From left: former Congressman Wes Vivian talks with Washtenaw County board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) before the board’s July 9 meeting. Vivian is advocating for the board to put a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. (Photos by the writer.)

Linda Edwards-Brown, the county’s juvenile division administrator, told commissioners that there’s been an increase in young men “terrorizing” their communities. The sheriff’s office and court had started working together several months ago after they began observing an increase in gang-type activity, she said, including home invasions, firearm larceny, and assaulting police officers. They’d been hopeful that they could stem the tide of violence, she added, but it had escalated with a death in Ypsilanti earlier this summer.

So the sheriff’s office and court officials have reached consensus to remove some of these young men from the community and put them into residential facilities in other parts of the state, Edwards-Brown said. The juvenile division of the Washtenaw County trial court will place at least six youths in residential facilities this month, in addition to six youths who are currently in residential placements. According to a staff memo, residential placements are costly, with a typical length of stay at nine to twelve months.

At the July 9 meeting, commissioners and staff expressed the need to continue working on this issue as a community-wide effort.

In other action, commissioners were asked to pass a resolution making mid-year budget adjustments and allocating this year’s higher-than-expected property tax revenues, as well as putting the $3.9 million surplus from 2013 into unearmarked reserves.

The adjustments passed on a 6-2 vote, with Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) dissenting. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) was absent. Dan Smith objected to spending more than was budgeted and making budget changes outside of the annual budget affirmation process, which takes place later this year. Conan Smith didn’t state his reason for voting against it on July 9, though in the past he has advocated for spending more of the surplus, rather than setting it aside in the fund balance.

Commissioners also authorized putting a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot to renew a 10-year, 0.2353-mill countywide parks and recreation operations tax. They held public hearings related to other millages that the county plans to levy later this year: (1) for support of indigent veterans and their families; and (2) to fund economic development and agricultural activities, under Act 88. The hearings drew one speaker – Thomas Partridge.

Related to the health department, the board created a new board of health to help oversee public health services in the county. A state official was on hand to talk about the accreditation process that the Washtenaw County public health department completed earlier this year.

Commissioners voted to accept the recommendations of a task force that’s been working on a funding strategy to help end homelessness, and to sunset that task force. The board also made appointments to a new committee that’s charged with exploring funding options for road repair.

Several issues were raised during public commentary. Former Congressman Wes Vivian urged the county board to place a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot enabling Washtenaw County voters to ask the state to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. That U.S. Supreme Court ruling has resulted in corporations “sloshing big money into our elections at all levels,” Vivian said.

Also during the meeting, commissioners honored Arthur Williams, who is retiring as principal of Huron High School in Ann Arbor after 19 years in that job. The board also passed proclamations welcoming the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters and the Ironworkers International. Both unions hold training programs in Washtenaw County each summer.

At the beginning of the meeting, Rabhi asked for a moment of silence in memory of Rowan David LaBarre, the newborn son of commissioner Andy LaBarre and his wife Megan LaBarre. Rowan David had passed away earlier in the week. “We all pray and hold Rowan in the light of our prayers and thoughts,” Rabhi said.

Funding to Address Juvenile Crime

The July 9 agenda included a resolution authorizing the use of $642,707 from the Child Care Fund balance to pay for a range of services overseen by the county’s dept. of human services. The use of $642,707 will drop the Child Care Fund balance from $1,041,882 to $399,175. [.pdf of staff memo]

Linda Edwards-Brown, the county’s juvenile division administrator.

The resolution authorized an amendment to the Child Care Fund (CCF) budget for the current fiscal year. The request came from the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s juvenile division and the county’s department of human services – the entities that oversee programs supported by the CCF.

According to a staff memo, the CCF is a collaboration between the state and county circuit courts to support programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth in Michigan. The state reimburses counties for 50% of all eligible CCF expenses.

The specific request on July 9 was for an increase in the CCF budget from $1,872,928 to $2,500,000 for the 2014 county fiscal year, which runs from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31 – an increase of $642,707.

Expenditures for the children’s services department are expected to be $262,341 over the current budget during the county fiscal year. Those expenses relate to use of part-time temporary staff as well as overtime, according to the staff memo, “to ensure that Children’s Services remains in compliance with state licensing requirements for juvenile detention facilities.”

In addition, the Trial Court’s juvenile division planned to put at least six youths in out-of-home placements in July. Another six youths are already placed. The typical length of such placements is nine to twelve months at an average $260 per day, per youth. That cost can range from a low of $150 to a high of $522. The total cost for the remainder of the county fiscal year is projected to be $396,000.

In addition, detention beds in the county’s children’s services facility have been occupied at or near capacity for all of 2014, which has resulted in the need for part-time temporary staff as well as overtime pay.

Funding to Address Juvenile Crime: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked about the timing of this request. Linda Edwards-Brown, the county’s juvenile division administrator, clarified that the request for funding is for the county’s fiscal year, through Dec. 31. However, the Child Care Fund (CCF) budget is aligned with the state’s fiscal year, from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. Edwards-Brown noted that the budget amendment would run only through Dec. 31, 2014. “We’ll be back here in a few months to look at the 2014-2015 Child Care Fund budget,” she said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Peterson expressed interest in seeing long-term budget projections. It’s not about the money, he added, but it’s important to find out what’s happening in the juvenile justice system. The county needs to know what its financial obligations are to address some of the issues that are occurring in the community, which are causing youth to end up in detention facilities.

Edwards-Brown told commissioners that a group of young men are “terrorizing” their communities. They are carrying weapons, displaying weapons on social media, committing home invasions, and stealing guns.

Several months ago, the sheriff’s office and the court started working together as they saw the beginning of what seemed to be gang-type activity, Edwards-Brown said. “We were hopeful that we would be able, by working together, to stem this tide of violence that we’re seeing in the community. We were unable to do that.”

Last month, a young man was murdered in Ypsilanti, Edwards-Brown said. It’s a problem that the sheriff’s office had predicted, she added. Now, collectively, the court and sheriff’s staff have decided they need to remove the young men from the community, she said. “So that’s the answer as to why we’re here tonight asking for more money for residential placements.”

The trial court has made a concerted effort over the last several years to keep youth in the community and work with them in their homes, Edwards-Brown said. But at this point, public safety is an issue, as well as the safety of these young men, she said. They can’t be “safely maintained” in the community, and need to be taken outside their homes, she said.

Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff’s office, reported that last summer, deputies started to notice an increase in juvenile violence and an escalation in crimes that juveniles were committing. He noted that in the early 1990s, there was gang activity in the area and a lot of those gang members were taken off the streets for 10-15 years. The question since then has been how can the community change so that when those men got back out, “things won’t go back to the way they were,” he said.

Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

Fortunately, those men didn’t go back to criminal behavior, Jackson added, but some of their children, younger siblings and other relatives are now in their teens, and are starting to get involved in gang-type activity. The good thing about having a conversation now is that it’s at an early stage, he said, “and we’re hoping we can prevent some of this.”

They’re not saying that the answer is to lock up every kid who’s associated with these things, Jackson stressed. But this is one of the answers for a small percentage of kids who are very violent, carrying weapons, doing drugs and who ultimately committed homicide.

A large task force is coming together to talk about a “holistic, wrap-around response to what we’re seeing in the community,” Jackson said, because it’s such a significant issue. He noted that about 55 community leaders – including some county commissioners – had met recently to talk about the juvenile criminal justice system, and everyone had seen an increase in problems. When he talks to high school and middle school teachers in the eastern part of the county, they all say the same thing – they see a difference in how young people are acting.

Jackson said that when you see the train coming down the track, you can prepare to get run over or you can figure out a way to stop it. People in the county are working to stop the train, he said.

Lisa Greco, the county’s youth center director, noted that juvenile detention is where kids are placed when law enforcement removes them from the community. They’re held in secure custody until decisions can be made about what to do next. The juvenile detention center has seen more than a 25% increase in population and days of care, Greco said. Managing the dynamics in the community is challenging, she said, and managing those kids in the confined space of juvenile detention is also a challenge. “I think we’ve been up to it, and have taken good care of the kids,” she said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

The community is at a crossroads, Greco added. There’s a need for an immediate response, as well as a call to action to re-examine the juvenile justice system in Washtenaw County in its entirety. “We need alternatives to juvenile detention,” she said. There needs to be early identification, intervention and assessment for kids who are struggling in the community.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed concern about the kids who’ll be sent to places outside of Washtenaw County. “What happens when they get done and come back here?”

Edwards-Brown replied that none of the young men will be sent out of state. They’ll be sent to Maxey Boys Training School in Whitmore Lake, Turning Point Youth Center in St. Johns, and other facilities within Michigan. “We want them to have the opportunity for their families to visit them and to participate in family therapy while they’re in these placements,” she said.

These young men will eventually be returning home in nine to 12 months, Edwards-Brown noted. So it’s important to bring change to their homes, so that they won’t be returning to the same situation, she said.

Sizemore advocated for having an individual or entity examine all the programs in the county that help youth. He thought there were duplicative services, and the services should be better coordinated. He also hoped the school districts would get involved, and that parents would be supported. He praised Jackson, sheriff Jerry Clayton and deputies for doing difficult work. But it’s time to stop studying the situation and to put some money directly into programs that will help youth, he said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said she first heard about the Ypsilanti murder on Facebook, from a friend who lived in that neighborhood. She thought that by removing these young men, it will help the community as a whole. It will provide hope to the people living there, since they won’t be living in a place of fear. It’s important to let residents know that the community cares about what’s happening in those neighborhoods, Ping said, and that action is being taken to help.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Edwards-Brown stressed that “this may not be the panacea.” Although the additional funding will help remove a certain number of young men, “there are brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews and cousins – so we have a bigger problem that we have yet to address,” she said. “We’re hoping to, quite frankly, save lives – the lives of these young men, and perhaps someone else in the community. But our work is far from done.”

Peterson said the problem isn’t just isolated to Ypsilanti – it’s something happening nationwide. He noted that the funding for this request is coming from the Child Care Fund reserves, but it’s unclear where funding will come from in the future. It could be a budget that inflates much higher, because the county has an obligation to provide services to all youth in need, he said.

Peterson suggested that the county administrator, Verna McDaniel, and the county board chair, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), work with staff to identify budget projections and future demand for services. If there’s a trend, the board should be aware of it well in advance, he said. “This is not going to be a gang haven,” he said. “The is not the Wild West.” Washtenaw County has the reputation as a great place to raise children, and they need to maintain that, Peterson added.

Jackson offered to make a presentation to the board with more details about the responses that are being planned. He said he’d spoken with three different mothers who had noticed that their sons were changing, but who couldn’t find help until the situation had escalated. That’s what needs to be addressed, he added – how to structure something in this community that will align the human services with the real issues that need attention.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) drew attention to the fact that fund balance is being used. The CCF fund balance will be depleted by two-thirds with just this one allocation, he noted. It’s an important allocation, and the kind of thing that fund balances are used for, he added. “But we’re doing it regularly now – dipping into departmental fund balances for programmatic expenditures.”

At the same time, Smith noted, the board is set to add money to the general fund reserves. He expected to see other proposals from departments later this year, also requesting to use their departmental fund balances. “This is a fiscal policy question that we really ought to be grappling with,” Smith said.

McDaniel pointed out that it’s actually a $1.3 million problem – the county’s $642,707, plus an equal amount that will be reimbursed by the state.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the Child Care Fund budget amendment.

Mid-Year Budget Adjustments

Commissioners were asked to pass a resolution making mid-year budget adjustments and allocating this year’s higher-than-expected property tax revenues, as well as a $3.9 million surplus from 2013.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

The adjustments increased the general fund budget’s expenses and revenues by $720,486 for 2014, $733,233 for 2015, $745,980 for 2016 and $758,727 for 2017. The county operates on a four-year budget, with the fiscal year matching the calendar year.

