee will evaluate the applications, and ultimately make recommendations for funding. [The boards of each of the funding entities retain final funding decisions, and will vote on allocations from their own pot of funding, based on OCD recommendations.] Four of the funders – Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Urban County and United Way – will each have three representatives on the review committee. At the Jan. 25 Urban County meeting, the group selected its three reps: Barb Fuller, Pittsfield Township’s deputy supervisor; Paul Schreiber, mayor of Ypsilanti; and Margie Teall, an Ann Arbor city councilmember.

Callan said that Ann Arbor’s representatives would be nominated by the city’s housing & human services advisory board. Leah Gunn, a county commissioner who chairs the Urban County executive committee, reported that the board of commissioners planned to appoint three staff members as its representatives. [The next day, on Jan. 26, at the administrative briefing for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, a preview of the Feb. 2 board agenda included the three nominees for the review committee, who'll need to be appointed by the board: Hazelette Robinson, community relations director for the Washtenaw Community Health Organization; Susan Sweet Scott of the county's Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS); and Michael Smith of the county's veteran affairs office.]

Callan told Urban County members that it’s been illuminating to review the materials provided so far and get a sense of the health of local nonprofits. They divided the RFQ responses into three tiers, she said: 1) those that met all the conditions – things like having a board that actually met, she quipped – and that were approved to move forward; 2) nonprofits that could apply for funding, but with certain conditions; and 3) those that were disqualified because they didn’t meet the basic threshold – for example, not having an audit for the past several years.

The second tier is by far the largest group, Callan said. This group includes nonprofits that have an executive director who hasn’t received a formal evaluation every year, to situations that are much more serious, she said. OCD staff discovered some very significant red flags – in terms of governance and finance issues – at a couple of agencies that have historically been funded every year, Callan said, though she didn’t identify those nonprofits by name. The nonprofits in this group have been notified that they can apply for funding, she said, but can’t move forward until certain issues are addressed.

Through this process, the OCD staff is discovering that some nonprofits have a lot of capacity to provide services, Callan said. Others need help and can be strengthened, while some are really struggling. Now they have a clearer way to measure that, she said. Those nonprofits that need help might be eligible for capacity-building grants, funded by the United Way and the community foundation. At the same time, she said, there are some nonprofits that in the next year or two will need to find a parent agency, or possibly cease to exist.

Callan said they’ll have a better idea of how this will shake out as they move through the coordinated funding process over the next few months. According to a schedule handed out at the meeting, the review committee will be evaluating proposals in March. The Urban County executive committee will vote on human services funding recommendations at its March 22 meeting. A public hearing on the human services recommendations will be held at the Ann Arbor city council’s April 18 meeting, with a vote on those awards taking place on May 2, as part of the city’s 2011-12 budget. The county board of commissioners will vote on the recommendations at their May 4 meeting. Award letters will be sent to recipients on May 23.

Annual Plan Update, Quarterly Project Report

Damon Thompson, OCD’s operations manager, gave an update on a draft of the annual plan that the Urban County must submit to the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) in mid-May. Much of the funding that’s allocated by the Urban County comes from two HUD programs: the HOME Investment Partnerships program and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.

In addition to getting suggestions from Urban County members for projects to include in the plan, a needs assessment public hearing is set for the Feb. 22 meetings of both the Urban County and the Ann Arbor city council. The public hearings are a forum for residents to come and make requests for projects in their neighborhoods that they feel should be funded in the coming year.

Thompson also reviewed a quarterly project report of HOME and CDBG funding allocated over a three-year period, from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012. They are about 17 months into that period, he noted. The quarterly report shows projects that are underway in each Urban County jurisdiction, and their estimated cost. It also shows the percentage of total HOME and CDBG funds that have been allocated in each jurisdiction, compared with a target percentage previously approved by the Urban County. [.pdf file of Urban County quarterly project report]

For example, Ann Arbor is approved to receive 48.22% of all HOME and CDBG funds for this area over that three-year period. To date, the city has received $2.847 million in funding for 31 projects – including nine projects managed by Avalon Housing for nearly $780,000. Ann Arbor has now allocated almost all of the HOME and CDBG funds that it is authorized to receive.

In response to a question about how the percentage-wise approval of funds to each community is determined, Mary Jo Callan explained it’s a HUD formula based on several factors, including the percentage of residents living in poverty and the condition of a jurisdiction’s housing stock.

Public Commentary: Affordable Housing

Two people spoke during the time set aside for citizen participation.

Lily Au noted that she has in the past spoken out against the coordinated funding model. [Over the past several months she has often appeared at the Ann Arbor city council, Washtenaw County board of commissioners and Urban County meetings to speak on this issue.] Now that it’s been approved, she said, it is important to limit the administrative fees, so that more money goes directly to the nonprofits. Au also criticized Avalon Housing for its proposed affordable housing projects at 1500 Pauline and on North Main, known as Near North. [The city's planning commission recently approved a site plan for 1500 Pauline – the project will next be considered by city council; the Near North project received city council approval in September 2009.] Apparently there’s money to build expensive new projects, Au said, but not money to rehab existing properties or for the homeless. Avalon takes “fat” development fees for these projects, she said. “We need to curb this.”

LuAnne Bullington also criticized the Near North project, listing the various government entities that are helping to fund it, including the Michigan State Housing Development Authority and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Taxpayers are dumping more than $12 million into the project, she said, yet only 14 of the 38 units will be for affordable housing, she contended. Meanwhile, over 4,500 people in the county are homeless – is this really the best use of our money? she asked.

Public Commentary: Response

Paul Schreiber, Ypsilanti’s mayor and a member of the Urban County executive committee, asked staff members to address the comments by Au and Bullington.

Jennifer L. Hall, housing manager for the office of community development, began by saying that it’s very expensive to bring low-income housing on line, especially rental housing that includes support services, like the kind that Avalon provides. The Near North project is intended to offset the loss of single-room-occupancy (SRO) housing that was lost when the city tore down the old YMCA, she said.

All of the units at Near North will be affordable housing, not just the 14 that Bullington mentioned, Hall said – that’s a requirement of the funders, she said. The units will all be available to residents earning 50% or less of the area’s average median income – though typically, residents earn far less, she said, or have no income at all. When asked by Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran if there was any distinction related to the 14 units, Hall said that 14 apartments will be set aside for special needs residents, who require an additional layer of support services.

Mary Jo Callan expressed frustration at the public commentary, saying she was disappointed that Au had left the room before hearing a response. [Au later returned – she had apparently left to photocopy some materials that she distributed to people at the meeting.] Callan clarified that her office does not charge the 10-15% administrative fees that Au claimed they took from coordinated funding. Callan said they’ve tried on multiple occasions to talk to Au, but “she doesn’t seem interested in talking or learning the facts.” Callan said she and her staff are willing to talk to anyone who’s interested in facts.

Leah Gunn, a county commissioner who chairs the Urban County executive committee, defended Avalon Housing, calling the organization one of the “stars of community development.” The nonprofit provides housing as well as support services that help people stay in their homes, she said. Noting that the Downtown Development Authority has funding available for affordable housing, Gunn said that as a DDA board member, she was proud to support Avalon.

Next meeting: Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2011 at 1 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave. [confirm date]