The adjustments also followed the recommendation of county administrator Verna McDaniel, and set aside the $3,920,818 surplus from 2013 in unearmarked reserves, rather than spending it. The projected year-end 2014 fund balance is $20,638,675. The county board had previously approved a goal of holding a fund balance equal to 20% of its general fund budget. For 2014, the general fund budget is $103,127,202. [.pdf of staff memo and mid-year budget resolution]

In addition, the following mid-year budget adjustments were made to the general fund:

• Structural adjustments resulting in a $494,677 increase in expenditures for (1) providing employee health care coverage for autism; (2) a consultant to help with the board’s budget priority work, (3) a “local government initiatives” intern; (4) reinstatement of two full-time equivalent positions in the sheriff’s office; and (5) salary adjustments for non-union employees.
• Non-structural, one-time, adjustments that increased expenditures by $65,000 for homelessness initiatives.

The administration recommended that the remaining $160,809 be held as an undesignated allocation until budget projections improve as new information becomes available. The administration will present a second-quarter budget update at the board’s next meeting on Aug. 6, 2014.

Mid-Year Budget Adjustments: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that it’s been less than three months since Raman Patel, the county’s equalization director, told the board about higher-than-expected tax revenues, which resulted in about $750,000 more revenue this year than had been budgeted for 2014.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Now, the board is already spending almost $600,000 of that surplus, which hadn’t been included in the original 2014 budget, Smith noted. There is no shortage of things to spend this money on, he continued, including over $234 million in unfunded liabilities “which we have no particular plan to pay for, other than amortizing payments over 26 years – something that our actuary is recommending against us doing.” The actuary would like to see that amount amortized over a much shorter period of 10 years.

Smith said he had no problem with making technical budget adjustments as they come along. But one of the reasons to have a four-year budget is to have a plan and then execute that plan, Smith said.

If the board wants to “be constantly in budget mode,” he said, then they could simply have a one-year budget. Unless there’s an emergency situation or deadlines that are outside of the county’s control, he thought it would be more appropriate to make these changes in the fall, during the board’s annual budget reaffirmation process.

There was no additional discussion on this item.

Outcome: The budget adjustments were passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) was absent.

County Parks & Rec Millage

The board was asked to pass a resolution that would authorize putting a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot to renew a 10-year countywide parks and recreation operations millage.

Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation.

The resolution on July 9 was for an amended version, compared to a resolution given initial approval on May 21, 2014. That’s because some state-mandated information had inadvertently been left off the proposed ballot language in the original resolution, according to a staff memo. [.pdf of staff memo]

The operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2352 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.4 million annually – or about half of the parks & rec annual operating expenses. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations.

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

County Parks & Rec Millage: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) advocated for support of this millage in November. The county parks & recreation commission has done incredible things, he said. [Conan Smith serves on the commission, along with Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).] There’s a park or preserve or recreation facility in nearly every community throughout Washtenaw County, and most of the county facilities are free to the public, he noted. The parks & rec commission also leverages funds from the state, Smith added, on projects like the Border to Border trail. It’s worthy of the continued support of county citizens, he concluded.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he hears a lot from people around the state and nation about how unique the county parks & rec system is. He also supported the millage renewal.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved placing the millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

Appointments

There were two sets of appointments on the July 9 agenda – for a road funding committee, and the board of public works.

Appointments: Road Funding Committee

Commissioners were asked to approve appointments to a new committee that’s charged with exploring funding options for road repair.

The board had created the road funding committee on June 4, 2014, after debating whether to levy a countywide road millage or put a millage proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot to fund road repair. The final vote to create the committee had been 6-1 vote, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9). Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) were absent.

In arguing against levying a tax at that time, some commissioners cited the need to study funding options – including a possible Act 283 levy, which doesn’t require voter approval – before making a decision.

On July 9, Rabhi proposed an amendment to his original resolution, adding two new slots – one for the director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), and one for an additional county commissioner slot, to make it an odd-numbered roster.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered why nine members were needed. Rabhi said he wanted to add the WATS representation because that group has been doing a lot of work on the road funding issue, and would like to participate. “It’s less a matter of the number of people, and more a matter of who we have at the table,” Rabhi said.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners approved the amendment on a voice vote.

The following members were nominated by Rabhi:

• Lew Kidder, representing the general public
• Bill McFarlane, representing the road commission
• Roy Townsend, managing director of the road commission
• Rolland Sizemore Jr., the county board of commissioners’ liaison to the road commission
• Dan Smith, county commissioner
• Kent Martinez-Kratz, county commissioner
• Rodrick Green, Superior Township trustee, representing townships
• Steve Powers, Ann Arbor city administrator, representing incorporated municipalities
• Ryan Buck, director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS)

The resolution directs the committee to meet within 60 days of this appointment to elect officers and draft bylaws. The committee is to report to the county board at its Sept. 17, 2014 meeting, and make quarterly updates after that with a final report due in December 2015.

The county administrator will help provide administrative support to the committee.

For additional Chronicle coverage on road-related issues, see: “County Board Continues Weighing Road Tax,” “County Board Debates Expanded Road Commission,” “County Board Sets Hearing on Road Tax,” “County Considers Road Funding Options,” “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the appointments to the road funding committee.

Appointments: Board of Public Works

Yousef Rabhi nominated Steve Feinman to the county’s board of public works for the remainder of a three-year term ending Dec. 31, 2015.

According to the department of public works website, the board of public works “focuses on assisting local communities within Washtenaw County in addressing environmental and public health issues and development needs, including wastewater disposal and collection, water treatment and supply, lake management, and solid waste management.”

There was no discussion on this appointment.

Outcome: Feinman’s appointment was made on a unanimous vote.

Public Hearings: Act 88, Veterans Relief Millages

The board held two hearings on July 9 related to millages that the county plans to levy later this year: (1) for support of indigent veterans and their families; and (2) to fund economic development and agricultural activities.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

For support of indigent veterans, the county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008, and collects the tax in December. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Since 2008, the county board has slightly increased the rate that it levies each year. In 2012, the rate was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It was raised to a rate of 1/30th of a mill in December 2013, to fund services in 2014.

The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

No increase is proposed for the economic development millage, levied under Act 88 – another pre-Headlee law. The proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014, raising an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues. In previous years, the resolution setting this millage has outlined how the revenues would be allocated. The largest allocations have gone to the county’s office of community & economic development, and to the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK.

However, at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the board adopted a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9). [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy included creating an Act 88 advisory committee to make recommendations to the board and prepare an annual report that assesses how Act 88 expenditures have contributed toward progress of goals adopted by the board. The policy allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. The policy also allocates up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding.

On July 9, only one person – Thomas Partridge – spoke at these public hearings. He endorsed the veterans relief millage, and questioned whether it would provide sufficient support for indigent veterans. He also questioned whether the amount levied under the Act 88 millage was sufficient for a county this size.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. A vote to levy these millages would be made at a future meeting.

Task Force on Homelessness

Commissioners were asked to accept the report and recommendations of a task force that’s been working on a funding strategy to help end homelessness. The resolution also sunsets that task force.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The leadership group for the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services to End Homelessness made a presentation at the board’s May 22, 2014 working session. Their recommendations include the goal of building a $50 million endowment over 20 years. Payouts from the endowment would fund supportive services – such as treatment for mental illness and substance abuse – with the intent of addressing the root causes of homelessness. The concept is called permanent supportive housing, and is part of the community’s broader Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was created in 2004 and is being updated.

A possible millage – recommended at 0.25 mills, for no more than 20 years – would help fund supportive services while the endowment is built. County commissioners are being asked to consider putting such a millage on the ballot, possibly in 2015.

Several steps have already been taken to achieve these goals. An endowment was established in 2011, with $2.1 million in commitments so far. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s. She served on the task force and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. AAACF CEO Cheryl Elliott is another task force member. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

The first fund distribution – of $26,100 – will be made this fall in a competitive grant process. AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations.

AAACF is also helping provide a three-year, part-time development job to support fundraising for this endowment. Funding for the position will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

The foundation posted the position earlier this summer, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services, and to the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members include Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton.

There was no discussion on this item at the July 9 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the report and sunset the task force.

Public Health Accreditation

Mark Miller, director of local health services with the Michigan Dept. of Community Health, attended the July 9 meeting to talk about the accreditation process that the Washtenaw County public health department completed earlier this year. [.pdf of letter from Dept. of Community Health director]

Washtenaw County health officer Ellen Rabinowitz and sheriff Jerry Clayton.

Miller thanked commissioners and staff, including county health officer Ellen Rabinowitz and retired health officer Dick Fleece, who both attended the July 9 meeting. Miller presented certificates of accreditation, and praised the achievement. It’s the fifth cycle that Washtenaw County has completed, passing stringent standards in the accreditation program, he said. The standards are hard to meet, Miller added, especially when budgets are tight.

Ten program areas were reviewed, and of 140 indicators, the Washtenaw County health department only missed one, Miller reported. “I don’t get to go to too many counties and get to say that – generally, [other counties] miss quite a few more.” Washtenaw County eventually achieved 100%, he noted.

Washtenaw County also passed an optional quality improvement supplement, which only about half of the health departments in Michigan have achieved, Miller reported. It means the county has a comprehensive program for improvement.

“This performance is no fluke,” Miller told commissioners. The Washtenaw County health department maintains many partnerships, which allow it to leverage resources and provide better services for residents. That’s admirable, he said.

Miller highlighted several comments included in the accreditation report, including praise for the health department’s website and for support from county commissioners for initiatives like breastfeeding-friendly policies. He called out Sharon Sheldon, the program administrator for health promotion and disease prevention, for her unit’s work. Special recognition is deserved for the HIV/STD program, the report noted, because client return rates for HIV test results have exceeded 96%. Programs in hearing and vision care were also commended, as was the food safety unit, overseen by Kristen Schweighoefer, and several other programs. Miller also noted that Washtenaw County is a pioneer in trying to manage requests for vaccine waivers.

Miller concluded by saying the state was very impressed by the county health department’s efficient and innovative programs. “You guys have a really terrific health department here,” he said.

Board of Health

A resolution to create a board of health was originally on the board’s June 4, 2014 agenda for final approval, but was postponed until the July 9 meeting. The entity would provide advice on public health issues for the county. Commissioners had given initial approval to the item at their May 21, 2014 meeting.

A description of the board’s duties is outlined in a staff memo that accompanied the resolution:

The purpose and role of a Washtenaw County Board of Health will be to identify public health problems and concerns in the community, establish health priorities, and advise the Board of Commissioners and the Health Department on issues and possible solutions. The Board of Health will serve as advocates and educators for public health services and policies. The Board of Health will provide oversight and guidance to the Health Department, and will recommend a program of basic health services to the Board of Commissioners.

The new Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals and requests for variances from the local public health and environmental regulations established under the Public Health Code. The Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals regarding the suspension or revocation of food service licenses.

The resolution creating the health board also dissolves an existing environmental health code appeals board and the hearing board for the Health Department Food Service Regulation. The duties of those boards would be absorbed by the new health board. [.pdf of staff memo]

The recommended size is 10 members, including one ex-officio representative from the county board of commissioners. According to the staff memo, appointments could represent “health service delivery (physicians, dentists, mental health practitioners, administrators); environmental health and conservation, land use planning, food service and nutrition, academia, K-12 education, philanthropy, social service delivery, legal services, and consumers of public health services.”

Members would be compensated for attending each meeting. The total cost for the health board, including in-kind staff support, is estimated at $19,000 annually. The board of health would be expected to convene for the first time in October 2014.

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s public health officer, attended the July 9 meeting but did not formally address the board.

Board of Health: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9), who had moved to postpone the resolution last month without explanation, told commissioners on July 9 that he had distributed three amendments to the board via email. All of them are making additions to the resolution, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Smith noted that commissioners have talked about a board of health taking a leadership role in the county, coordinating public health responses across many agencies. He thought it was important for the board of health to think actively about its role as a coordinator, so one of his amendments included that sentiment in a whereas clause.

Smith also proposed adding two resolved clauses. One clause clarified the roles and expectations of the board of health, to do three things: (1) develop and oversee the strategic plan for the department of health; (2) recommend the annual budget to the county administrator; and (3) work with the county administrator to evaluate the performance of the county public health officer.

The second additional resolved clause is to ensure that the bylaws that will be developed for the board of health will be brought to the county board of commissioners for review and approval. “That’s the document that’s truly going to delegate any authorities that we have from this board,” Smith said.

There was no discussion on these amendments.

Outcome: Smith’s amendments were approved on a voice vote.

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners approved creation of a board of health, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) was absent.

Later in the meeting, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said that establishing the board of health is a major step in improving the health for residents of this community, especially children.

Communications & Commentary

During the July 9 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Budget Work

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) reported that Susan McGraw has been hired as a consultant to work with the board on its budget priorities. That work will kick off later this month, she said.

Communications & Commentary: Taubman Fellowship

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d learned a lot earlier this summer at Harvard University’s Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) pointed out that Rabhi had received the Taubman Fellowship for Executive Excellence, which is given to selected officials and staff through the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Peterson said that to be chosen for a fellowship is one of the highest recognitions that SEMCOG awards. “We should be honored to know that Washtenaw County and a Washtenaw County commissioner was selected,” Peterson said, joking “I just don’t know why they didn’t ask me.”

Arthur Williams, who retired as principle of Huron High School after 19 years in that position.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations

Several proclamations were given during the July 9 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Retirements

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) presented a proclamation honoring Arthur Williams, who is retiring as principal of Huron High School in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of Williams' proclamation]

Rabhi noted that he graduated from Huron High School “and Dr. Williams was my principal!” Williams was also a neighbor to Rabhi’s family as Rabhi grew up, so he knows Williams well. Williams has served as principal at Huron High since 1995.

Williams spoke briefly. As educators, he said, “we touch the future.” Many times they don’t know what the effects are of what they do in the schools, he added. Williams noted that Martin Luther King said everyone can be great, because everyone can serve. Williams said his goal has been to try to make this world a better place, by helping raise young people and families, and by trying to make an impact on lives.

He received a round of applause from commissioners and staff.

The board also made a proclamation to Mary Sue Coleman, who recently stepped down as president of the University of Michigan. Coleman did not attend the July 9 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Ironworkers, UA

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Visitors & Convention Bureau, was on hand to receive a proclamation welcoming the Ironworkers International annual instructor training program, which ran from July 12-18 this year. That program, held at Washtenaw Community College, brought in about 700 participants and an estimated economic impact of $2 million. It’s their fifth year holding the program in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of Ironworkers proclamation]

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Visitors & Convention Bureau.

The board also gave a proclamation welcoming the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters for their 61st annual training program. For the past 25 years, that program has been held in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of UA proclamation]

This year, the program runs from Aug. 9-15, also on the WCC campus, bringing about 2,400 participants to the county with an estimated economic impact of $5 million.

Kerr noted that the county also hosts the training week for the National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (NJATC) for the Electrical Industry. This year is a milestone for all three groups, she said. NJATC is in its 25th year and has been coming to Washtenaw County for six years. This year, the NJATC National Training Institute runs from July 26-Aug. 1 at the University of Michigan, and expects a 15% increase in participation compared to last year, Kerr reported.

Kerr said that a conservative economic impact estimate for all three programs is $12 million. “This is new spending in our community – spending that wouldn’t be here if these three training programs were not here,” she added. The spending is on hotels, restaurants, recreation, entertainment, shopping and transportation.

Her goal is to keep these events in Washtenaw County by providing a high level of service and making sure the unions know that they’re appreciated by the community. She thanked commissioners for their continued support.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Gun Safety

The board passed a proclamation declaring July 20-26 as Gun Safety Week in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of gun safety resolution] The goal is to increase public safety “by raising awareness and educating residents of Washtenaw County about how to keep themselves and their families safe.”

During the week, local law enforcement agencies will be providing free gun locks and gun safety information. More information about the week is provided on the county’s website.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Speaking during public commentary, former Congressman Wes Vivian told commissioners that until four years ago, the U.S. had laws that prohibited or limited contributions by corporations to candidates for political office.

Former Congressman Wes Vivian.

But four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned those laws in the Citizens United decision, he said. Now, “corporations are sloshing big money into our elections at all levels,” Vivian said. Polls show that about 90% of U.S. citizens oppose that Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, almost 20 state governments have asked the U.S. government to enact a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. “To date, the state of Michigan has not done so, even though it’s been asked to,” Vivian noted.

The Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils have asked Michigan’s government to take action on this issue, Vivian said. But so far, the state legislature has refused to bring it up for a vote, he added. He asked the county board to place a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot enabling Washtenaw County voters to ask the state to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. He didn’t have suggested wording for such a ballot proposal, but said he’d be glad to work on it.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), the board’s chair, thanked Vivian and said he hoped the board would take action of some sort at a later date. It was an issue about the sustainability of this nation’s democracy, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) also thanked Vivian for raising this issue. The idea of corporate personhood has raised many challenges, he said, “and the notion that just regular citizens are somehow second class in our decision-making process has got to be pre-empted.” It’s incumbent upon elected officials and the county board as a body of elected officials to take a stand, he said. Smith liked the idea of asking county residents to weigh in, saying it would send a great signal to people throughout the state and nation.

Ruth Ann Jamnick also addressed the board during public commentary. She pointed out that she’s one of the four candidates in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary election for the District 5 seat on the county board. She provided a handout with information about her experience and accomplishments.

Ruth Ann Jamnick.

Referring to the board’s discussion about juvenile crime earlier in the evening, Jamnick noted that she had been involved in addressing similar issues years ago in Ypsilanti Township. What makes it different now are the ages of the young people who are involved, she said. At that time, it was youth in their late teens – but now, the youth who are creating these problems are younger. It’s important to make some changes and address these issues. She also noted that the situation isn’t isolated to Ypsilanti Township.

Jamnick concluded by thanking Rolland Sizemore Jr., the district’s current commissioner, for his work.

Earlier this year, Sizemore announced that he did not intend to seek re-election. In addition to Jamnick, the three other Democratic candidates are Victor Dobrin, Wilma Gold-Jones, and Keith P. Jason. The winner of that primary will face Republican Timothy King in the Nov. 4 general election. King is unopposed in the primary.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for the state legislature. He urged the public to elect Democrat Mark Schauer as governor in November, and to address the critical needs of affordable housing, public transportation, human rights and health care in Washtenaw County. Too many residents are vulnerable and don’t have the services they need, he said. He criticized the county board’s agenda for not including items that address ending homelessness, providing affordable housing and access to countywide public transportation, and supporting better health care and education for adults. These should be priorities for the board, he said.

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

Absent: Andy LaBarre.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The action on July 9 was for an amended version, compared to a resolution given initial approval on May 21, 2014. That’s because some state-mandated information had inadvertently been left off the proposed ballot language in the original resolution, according to a staff memo. [.pdf of staff memo]

The operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2352 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.4 million annually – or about half of the parks & rec annual operating expenses. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations.

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

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

Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman, left, talks with Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) before the board’s May 21, 2014 meeting. Bergman spoke during public commentary to oppose a possible road tax. (Photos by the writer.)

The vote on levying a millage was 2-6, with support only from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent. The tax would have been levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval.

Several commissioners spoke against levying this kind of tax at this time. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) advocated for waiting to see whether the state provides more funding for roads. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) reported that the boards of Willow Run and Ypsilanti public schools are considering levying tax increases this summer of 2.8 mills and 1.2 mills, respectively. The state passed legislation that enables school districts to levy millages for debt retirement without voter approval. Noting that a new public transit millage had been approved by voters earlier this month – in Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Ann Arbor – Peterson said the communities that he represents would be hard-pressed to handle yet another tax increase.

Dan Smith argued that there are few funding options available to the county to pay for road repair, and that the need for additional revenues is critical because the roads are in such bad shape. He said he was well aware of the reasons why this was a bad plan – even a terrible one – but added that the only thing worse would be to do nothing. Conan Smith pointed out that because all of the board seats are up for election this year, residents will have a way to weigh in on this decision, albeit indirectly. “This is the most defensible moment that we have” to levy a tax that doesn’t require voter approval, he said.

The May 21 meeting also included a public hearing on the possible levy. And the board heard from people on the topic during general public commentary. In total, seven people spoke about the road funding issue. Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman, who is an Ann Arbor resident, argued against levying the tax, while former state Rep. Rick Olson of York Township urged commissioners to levy the full 1-mill amount allowed under Act 283. Another resident argued against any tax that isn’t approved by voters, calling it taxation without representation.

After the tax levy resolution was rejected, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) brought forward a resolution to create a seven-member road funding committee that would explore options – including Act 283, as well as other possible revenue sources like bonding or a voter-approved tax. The initial vote to form the committee passed on a 6-2 split, over dissent from Conan Smith and Dan Smith. A final vote is expected on June 4. If approved, members would be appointed at a later date, with the direction to provide a road funding plan to the board in the fall.

Commissioners also weighed in to oppose oil exploration and drilling in the county, prompted by a company’s permit application to the state to drill in Scio Township. The vote was 7-1, over dissent from Dan Smith. Two residents spoke during public commentary,urging the board to oppose oil drilling.

During deliberations, Dan Smith argued that the issue was outside of the county’s purview, because the county can’t regulate oil drilling. He noted that the easiest way to prevent oil drilling is for property owners not to sign leases with companies that seek to drill on their land. Other commissioners supported the resolution, citing environmental and public health concerns, including the proposed drilling location’s proximity to the Huron River.

In other action on May 21, commissioners took initial steps to: (1) put a 10-year countywide parks and recreation operations tax renewal on the Nov. 4 ballot, at 0.2353 mills; (2) create a board of health that would give advice on public health issues; and (3) approve an application for a $940,000 federal grant that the county would make on behalf of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency. Funds would be used to help redevelop the former General Motors Willow Run Powertrain plant in Ypsilanti Township for use as a connected vehicle testing facility.

Given final approval on May 21 was this year’s allocation to local nonprofits through the coordinated funding process, in which the county participates.

The board also approved a process that will determine how the $3.9 million budget surplus from 2013 will be allocated. Conan Smith said he felt “personally let down” by the approach, because the county administrator has already recommended to keep that amount in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves. He thought it was “turning out to be little more than a rubber stamp of a decision that’s already been proposed by the administration.” Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading this process, stressed that commissioners will be discussing and making the final decision – which might differ from the administration’s recommendation.

Road Tax

The May 21 agenda included a proposal to levy a 0.4-mill countywide road tax in December. The tax could be levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval. The board also held a public hearing on the issue, and heard from several people during public commentary.

Barb Fuller, one of three road commissioners, attended the May 21 meeting of the county board.

Prompted in part by what many view as a chronic underfunding of roads in Michigan – combined with a particularly harsh winter – county commissioners have been discussing for months how to generate more revenues to repair the county’s road network.

At the board’s May 7, 2014 meeting, Dan Smith (R-District 2) brought forward a resolution that would have authorized a 1-mill tax to be levied December 2014 – under Act 283. A 1-mill tax would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.”

On May 7, the board debated the issue at length but ultimately voted to postpone the resolution until May 21 over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

On May 21, Dan Smith brought forward a revised resolution that addressed some concerns raised by corporation counsel Curtis Hedger during the May 7 meeting. The new resolution proposed an 0.4-mill levy and included a list of specific projects that the tax revenues would fund. [.pdf of May 21 resolution]

The resolved clauses stated:

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the authorization of Public Act 283 of 1909 (MCLA 224.20), the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners approves a millage of 0.4 mills to be levied against all real property in the County, which will generate approximately $5,—,— to be collected in December, 2014, for use in calendar years 2014 and 2015 to keep existing Washtenaw County public roads, streets, paths, bridges and culverts in reasonable repair, and in condition reasonably safe and fit for public travel; and that this levy be exempt from capture by TIF Districts or TIFAs to the greatest extent allowed by law.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners agrees with Washtenaw County Road Commission’s initial determination, as attached hereto and made a part hereof, and levies said millage for the purposes therein.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Road Commissioners is invited to present a revised determination in accordance with Act 283 of 1909 to the Board of Commissioners at its annual meeting on September 17, 2014 for an additional levy not to exceed 0.6 mills.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel is directed to provide an exhaustive formal written opinion, by September 17, 2014, which clearly and convincingly details the exact mechanism under which Act 283 of 1909 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people; and that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners waives any attorney/client privilege concerning this opinion.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners asks the county’s legislative delegation, State Senators Randy Richardville and Rebekah Warren and State Representatives Gretchen Driskell, Jeff Irwin, David Rutledge and Adam Zemke, to request an Attorney General opinion regarding the ability for counties to levy a tax under Act 283 of 1909 in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

For additional Chronicle coverage on road-related issues, see: “County Board Continues Weighing Road Tax,” “County Board Debates Expanded Road Commission,” “County Board Sets Hearing on Road Tax,” “County Considers Road Funding Options,” “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

Road Tax: Public Commentary

During the first opportunity for public commentary – at the board’s ways & means committee meeting – committee chair Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) announced that the device used to time the speaking turns was broken. Instead, time would be marked by holding up handwritten cards, she said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) kept time manually for public commentary, as the boardroom’s timing device was broken.

Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman – a Democrat from Ann Arbor – urged commissioners not to levy a tax for roads. If they do, they’re sending a message to Lansing “that we are rich enough to take care of ourselves,” she said, and that the state doesn’t need to help meet the needs of its vulnerable citizens. But this is patently untrue, she said. There are huge unmet needs in Washtenaw County – for food, shelter, services for children and for adults who are returning to the community after incarceration.

Beyond the ethical considerations, Bergman said, the county doesn’t need to do this because “roads have very loud voices.” Officials at the local and state levels want to be re-elected, she noted, and she bet that funds could be found to repair the roads to ensure that motorists are happy. One way is for state legislators to adopt an equitable, progressive tax code for Michigan, she said. If that doesn’t happen, then local millages should be used to support those who are often invisible, she said. Mental health funds are about to be cut 30%, she noted, which means that services for 240 customers of the county’s Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) will be cut. Affordable housing and health insurance are also needed, Bergman said. “A millage to meet human services needs could pass a test with ethics,” she said. “A millage for roads cannot.”

Thomas Partridge spoke generally about the need to support the county’s most vulnerable, including affordable housing, public transportation, education and health care. Everyone needs adequate roads, he added, and if it’s left to Lansing, “we are left with potholes.” He also supported a progressive tax to generate more funds for local governments.

Rick Olson introduced himself as a York Township resident and former state representative of District 55. In 2011 he became very interested in transportation, he said, and generated a report on how much money would need to be spent to repair Michigan’s roads and bridges – $1.4 billion at that time. That was a figure used by the governor’s workgroup on infrastructure, on which Olson served. It led to a series of bipartisan bills that were introduced in January 2012, with the idea that $1.2 billion would be raised at the state level, he said, and the remainder raised through an optional county vehicle registration fee. Unfortunately, Olson said, the legislation wasn’t enacted. He said the amount needed has now been updated to just under $2.4 billion. Even if the legislature comes up with additional funding for roads, it likely won’t be enough, he said. Olson told commissioners that the county needs to invest a considerable amount, in addition to whatever the legislature does. He fully supported an Act 283 millage at the full 1-mill level.

Former state representative Rick Olson and county commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

A man who didn’t give his name said he opposed the road millage, especially if it were levied without a public vote. “Citing some law from 1909 doesn’t change the fact that this is taxation without representation,” he said. He told commissioners that 40% of county residents aren’t property owners, and wouldn’t pay the tax. “So once again, government is picking on a select group of people to pay for the benefit of all,” he said. “There is no word to describe this other than unfair.” Washtenaw County already has the highest average property tax in Michigan, he said. Prices are increasing, and people have to adjust their budgets accordingly. “We don’t have a golden pocket to reach into.” Yet government feels entitled to take more from its residents. He said he’s tired of his government telling him what they’re going to take, instead of listening to him tell them what they can have. “So I will organize, I will educate, I will motivate, and I will vote,” he said, so that government will be accountable for its budget and debts, just as the government holds him accountable.

Jim Bates of Ann Arbor Township asked if it would be possible for the county to assess a gas tax. He said he was just curious about that. [In Michigan, county governments don't have authority to levy a gas tax.]

Victor Dobrin said he’s been an Ypsilanti Township resident 23 years. [Dobrin is also a candidate for the District 5 seat on the county board.] The proposed road millage isn’t popular, he said. Government doesn’t always do what’s popular, but they look for the common good. He respected Olson’s opinion, however he thinks that solving any problem in society begins by defining the root cause. Government should take an engineering approach to problem solving. What is the root cause? Why are our roads crumbling? Is the proper work being done when roads are constructed or fixed? He noted that right now, you can see workers throwing shovels of asphalt into potholes, but that’s not going to solve the problem. It will result in wasting lots of money. The root cause is in the way that roads are engineered and built, he said.

Road Tax: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) responded to public commentary by thanking Barbara Bergman, noting that her comments reflect his own opinion. He also said the issue isn’t one of taxation without representation, as residents are represented by the county commissioners.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he wouldn’t support a road tax. About a year ago, he said, he and Ken Schwartz – who was then a road commissioner – tried to get a group together to work on this issue, but Sizemore didn’t think that had happened. So he didn’t think enough work went into the current proposal, and he’d like to take more time to work on it.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) told commissioners he had modified his original resolution to address concerns that the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, had laid out in a confidential memo to the board. The proposed millage is now 0.4 mills, rather than the full 1 mill. The resolution includes a list of proposed projects, and notes that this process is starting earlier than the board’s annual meeting because of the harsh winter.

Smith then formally withdrew his earlier resolution from May 7, and moved the new modified resolution for consideration.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Smith for his work on this proposal. LaBarre echoed that thanks, but said he wanted to wait a bit to see what the state legislature does regarding road funding. The process required by Act 283 gives the board some breathing room, he said, “and hopefully it’s a moot issue.”

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) agreed with Sizemore that the issue needed to be studied further. More funding is expected from the state, and a community in his district – Scio Township – recently approved a special assessment for roads, he noted. If the county levies a road tax, it would be a bit hard on those taxpayers, he added.

Martinez-Kratz wondered if Hedger had time to review Smith’s new resolution, to see if there were any concerns. Based on the previous memo from Hedger, levying an Act 283 millage wasn’t legal, Martinez-Kratz said. [The memo from Hedger was not released to the public.]

Regarding the list of projects from the road commission, Martinez-Kratz said not all communities would get funding, so some of his constituents think that’s inequitable.

Dan Smith (R-District 2), standing, consults with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger while Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office looks on.

Sizemore said that as the board’s liaison to the road commission, he’d be happy to work with county commissioners and road commissioners to come up with a plan. He didn’t think they could count on the state.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) reminded the public that this effort was driven by the road commission, not by the county board – though he noted that Dan Smith has been an advocate for road funding.

Peterson said all local communities have the ability to address these road issues, and he wanted to work with communities within the county to help address their needs. But it’s the road commission that has responsibility, he said.

There isn’t any urgency to levy a tax now, Peterson continued. The board needs to be patient and see what comes out of Lansing, he said.

Peterson also noted that Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, which he represents, already have high taxes. What’s more, the boards of Willow Run and Ypsilanti public schools are considering levying tax increases this summer of 2.8 mills and 1.2 mills, respectively. The state passed legislation that enables school districts to levy millages for capital improvement debt retirement without voter approval – which Peterson called a ridiculous law.

In addition, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township will have another new millage, along with Ann Arbor, that was passed by voters earlier in May for public transit. In total, it’s “a huge increase in new taxes,” Peterson said. “And believe me – I’m no rock star conservative on taxes. I believe you pay for what you get.” However, Peterson said the communities that he represents – Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Superior Township – would be hard-pressed to handle yet another tax increase for roads.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Peterson indicated that he’d be interested in exploring the option of bonding to fund roads.

Dan Smith argued that there are few funding options available to the county to pay for road repair, and that the need for additional revenues is critical because the roads are in such bad shape. The proposed millage is only for 0.4 mills, he stressed – not the full 1 mill.

The easiest option is to do nothing, Smith said – to do more studies and plans, or wait for Lansing. “The reality is that the roads are terrible,” he said. Even if Lansing provides more funding – and he wasn’t hopeful about that – it won’t be enough for Washtenaw County. Smith pointed out that this would be an annual levy, and if there’s no need for it in 2015, the county wouldn’t levy it.

Smith also noted that the millage is tied to the road commission’s plan, which is similar to one that the road commission brought forward in the fall of 2013. There’s nothing surprising about it, he said.

Many communities don’t have the taxing ability to pay for maintenance of the county’s major roads that run through their jurisdiction, Smith said. The best example is the six miles of Austin Road in Bridgewater Township. It’s a major road in a township with the lowest taxable values in the county. So some communities just don’t have the capacity to deal with these major roads, he said.

Smith also didn’t think it was fair to require, for example, Northfield Township, Webster Township and Ann Arbor Township to take care of roads like Newport, North Territorial and Pontiac Trail – “roads that the much broader community uses,” he said. Some of these roads, like Newport, cross multiple jurisdictions. For these reasons, major roads should be taken care of by the county, Smith argued.

“This is a bad plan, for lots and lots of reasons,” Smith continued. “I would even say it might even be a terrible plan. The only thing that might be worse than this bad plan is to continue doing what we’ve been doing, which is absolutely nothing. The roads are crumbling underneath us.” There will not be a perfect plan, no matter how long they talk about it, he said.

Roy Townsend, managing director of the Washtenaw County road commission.

There are two problems with a voter-approved levy, Smith said. First, it wouldn’t be on the ballot until November. Second, it would likely be for a larger amount and a longer period – like a half-mill for four years or more. The other problem is one that Conan Smith had raised during the May 7 discussion, Dan Smith noted – competing interests for millages that might go on the ballot. He pointed out that the parks & recreation operations millage renewal will be on the November 2014 ballot. Former commissioner Barbara Bergman had mentioned other possibilities for millages, he noted, such as funding for human services.

An Act 283 millage would be at a lower rate for only one year, Smith said. Even though he didn’t like it, “it is the least-bad option I think we have right now.”

Sizemore expressed frustration at not doing anything, then proposed sitting down with road commissioners and managing director Roy Townsend to figure out what to do.

Martinez-Kratz replied to Smith’s comments, saying that if it’s a bad or even terrible plan, then “it’s not worth spending taxpayers’ money on.”

Peterson asked if communities would have the ability to opt-out of an Act 283 levy. Hedger replied that there is no opt-out option.

Peterson then asked if any other local leaders – from city councils or township boards – had contacted the county in support of an Act 283 millage. He felt that if other elected officials were supportive, they’d be there tonight. All of the communication he’d received was urging him not to support an Act 283 millage, Peterson said. It’s difficult for him, especially during an election year, to take responsibility for a road tax when other elected officials aren’t also supporting it.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked how short the road commission was in terms of funding related to winter road maintenance. Townsend replied that the county had received some additional funding from the state to cover some of the winter overages, like salt usage, diesel fuel and overtime costs. “But what they didn’t really give us money for is to fix the roads,” he said.

Road conditions have continued to decline, Townsend said. He pointed to a handout he’d provided to commissioners, showing that Michigan ranks last among all 50 states in state highway expenditures per capita. The data was from 2011, but since then the state hasn’t increased its funding, he noted. Most states are putting in at least double the amount of per-capita funding for roads. For example, Pennsylvania’s per-capita spending was $557 compared to $135 in Michigan.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Townsend said the county’s infrastructure was in poor condition prior to this harsh winter, with deep freezes and thaws that made things even worse. Generally, the road commission uses about 400 tons of cold patch. This year, the commission used 1,400 tons – enough to fill about 300,000 potholes. These are temporary fixes, Townsend said.

Some of the projects on the plan that the road commission has presented to the board this year have been on previous plans presented since 2011, Townsend said – like work on North Territorial and Scio Church roads, among others. The plan would improve 44 miles of road, used by over 100,000 people every day. “So I think 100,000 people would probably appreciate that you could fix those 44 miles of road,” he said. The tax for an average $200,000 home would be just $40, he noted.

Townsend said that any state legislative action likely wouldn’t result in funding until 2015, so the roads would go through another winter. “And god help us what it’s going to look like next spring,” he said. There’s a short window for construction, he noted.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said the upshot is that the roads are terrible, and they won’t get better as the county waits for legislative action from Lansing or for voters to weigh in this November. There’s an opportunity now, he said, with only a modest hit to taxpayers and an immediate benefit to the community.

C. Smith also responded to the public commentary about taxation without representation. That phrase emerged in a different context, he said. The people are represented in this process, he noted. The elected county commissioners have a duty to represent the interests of their constituents, to listen carefully to their needs. “This is a representative process by design,” he said.

Regarding the road tax issue, both sides have been well-articulated, C. Smith said. If there’s any time to do something like this without a vote of the people, it’s now – just a short time before an election. Because all of the board seats are up for election this year, Smith said, residents will have a way to weigh in on this decision, albeit indirectly. “This is the most defensible moment that we have” to levy a tax that doesn’t require voter approval, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) spoke next, noting that the levy couldn’t occur until December, so there’s time to figure out what their other options are. She wants to take that time.

C. Smith asked Townsend how the finances would work with an Act 283 tax. Townsend explained that the road commission would want some kind of contractual agreement with the county before it bid out work this summer. It would be similar to how townships contract with the road commission, and then later reimburse the road commission for the work. It’s a legal question to be determined if Act 283 funds can be used for reimbursement, Townsend noted.

Dan Smith made a distinction between “funding” and “financing.” The funding mechanism would be through Act 283. If the board passed the road tax resolution that night, it would be a commitment to provide that funding when the tax is levied in December.

At this point, Dan Smith distributed another resolution – dated Oct. 15, 2014. According to Hedger, the board’s official vote to levy an Act 283 tax must occur in the fall, Smith noted. The draft resolution he distributed would ratify the funding decision regarding the 0.4 mills. The draft resolution also would give the board the option of levying an additional 0.6 mills. [.pdf of Oct. 15, 2014 draft resolution]

These decisions about funding are separate from how the county actually handles the financing, D. Smith explained. Sometimes the county issues tax anticipation notes – that’s what this would be, he said. There might be other options, like using the general fund’s fund balance or short-term borrowing. But the funding would still come through the Act 283 levy in December.

D. Smith also addressed Peterson’s comments about the lack of any other local leaders at the May 21 meeting. He said that one reason is because townships have no authority or responsibility for roads. It’s the county board that has the tools for funding and fixing the roads countywide. He acknowledged that some townships have been very aggressive in their road programs, and some municipalities have vastly better roads as a result.

At this point, Rabhi called the question – a procedural move designed to end discussion and move toward a vote. Commissioners unanimously approved calling the question.

Outcome on main resolution to levy an 0.4-mill tax under Act 283: The resolution failed on a 2-6 vote, with support only from Dan Smith and Conan Smith. Alicia Ping was absent.

Road Tax: Roads Funding Committee

Yousef Rabhi then proposed a resolution to create a roads funding committee. He read aloud the resolution that he’d written by hand during the previous deliberations.

An excerpt from Yousef Rabhi’s handwritten resolution regarding a roads funding committee.

The committee would consist of seven members: (1) a road commissioner or designee; (2) the road commission managing director or designee; (3) the county board’s road commission liaison; (4) one additional county commissioner; (5) a position representing townships; (6) a position representing incorporated municipalities; and (7) a member of the general public.

The county administrator would help provide administrative support to the committee. The resolution also stated that the road commission could present a road funding plan at the board’s annual meeting in the fall “as Act 283 of 1909 provides.”

Conan Smith said he appreciated the sentiment, but wouldn’t support it. The board just received recommendations from a previous committee that had worked on road commission issues, he noted – that happened on May 7, 2014. He noted that leaders of local government “made it abundantly clear at that point that they don’t think the county board of commissioners had a role to play in their road funding situation.”

There was a specific opportunity this year to intervene in funding, C. Smith said, because of the harsh winter. But he didn’t believe that road maintenance should be a higher priority than other things, like public safety, human services, public health and environmental health.

The board had just voted not to get involved by not levying an Act 283 tax, he said. “I think that should be the end of the conversation.”

Ronnie Peterson asked for an explanation about what the board had just voted on, and what Rabhi had subsequently proposed. Felicia Brabec explained that the board had rejected a resolution to levy the Act 283 tax. Now they were considering a proposal to form a road funding committee. Peterson said he just wanted the public to be clear about what had happened.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Andy LaBarre said that to him, the Act 283 issue was one of timing. None of these options are good, he added: “We’re choosing to pursue bad or less bad.” He felt the state legislature had the potential to shock everyone and do something proactive. If that doesn’t happen, it would be possible to consider the Act 283 levy this fall, he noted. If they do eventually levy the millage, it would help but wouldn’t be a comprehensive solution, LaBarre said.

Dan Smith noted that there are few mechanisms available for road funding – either levy a property tax under Act 283, or take a bond or millage proposal to the voters. The county can’t institute a gas tax or vehicle registration fee, he said. The board can spend the next six months talking about their options, but “barring some extraordinary action from Lansing, our options in six months are going to be exactly what they are now,” D. Smith said. And levying Act 283 in the fall “isn’t going to be any nicer than it is right now.”

Clearly frustrated, D. Smith said that instead of acting, the board is doing what government always does – forming yet another committee to study it more. The issue has already been studied, he said. “Nobody wants to touch this hot potato.”

Conan Smith observed that the county could issue general obligation bonds, which wouldn’t require a voter referendum.

Peterson noted that levying Act 283 was difficult for him during an election cycle. He said he was progressive so he didn’t worry about winning over conservatives, but he was interested in saving people’s tax dollars. Citizens haven’t brought forward this proposal, he said, nor has the request come from local community leaders.

Outcome: The resolution creating a roads funding committee was given initial approval a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith and Conan Smith. Alicia Ping was absent. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Road Tax: Public Hearing

Later in the evening – after the road tax resolution was defeated – the board held a public hearing on the issue, which had been set at the May 7 meeting. Two people spoke.

Thomas Partridge said it was important to find funding for road repair. No business wants to locate in a county that doesn’t maintain its roads. Voters need to be educated about the importance of this issue, as well as other concerns like affordable health care, public transportation, and affordable housing. The state legislature backs away from supporting these critical needs. Partridge supported Democrat Mark Schauer for governor, saying that Schauer would support these issues.

Sandra Carolan told commissioners that she pays the taxes for her parents’ property in Chelsea. She was thankful for the discussion, but she can’t ask her 91-year-old mother who’s on a fixed income to support an increased millage “for a solution that really is just a band-aid.” New technology needs to be used on the roads. She said if she goes to the store to buy a blouse and only finds bad blouses, she doesn’t buy one at all.

Parks Millage Renewal

Voters will be asked to renew a 10-year countywide parks and recreation operations millage in November. On May 21, commissioners were asked initial approval to put the request on the Nov. 4 ballot.

During the May 21 county board meeting, Bob Tetens – director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation – sat next to the daughter of county commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2353 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.2 million annually. That’s about half of the parks & recreation annual operating expenses of $6.7 million. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations. [.pdf of staff memo]

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

Comments were brief before the May 21 vote. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said the parks staff do wonderful work. He thanked everyone who serves on the parks & recreation commission.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to put the millage renewal on the November ballot. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Board of Health

On May 21, commissioners were asked to take an initial step to create a board of health, an entity that would prove advice on public health issues for the county.

A description of the board’s duties is outlined in a staff memo that accompanied the May 21 resolution:

The purpose and role of a Washtenaw County Board of Health will be to identify public health problems and concerns in the community, establish health priorities, and advise the Board of Commissioners and the Health Department on issues and possible solutions. The Board of Health will serve as advocates and educators for public health services and policies. The Board of Health will provide oversight and guidance to the Health Department, and will recommend a program of basic health services to the Board of Commissioners.

The new Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals and requests for variances from the local public health and environmental regulations established under the Public Health Code. The Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals regarding the suspension or revocation of food service licenses.

The resolution creating the health board also dissolves an existing existing environmental health code appeals board and the hearing board for the Health Department Food Service Regulation. The duties of those boards would be absorbed by the new health board. [.pdf of staff memo]

The recommended size is 10 members, including one ex-officio representative from the county board of commissioners. According to the staff memo, appointments could represent “health service delivery (physicians, dentists, mental health practitioners, administrators); environmental health and conservation, land use planning, food service and nutrition, academia, K-12 education, philanthropy, social service delivery, legal services, and consumers of public health services.”

Members would be compensated for attending each meeting. The total cost for the health board, including in-kind staff support, is estimated at $19,000 annually. The board of health would be expected to convene for the first time in October 2014.

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s public health officer, attended the May 21 meeting but did not formally address the board. There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Initial approval was given on a 7-1 vote, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. Alicia Ping was absent. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Oil Drilling

Commissioners considered a resolution to oppose oil exploration and drilling in the county. The resolution was brought forward by board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) of Ann Arbor, working with Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1). Rabhi had alerted the board about his plans at the previous meeting on May 7. He said he’d met with residents from the west side of the county about the threat of oil extraction. West Bay Exploration has applied to the state for a drilling permit in Scio Township, and residents are afraid that the state will grant the permit.

The two resolved clauses state:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Washtenaw County, Michigan:

1. Opposes said oil exploration and drilling, and any future oil exploration and drilling in this area and other areas within the boundaries of Washtenaw County; and

2. Respectfully requests that the Michigan Supervisor of Wells, as part of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, deny the permit application to drill the Wing 1-15 well as proposed; and

3. Hereby requests that the State of Michigan and federal legislators move to enact legislation and improve regulations to reduce the risks to public health, safety, welfare and the environment posed by the oil and gas industry, and re-commit to promoting and protecting quality of life, our economic well-being, and our environment through less reliance on non-renewable energy resources.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted as the County’s official comment on said oil drilling permit and application by the Clerk, to each elected official representing Washtenaw County in Lansing, the Office of the Governor, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a similar resolution opposing oil exploration in Scio Township.

Oil Drilling: Public Commentary

Two people spoke on the topic during public commentary. Gus Teschke from the advocacy group Citizens for Oil-Free Backyards thanked Yousef Rabhi and Kent Martinez-Kratz for their work on the resolution opposing oil exploration and drilling in Washtenaw County. Citizens for Oil-Free Backyards was formed because of a proposed well at Miller and West Delhi, he said. If the company finds oil, then there could be a lot of oil wells in that area. That could impact individual residential wells as well as the Huron River, which provides 85% of Ann Arbor’s drinking water. Accidents can happen, and people are concerned about that, he said. About 1,200 people live within a mile of the proposed oil well, and are concerned about their health, noise and other issues. He hoped commissioners would support the resolution.

Brian Herron, a Scio Township resident, spoke during public commentary to oppose drilling in the county.

During the final opportunity for public commentary, Brian Herron introduced himself as a business owner in Ann Arbor and resident of Scio Township. Residents there find it very concerning that there’s a proposal to drill so close to residential properties. The proposed drilling would be less than a mile from the Huron River, he noted. It seemed inappropriate to allow drilling in a residential area. It doesn’t make sense, and he urged commissioners to support the resolution that opposes drilling.

Oil Drilling: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said that for him, this is a fundamental issue of protecting the environment in Washtenaw County, making sure the air, water and soil stayed healthy for generations to come. It’s time to take a stand, even though the county doesn’t have the ability to stop it outright, he said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he normally supports economic development so that residents have opportunities for jobs. But he’s in total opposition to drilling in this county. He wondered if there were any supporters of drilling at that night’s meeting, or any company representatives to talk about how the county would benefit from drilling. [No one came forward.] It seemed like they’d want to present their case to the public, he said.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), who represents an area that includes Scio Township, said he had attended a public forum about the proposed drilling. Someone had suggested being proactive regarding oil rights, rather than waiting for oil companies to secure them. He liked the idea, which entails having a community group purchase the oil rights and hold them in trust.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she’d visited the Irish Hills area near Jackson, where there’s been an increase in oil exploration. So she’s seen firsthand the economic, health and environmental impacts on a community. It’s very harmful, she said, and people there were distraught. It’s also frustrating, she added, because communities have little recourse and authority over these issues.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) characterized it as “a total NIMBY issue.” The problem is that no one in Lansing will listen to this resolution, he said, but he supported it. They also need to find ways to communicate with the state legislature, which he said has robbed local communities of their ability to make decisions regarding oil drilling.

Rabhi agreed that the issue was one of local control – and not just for oil drilling, but also for natural gas extraction. That’s the campaign that needs to be waged, he said. “We need legislators who respect local control.” The state should set a baseline standard for environmental health, but each community should have the right to set even stricter standards for cleaner air, water and other aspects of the environment, he said.

Martinez-Kratz agreed that it might be a NIMBY issue, but he argued that almost anything could be called NIMBY – like zoning and noise ordinances. The drilling proposal to him is alarming because it’s within a mile of the tributary that leads to Ann Arbor’s drinking water supply. He pointed to the 2010 oil spill in the Kalamazoo River that’s still not completely cleaned up. Even though there’s very little that the county government can do about this proposal, the board needs to take a stand, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) opposed the resolution, noting that it does nothing and addresses an issue that’s outside of the board’s purview. The law is extraordinarily clear, he noted – that a county can’t control or regulate drilling. They might all wish that it was within their purview, and the concerns about drilling are valid, he said. “I certainly don’t want an oil well in my backyard either.” Concerns over environmental impacts are legitimate too. “Unfortunately, the oil is where it is, and there’s nothing any of us can do to move where the oil is located,” he said.

Smith said the oil has been untouched for years, but has finally become economically feasible to extract. That’s unfortunate, but it’s not under the county’s control, he stressed. There’s a very simple way to shut down all the drilling in the county, Smith added. “The property owners can simply refuse to lease their land to the oil companies. Problem solved.” But these property owners have signed leases with oil companies, and are getting money for that, he noted. They can put that money toward paying for their house, or a college education, or buying things or going out to eat. So there’s an economic benefit to Washtenaw County in that way, Smith said.

Smith reported that he’s recently heard about a Michigan chapter of a national service organization that had received over $500,000 annually from oil revenues, which in turn support local programs. This is an extremely complicated issue, he said, with lots of pros and cons. If commissioners don’t like the current law, they can take their case to Lansing, Smith added. There are six state legislators representing Washtenaw County, he added, including some that are “extraordinary close to members of this body.” [That was a reference to state Sen. Rebekah Warren, who is married to commissioner Conan Smith.]

D. Smith said he didn’t vote against a similar resolution opposing a mineral mining proposal in Lyndon Township, because the county parks & recreation commission is interested purchasing that property – so there was an option that the county could pursue. [Smith stated "present" during that vote, which took place on March 19, 2014.]

But in this case, the resolution serves no purpose and wastes and extraordinary amount of time, D. Smith said. “I really wish we would stop campaigning from the board table,” he concluded, saying there are much more effective ways to advocate for change.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that Smith had been remarkably consistent in his position regarding these kinds of resolutions, which don’t have the force of law. Given that track record, it would be great to have Smith on board with this resolution, LaBarre said. “I think it would add an extra amount of credence to this.” It’s an issue of significance that they can all find ways to dislike, he said, and to express their displeasure. He hoped Smith would consider bending on this.

Rabhi also thanked Smith for his consistency, noting that Smith’s opposition wasn’t about the content of the issue, but rather about the county’s purview. But Rabhi said he had no problem campaigning from the board table, adding that he was campaigning for public health, the environment, and the welfare of county residents. He thought the county did have a role to play, as local governments are allowed to submit comments through the MDEQ’s public process. “It’s not for political gain – it’s for the community,” Rabhi said.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith. Alicia Ping was absent, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. was not in the room when the vote was taken.

2014 Budget Calendar

The board considered a resolution setting a timeline for budget work in 2014. [.pdf of budget calendar resolution] Highlights are:

• July 24, 2013: Board approved budget priorities. (That document was subsequently amended on Aug. 7, 2013.)
• May 7, 2014: Board authorized county administrator to seek consultant for work on budget priorities. The review and selection process for that consultant is underway.
• June 5, 2014: Budget discussion on the board’s working session agenda, to discuss the status of any general fund surplus or shortfall.
• July 9, 2014: County administrator presents recommendation for using surplus or addressing shortfall, based on board priorities. Board to take initial vote on recommendation.
• Aug. 6, 2014: Final vote set for surplus/shortfall recommendation.

The county had a 2013 general fund surplus of $3.9 million. County administrator Verna McDaniel has recommended to keep that amount in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves, to meet the county’s goal of having reserves that total 20% of the general fund budget.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith (D-District 9) began the discussion by saying there were some foundational problems with this approach. One of those problems is that the county administrator has made a recommendation in advance of discussing this issue with the board, he said. The disposition of taxpayer dollars should be made by people elected to make those decisions, Smith said.

In fact, Smith added, since McDaniel has already made a recommendation, much of the work outlined in the timeline isn’t necessary. They should just discuss her recommendation at the board’s June meeting, and take a final vote in July.

Smith didn’t think the board had created an open and transparent process for the community or for county staff to give input on priorities and programs. The timeline also doesn’t give direction to the board about how commissioners can effectively engage in setting priorities for allocating surplus revenues. He expressed frustration that this process “is actually turning out to be little more than a rubber stamp of a decision that’s already been proposed by the administration.”

“I feel personally let down,” Smith continued. Part of his support for a four-year budget had been based on taking this process seriously, he said, and to “engage holistically” with the community in determining how to spend a budget surplus. “I feel personally frustrated because I was a huge part of developing the budgets that resulted in these surpluses,” Smith said. He added that he’d talked to department heads who were asked to make cuts, and had told them there would be discussion about how to get back some of that money if there were surpluses. But now it sounded like the decision has already been made, he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) – chair of the ways & means committee, who has been leading this process – replied that she sees things differently, and she was sorry that Smith was frustrated. She thought the process did take into account all of the things that Smith wanted to see. Hiring a consultant would help make that happen, she said, by engaging commissioners, staff and the community in moving the needle on their priorities.

Brabec said that McDaniel has shared her recommendation, and now it’s time for the board to discuss it in a very public way. It’s probably not happening as quickly as Smith would like, she noted, and she’d also like to move more quickly, but they’re doing it as quickly as they can.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he agreed with some of Smith’s comments. He asked about a handout that Smith had provided to commissioners. [It had not been distributed to the public.] Smith replied that it was part of an email that he’d sent to commissioners in early May. [.pdf of Smith's email]

Smith asked if there was any expectation that the $3.9 million surplus would be used for any purpose other than the fund balance. Brabec said her expectation is that McDaniel’s recommendation will be discussed. “I don’t know what the fruits of that discussion will be,” she said.

Outcome: Earlier in the meeting – prior to this discussion – the resolution had been approved unanimously as part of the board’s consent agenda.

SPARK Grant

Commissioners were asked to approve an application for a $940,000 federal grant that the county would make on behalf of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency. Funds would be used to help redevelop the former General Motors Willow Run Powertrain plant in Ypsilanti Township for use as a connected vehicle testing facility.

The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant is available through the National Infrastructure Investments Program of the U.S. Department of Transportation. SPARK asked that the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED) act as the lead applicant and fiscal agent. OCED already submitted the grant application – on April 25, 2014. According to a staff memo, “due to the grant application deadline, it was not possible to bring the matter before the [board of commissioners] for approval prior to application submission.”

The project is a partnership with SPARK, the University of Michigan, the redevelopment firm Walbridge Aldinger and Ypsilanti Township, among others. According to a staff memo, the facility could lead to the creation of up to 7,800 new jobs in the skilled trades and research sectors. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Initial approval for the grant application was approved unanimously. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders. Initial approval had been granted at the board’s May 7, 2014 meeting, when the board had heard from several nonprofit and community leaders on this topic.

The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. [.pdf of staff memo and list of funding allocations]

Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation will now be an additional funder in this process.

There was no discussion of this item.

Outcome: Final approval to the coordinated funding allocations was unanimous.

Appointments

The board took action on one appointment: Nicole Sandberg to the food policy council. Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) brought the nomination forward. He reported that three applications had been received and reviewed by the council, who had recommended the selection of Sandberg.

The May 21 agenda originally included a slot to appoint someone to the board of public works, but Rabhi pulled the item, saying he wanted to solicit input from existing members of the board of public works.

Outcome: Nicole Sandberg was appointed to the food policy council.

Millage Rate

Washtenaw County commissioners were asked to take the first step in setting the county’s 2014 general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate.

Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (for operations at 0.2353 mills and capital improvements at 0.2367 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate levied in July to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2013. [.pdf of staff memo]

This is an annual procedural action, not a vote to levy new taxes. 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.

The rates will be included on the July tax bills for property owners in Washtenaw County.

A public hearing on the millage rates is set for June 4.

Outcome: Commissioners took a unanimous initial vote to set the millage rate. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Proclamations

There were four resolutions honoring individuals or organizations: (1) a resolution of appreciation for Nancy Wheeler, the first African American woman to serve as a Washtenaw County trial court judge and who is retiring this year (she is the aunt of county commissioner Conan Smith); (2) a resolution of appreciation for Lynn Kneer, who is retiring after working as a judicial coordinator for judge Francis Wheeler; (3) a resolution proclaiming June 2014 as Relay for Life Month in Washtenaw County; and (4) a resolution honoring the 20th anniversary of the Interfaith Round Table of Washtenaw County.

Outcome: All resolutions were passed unanimously.

Communications & Commentary

During the May 21 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Success by Six

Ypsilanti Township resident Shannon Novara, program manager at Washtenaw Success by Six Great Start Collaborative, thanked the board for its leadership in supporting the youngest members of the county. The nonprofit’s mission is to make sure every child in Washtenaw County enters kindergarten ready to succeed. She described the services that the nonprofit offers, and thanked its partners. Specifically, she thanked the county for its support of the annual Touch a Truck fundraiser that was held on May 10 at Ypsilanti Community High School. At least 1,250 children and their families participated, she said. She thanked commissioners and staff for their help, giving special recognition to Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) for his work.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (left early), Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2353 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.2 million annually. That’s about half of the parks & rec annual operating expenses of $6.7 million. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations. [.pdf of staff memo]

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

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

I prefer to make a funny face and ask: How is a judicial candidate like the city park system? Or for a question that sounds less like the set-up to a punch line: What’s the deal with downtown Ann Arbor and its connection to the art millage and the library bond proposal?

Voting results from two Nov. 6, 2012 proposals on the Ann Arbor ballot: The Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal and the public art millage. Maps do not include the portion of the library district outside the city boundary. Maps show only in-person votes, not including absentee voters. Shades of green through white indicate a majority voting yes. Shades of lavender through purple indicate a majority voting no. (Maps by The Chronicle.)

Of course, politicians are at least partly right when they say that the voters have spoken. But what did the voters actually say? It’s easy to make true statements about voter sentiment – if you stick to the text of the ballot.

For example, in the non-incumbent race for judge of the 22nd Circuit Court, more voters preferred to have Carol Kuhnke decide future Washtenaw County court cases than to have Jim Fink decide them. You can tell that just from the ballot and from the results. But it’s possible to make a stronger claim: More voters preferred the kind of person Kuhnke is – a candidate endorsed by the city of Ann Arbor Democratic Party. And to support that claim, we’d need to look at other results, like those from the presidential election.

Or by way of another example, the election results indicate that a majority of Ann Arbor voters said they do not want the city to levy an 0.1 mill tax to pay for art in public places. That’s all you can tell from the ballot question and the results. To make stronger claims – related, for example, to what (if anything) voters were trying to say about the existing Percent for Art program – you’d need to find some other way to explore the content of voters’ minds.

The same goes for the Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal and the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage renewal. “Do not tax us to make the bond payments for a new downtown library building, but please continue to tax us to pay for city park needs.” That’s all voters said. They didn’t say anything about their favorite books, or which city park is the best. (By the way, it’s West Park, located in Ward 5, which is indisputably the highest-numbered ward in the city.)

Yet we’d like to divine something more from the results than just the results.

This column, which is heavy on impressionistic conclusions based on maps, and light on rigorous statistical analysis, begins with mapped illustrations of some basics. For example, mostly Democrats live in the eastern portion of Washtenaw County. And in Ann Arbor, Wards 2 and 4 are the strongest city wards for Republicans – even though those wards also lean Democratic. That’s still true 20 years after Ann Arbor’s ward boundaries were drawn to achieve that effect.

The column concludes by illustrating a possible geographic connection between the failed public art millage and the failed downtown library bond proposal – namely, downtown Ann Arbor. 

Ann Arbor City Ward Boundaries

The ward boundaries in the city of Ann Arbor underwent their last substantial revision in the early 1990s. The goal of the redistricting was to establish three heavily Democratic wards (1, 3 and 5), leaving two Republican-leaning wards (2 and 4). Comparing the ward boundaries in Map 1 and the results of the presidential race in Map 2, the ward-wise distribution of Democrats and Republicans has remained fairly stable. Except in the northwest precincts of Ward 4 – where the Ward 5 Democratic strength bleeds down into Ward 4 – the ward boundaries are reflected clearly in the presidential results.

Map 1: Ann Arbor ward boundaries.

Map 2: Ann Arbor 2012 presidential election results (in-person voting only.) Darker blue reflects greater strength for Democrat Barack Obama.

Judges, Dems, Parks

Judicial races are non-partisan. But in the non-incumbent race between Carol Kuhnke and Jim Fink, the local Democratic Party endorsed Kuhnke. And Fink himself, during a candidate forum hosted by the Democratic Party, acknowledged that if it were a partisan legislative race, ”you would not even think about voting for me.” So it was not a secret that Kuhnke was “the Democrat” and Fink “the Republican” in the race. Fink’s pitch to Democrats as voters was that he would follow the law and as a judge set aside his personal views. And in fact, several high-profile Democrats supported his campaign.

In Map 3, the results within the city of Ann Arbor show that support for Kuhnke shows a vaguely similar pattern to the presidential results. But it was not by any means an exact mirroring of the pattern of support received by the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama. In fact, the geographic distribution of Kuhnke’s support within the city of Ann Arbor seems to resemble more closely support for the parks millage (Map 4) than it does support for Obama.

Map 3: Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor city results for 22nd Circuit Court non-incumbent judicial race (in-person voting results only). Darker blue areas reflect stronger support for Carol Kuhnke, who defeated Jim Fink.

Map 4: Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor city results for parks maintenance & capital improvements millage renewal (in-person voting results only). Darker green areas indicate greater support for the parks millage.

Countywide Judicial Race

Countywide, the race between Kuhnke and Fink (Map 6) also showed a roughly similar pattern to the presidential race (Map 5), but it was not by any stretch an exact mirroring.

Map 5: Washtenaw County presidential results for the Nov. 6, 2012 election. Blue shades indicate a majority for Democrat Barack Obama. Red shades indicate support for Republican Mitt Romney.

Map 6: Nov. 6, 2012 Washtenaw County results for 22nd Circuit Court non-incumbent judicial race. Blue shades indicate a majority for Carol Kuhnke. Red indicates support for Jim Fink.

So I think it’s fair to conclude that a substantial number of people voted for the kind of person that they perceived Kuhnke to be (a Democrat, with whatever associations that comes with) as contrasted with the kind of person they perceived Fink to be (a Republican, with whatever associations that comes with). But it’s also fair to conclude that many voters appealed to something other than the “party” in making their choice.

Art and the Library: Downtown Connection

I don’t think the geographic distribution of results in the presidential and judicial races is particularly surprising, even if they do make for pretty maps.

But the distribution of results within the city of Ann Arbor for the public art millage (Map 7) and the Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal (Map 8) reveals something interesting: One factor underlying voter sentiment on those two questions seems to be proximity to the downtown.

Both proposals drew their strongest support from areas near the geographic center of the city. Opposition was strongest in areas further away from the geographic center. For the library bond proposal, which would have funded construction of a new downtown library building, that’s not surprising. For the public art millage, it’s not as obvious that this should be the case.

One possible theory is that folks who live in or near downtown are just more “cosmopolitan” and “arty” and for that reason supported the millage. More plausible, I think, is the idea that greater support in the core areas really reflects less opposition – and that the opposition was based in part on the perception that the public art millage was all about only the downtown. That perception could be based on the fact that the two highest profile, most expensive, and most controversial pieces of public art produced by the city’s current Percent for Art program are located downtown: Herbert Dreiseitl’s fountain sculpture, and Ed Carpenter’s interior piece, both at the new Justice Center. [Carpenter's hanging sculpture has been commissioned, but not yet installed.]

Perhaps some of the votes against the public art millage might be seen as votes against a downtown-centric art program. The Ann Arbor public art commission has recently been working toward an approach that would be more geographically balanced – based on quadrants of the city. And a revision to the city’s public art ordinance that’s expected to be brought forward at the Nov. 19 city council meeting also has a geographic component. The proposed revision to the ordinance includes a requirement that councilmembers for the ward where a piece of art is proposed be notified of that proposal.

To the extent that the results on these two proposals reflect something about attitudes toward the downtown, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority should take notice. Part of the logic behind enacting a downtown development authority – with its ability to “capture” taxes of other jurisdictions – is to pay for investments in the downtown area that wouldn’t otherwise be made.

Those investments wouldn’t otherwise be made, because the downtown would likely lose every single time, if the use of those taxes were put through the regular budgeting process. That’s because voters in the periphery (who’ll vote like any voters at least partly in a self-interested way) outnumber those in the core. The enactment of a downtown development authority is a mechanism for enforcing the discipline of making infrastructure investments in the downtown, without subjecting them to the relatively volatile annual city budgeting process.

I think one of the minor lessons of the 2012 general election in Ann Arbor is that the case for investments in the downtown is not obvious to many voters, and will need to be made on an ongoing basis.

Map 7: Results of the Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor public art millage. Maps show only in-person votes, not including absentee voters. Shades of green through white indicate a majority voting yes. Shades of lavender through purple indicate a majority voting no.

Map 8: Results for the Nov. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal (in-person voting results only). Results from townships outside Ann Arbor are not included. Shades of green through white indicate a majority voting yes. Shades of lavender through purple indicate a majority voting no.

Links to Maps

Links to the dynamic maps built by The Chronicle on geocommons.com:

• 2012 Ann Arbor city parks millage
• 2012 Ann Arbor public art millage
• 2012 Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal for a new downtown library
• 2012 Washtenaw County non-incumbent 22nd Circuit Court judicial race
• 2012 Washtenaw County U.S. presidential race results
• 2012 Ann Arbor city non-incumbent 22nd Circuit Court judicial race
• 2012 Ann Arbor city U.S. presidential race results

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of civic affairs like elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Although last year one councilmember had expressed interest in possibly funding all parks expenses from the millage, the council as a whole did not subsequently express much interest in that scenario, which would have required roughly doubling the millage rate.

The park maintenance and capital improvements millage, approved by voters in 2006 for six years, replaced two separate millages, which were previously levied at around 0.5 mill apiece for a total of 0.914 mills. The single millage that replaced the two separate taxes – one for maintenance and one for capital improvements – was approved by voters at a rate of 1.1 mill. That compares with the just over 6 mills that are levied by the city to support the general fund.

The use of the park maintenance and capital improvements millage 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.

However, the policy expressed in the resolution has been revised over the years.  The policy as reflected in the 2006 resolution had also stipulated that the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) program would receive a 3% increase in funds from the millage each year – the policy had been based on an assumption that millage revenues would increase. During approval of the FY 2011 budget at its May 17, 2010 meeting, the council eliminated NAP’s automatic 3% increase, and reset NAP funding to levels proportionate with other programs.

And at the council’s May 16, 2011 meeting, councilmembers voted to modify the 2006 policy to allow for use of non-millage funds to count as general fund support for the parks system, even if those funds do not come from the general fund. That modification addressed a provision in the 2006 policy that essentially requires support for parks drawn from the general fund not to be diminished any more than the rest of the general fund.

A mill is equal to $1 for each $1,000 of taxable value for a property. For a hypothetical house worth $200,000, with a state equalized value and a taxable value of $100,000, each mill of tax on that property would generate $100 in revenue. In ballpark numbers, 1 mill of property tax in Ann Arbor generates around $4.5 million of revenue annually.

Support for Ann Arbor’s parks system is split between two basic areas of the city’s organization: (1) community services, and (2) public services. The community services area is headed by Sumedh Bahl. The public services area is led by interim public services area administrator Craig Hupy.

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

A key point to the revision includes an additional provision that “for the purpose of this resolution all funds other than the Millage which are used to support Parks and Recreation system activities shall be considered the same as City’s General Fund support.” The proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 calls for using money from the METRO Act fund and the city’s stormwater fund to pay for certain parks operations, which the city would like to count as general fund support.

The new provision in the policy helps the city’s planned budget for FY 2012 conform with another administrative policy requirement – that the amount of general fund parks support not decrease any more than other parts of the general fund.

A further amendment would have changed the standard of general fund support from one that is based on hard dollars to one that is based on service levels, with FY 2011 as a baseline: “… [T]he General Fund budget supporting the Parks and Recreation system for that year may be reduced by a higher percentage than the average percentage reduction of the total City General Fund budget as long as the FY11 level of service within Parks and Recreation system is not materially reduced.”

That second amendment would have helped the city conform with the policy this year, because the proposed FY 2012 budget called for spending $90,000 less on parks than would otherwise be required if the administrative police were left unamended. The city contends that the $90,000 reduction in expenditures is due to increased efficiency and would not affect service standards.  [Chronicle coverage: "Council to Get Reminder of Parks Promise"]

However, that second amendment was stricken by the proposer of the resolution, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who said he wanted to use the delay in the passage of the budget to find a way to make up the $90,000 differential – that would allow the city’s budget to conform with the policy without changing it.

The city council also revised the 2006 administrative policy during the FY 2010 budget cycle, so that millage funding for the natural area preservation program would not automatically increase by 3% every year.

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

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.

At left is Tom Crawford, the city's CFO. To the right is Roger Fraser, city administrator. (Photos by the writer.)

The community services area comprises the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, planning and development, human services, and parks/recreation. The council had chosen to focus on that area first, because of the community service area administrator’s imminent departure – Jayne Miller’s last day working for the city is Feb. 12, 2010.

But Miller’s new post as director of the Huron Clinton Metro Authority (HCMA) factored into some of the conversation on Monday, ranging from HCMA’s canoe rental fee structure, to the (remote) possibility that HCMA might take over some of the city of Ann Arbor’s parks. It was those larger scope issues the council was meant to address on Monday.

So at Monday’s meeting, city administrator Roger Fraser labeled the occasion as a time to talk about the “big ideas” the council had been presented at their December 2009 budget retreat. And councilmembers did eventually come around to start grinding through the list of ideas.

Rather than organize our account of the meeting based on that list, we’ve identified some themes that might provide an alternate framing of some of the budget challenges. We’ve formulated them as questions: (i) What are the basic philosophies? (ii) Should anything be held harmless? (iii) What do we do with our land? (iv) Is increasing revenue an option?

Basic Philosophy

Speaking from the podium, instead of from his usual spot at the head of the table next to the mayor, Roger Fraser reminded councilmembers of the materials they’d been provided.

[The city is accumulating all of these materials on the Our Town section of its website. From the scanned PDF of the budget impact sheet summary, The Chronicle has created a live spreadsheet.]

Fraser then addressed a variety of issues and responded to questions raised by councilmembers through the course of the meeting, which we categorize as basic philosophy issues.

Philosophy: Does Everyone Share the Pain?

Fraser said that he’d been asked what the impact would be of a 3% wage reduction across all city employees. He told councilmembers that the savings to the general fund would be $1.275 million. Savings in other funds would total $970,000. He cautioned that 75% of the city’s workers belong to unions and many of those are subject to Act 312 arbitration. He was therefore not terribly optimistic about progress with those units.

[The city's recent history with Act 312 arbitration is not good – at its May 4, 2009 meeting, the city council approved the 2006-2009 Ann Arbor Police Officers Association (AAPOA) collective bargaining agreement – the result of a binding arbitration settlement that cost the city $1.6 million.]

Fraser said that the city continued to work on a plan for possible implementation of a wage reduction among city workers not represented by a bargaining unit.

Philosophy: A History of Incremental Staff Reductions

Included in the materials provided to councilmembers is a graph showing the cost savings that had accumulated since 2001 as a result of eliminating 239 positions within the city over time.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that the total impact of savings due to the incremental elimination of full-time positions over the last 10 years was $25 million. He asked that the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, provide the math used to generate that figure.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked about the contrast between one-time savings versus longer-term savings indicated in the budget impact sheets. Referring to his staff’s general focus on long-term savings, Fraser said, “My generic answer is: That’s what we do.”

Fraser observed that without creative collaboration, it would not have been possible to reduce the number of city employees by 25% over the course of eight years with little impact on services. The ongoing mission, he said, was to figure out different ways of doing things and doing them cheaper. He noted that the filling of any position anywhere in the city now requires his personal authorization.

Philosophy: Becoming More Efficient

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) inquired of Fraser what kind of systematic approach was taken to look at cost savings across service units. Fraser told her that this was an effort undertaken on a recurring basis.

As an example, Fraser cited the city’s customer service unit – in the past it dealt primarily just with water and sewer bills, but now has aggregated all of the city’s customer service functions, dealing with all calls from finance to parking tickets. He said that it was part of the weekly meeting that he had with all the area administrators – Sue McCormick, Jayne Miller and Barnett Jones – to always consider the issue of systematic ways to improve efficiency.

As another example, Fraser pointed to the fact that the fire department now works with public services on training for getting people out of holes – city staff now digs holes used for the training. Fraser allowed that it seemed like a completely obvious thing to do, yet in the past it hadn’t been done that way – instead, the fire department had contracted out to have holes dug. The fire department, Fraser said, is also now a part of a more collaborative site plan review process for new developments. He concluded by saying that identifying systematic efficiencies is really an “ongoing exercise.”

Philosophy: Chipping Away versus Complete Cutting

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Fraser if his philosophy going into this budget process was to continue doing what we’re doing, but do it less expensively. Fraser’s answer: No.

He allowed that the city would continue to focus on improved efficiency but that there were two main categories of issues: (i) things that they can do without, and (ii) things they have no choice about. As an example of something he felt they had no choice but to eliminate were training budgets.

Briere then asked Fraser what he thought should be the city council’s guiding philosophy in approaching the budget. Fraser said that city council should focus on the big ideas. The relevant questions, he said, were: (i) Should we continue to do things the same way? and (ii) Which things can we do less of?

There are areas that cannot sustain a 7.5% cut, Fraser said, without having a negative impact on the quality of service. Some things, Fraser said, they will have to stop doing, period. “Tonight,” Fraser said, “I’m asking you to begin a conversation about which of the things we do should we not continue to do. We’re at a danger point, a tipping point. Incremental change is no longer healthy.”

He continued, saying, “My general rule is: we should do things the best way possible. If we can’t do that, we shouldn’t do it at all.”

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that the budget impact sheets with which the city council had been provided built to the total dollar amounts, but it is less clear what the subjective impact on a service would be due to the savings indicated in the sheets. Hohnke asked where, in the city staff’s opinion, the service areas were that would fall below the line of providing the service well, if an additional 7.5% were cut.

Fraser replied that he did not have a complete evaluation present that evening. The data was raw right now for a reason – it was to get a first-blush reaction from the city council, he said. Which ideas have traction and which don’t have traction?

Purely as a hypothetical example, Fraser said, if $200,000 were taken out of the parks program, that is money that can be put towards other priorities. If the city council says that the community cannot tolerate a safety services reduction, then by taking $200,000 out of the parks program, they would be giving him some ability to address a concern for safety services.

Philosophy: Long-Range Planning

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he thought part of the difficulty was having only a two-year budget planning cycle. He said that longer-term planning was needed and pointed to the Stadium Boulevard bridges as an example of something that might have been addressed with better long-term planning.

Fraser told Anglin that he didn’t agree with that perspective on the city bridges, noting that the project had been in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) since the last decade. The city had planned in advance for that, but it was a matter of reductions in federal and state support for those kinds of capital projects, he said. That lowered support had been driven in part by the Bush administration, which had continued a philosophy of reduced government that had started in the Reagan era. Fraser also pointed to the state fuel tax as problematic, because it is calculated on a cents-per-gallon basis, not a percentage. We’re selling less fuel, he said, which means there’s less Act 51 money.

Mayor John Hieftje, responding to the idea of better long-range forecasting and planning, asked who would have predicted five years ago that the state would have the kind of current economic conditions that it does. Fraser then appealed to the 2006 forecast, which saw the city reaching an equilibrium between its expenses and property tax revenues, with no additional reductions required. Now, however, projections were that property tax revenues will not reach their 2007 levels again until the year 2015. The decisions that are made today, Fraser said, the city will have to live with for another five years at least.

Holding Harmless

The budget impact sheets include preliminary reports from service units, breaking down what effect various decisions would have on the budget. Included in those sheets are breakdowns of the savings that would come from laying off an additional six firefighters beyond the 14 positions already slated for elimination as a part of the FY 2011 budget plan: $653,080. [The city adopts budgets one year at a time, but plans in a two-year cycle.] The recent agreement between the city and the firefighters union prevented the early layoff of those 14 positions.

Roger Fraser shows the council a pie chart giving the breakdown of safety services expenditures versus other categories.

Also included in the budget impact sheets are the savings that would result from eliminating 17 positions in the police department – three of which are vacant: $1,608,317.

As the conversation turned to safety services, Fraser held up a pie chart, showing the breakdown of safety services as a part of the city’s budget: police, fire, and the district court make up about 61% of the budget. If police and fire services were held harmless, Fraser said, the impact on the rest of the budget would require an 18% reduction.

The theme of what, if anything, should be held harmless in the budgeting process ties together the topics in this section.

Holding Harmless: Fire

Mayor John Hieftje began by saying that he wanted to set up parameters. They needed to staff the fire department adequately to ensure that three people were on the scene as quickly as possible, so that they met the safety criteria for entering a burning building– that was his position, he said. They should take that and work backwards to determine adequate staffing levels.

A bit later it was clarified that, in fact, four people are required on scene in order to enter a burning structure – two to enter the building, and two to remain outside. However, acting fire chief Greg Hollingsworth made the point that “it takes more than four people to fight a fire, so that’s not the biggest concern.”

Fraser indicated that when a new fire chief is hired, he or she might bring some interesting ideas about how to provide adequate fire services. With respect to the hiring of a new fire chief, Fraser said that two finalists had been identified and that a hire would be imminent.

[Among the interesting ideas could be the idea of cross training police officers as firefighters – which would make them public safety officers of some stripe, along the model used in Kalamazoo. However, the International Association of Firefighters has generated several white papers outlining problems with the public safety officer approach.]

City administrator Roger Fraser, left, with acting fire chief Greg Hollingsworth.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed interest in seeing what kind of metrics for response time were used and how that stacked up against other communities. He asked for information about number of firefighters per square mile or the number of fire stations per thousand residents or whatever the relevant metrics might be. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was interested in seeing how the joint dispatch system was working as that got off the ground.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for clarification of the statement in the budget impact sheet concerning high-rise fires. Hollingsworth explained that present staff levels did not address fires in high-rises. The budget impact sheets indicate that the proposed reduction of an additional six firefighters would drop levels below national models to effectively staff for and safely fight an average-sized home fire.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked Hollingsworth to explain what the impact on insurance rates would be from the kind of reductions the city was contemplating. Hollingsworth said the impact would most likely be seen on commercial property. The ratings depended not just on the quality of the fire department but also on other factors, like the water system, he explained. But he allowed that, yes, there was a potential for the reductions to have an effect on insurance rates. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know what the impact would be on response times in her ward on football Saturdays if a fire station were closed. “How will you get to us?” She asked for best estimates.

Holding Harmless: Parks Millage and Parks General Fund

A couple of related “big ideas” involve the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage and its relation to the city’s general fund. First a bit of background on that millage.

Before November 2006, the city levied two separate millages at 0.5 mill each – one for parks maintenance and the other for capital improvements. 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 50-50 split that was legally enforced 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.

But there are some “hold harmless” clauses in the resolution as well. The resolution also calls for any reduction in the overall general fund to be reflected no more severely in parks programs supported by the general fund than in other general fund activities. For example, if the general fund were to suffer a 7.5% reduction, then parks programs supported by the general fund would suffer no greater a reduction than 7.5%.

Subsequent to the passage of the millage, in preparation of the FY 2007 budget, the city initially calculated the baseline for general fund parks activity without the Leslie Science and Nature Center – which had been spun off by the city as an independent nonprofit. The reasoning was that the item itself was no longer in the general fund, so it was not a matter of the general fund being reduced. However, in response to public criticism, funding was put back into parks programs to bring funding to the level it would have been with the Leslie Science and Nature Center as a part of the calculation.

Another “hold harmless” clause in the resolution on the administration of the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage affects the city’s natural area preservation program (NAP).

3. The Natural Area Preservation Program budget be established at a minimum of $700,000 for first year of the millage budget and that it receive a minimum 3% annual increase for each of the subsequent five years of the millage to enhance the stewardship of increased acreage of natural park areas;

It’s likely that the clause was intended to ensure that funding for NAP kept pace with funding increases to other areas, as millage revenues increased due to increased property values. But the effect of the clause now, as millage revenues decline, is to hold NAP harmless – and even to increase NAP’s budget.

The distribution of funds to various park-related tasks – which is specified in Attachment A accompanying the resolution – includes the stipulation that mowing and snow removal for parks be funded exclusively out of the general fund. The millage fund, then, is “held harmless” against mowing and snow removal costs.

Related to the idea of reducing general fund support for park maintenance is an increase use of volunteers for that activity.

On Monday night, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) stated that a mechanism was needed in order to expand the volunteer program. Mayor John Hieftje pointed to the Adopt-a-Park program as that mechanism. Higgins, though, said she was thinking more of a ongoing, every day eyes-on-the-park mechanism. Roger Fraser noted that they would need to do marketing, education, and recruitment, and that meant staff resources.

In response to a suggestion from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Jayne Miller said that the idea of having an organization like Project Grow put in gardens and be responsible for maintenance of the surrounding area in some parks would likely be met with strong opposition. In trying to do that over the last few years, there had been extreme negative feedback from neighbors next to parks, she reported, noting “I was shocked by that.” Neither Smith nor Miller were able to offer an explanation for the negative reaction. However, Margie Teall (Ward 4) suggested that one of the objections is that people use parks and they want to be able to continue to use them the way they are.

Holding Harmless: Partial Reallocation of the Greenbelt Millage

The open space land acquisition millage, authorized by voters in November 2003 to be levied from 2004 through 2034 at a rate of 0.5 mill, is also commonly known as the greenbelt millage. Its expenditures are guided by the city’s greenbelt advisory commission.

Rather than wait for millage proceeds to accumulate, the city issued a bond in order to have a substantial amount of cash on hand for potentially large or numerous land acquisitions. In August 2005, a bond was issued for roughly $20 million, with debt service on those bonds – around $1.2 million annually – to be paid by the greenbelt millage proceeds. The millage currently generates around $2 million in revenue.

Of the bonded amount, around $8 million has been obligated through purchase of development rights or land acquisition deals, leaving around $12 million in an unobligated fund balance. Also available per year is around $800,000 from millage proceeds not required for coverage of the debt service on the bond. [This does not factor in the investment income from the fund balance.]

The “big idea,” then, is to ask if any of that $800,000 per year should be reallocated to the maintenance of parks inside the city. Such a reallocation would require voter approval.

The connection between the greenbelt millage and possible use of those funds towards maintenance of city parks isn’t based just on thematic similarity. A recent greenbelt millage acquisition of a rental house on Chapin Street will result in an incremental addition to West Park when the house is demolished. And a greenbelt acquisition of a parcel on Sunset Road – on the city council’s agenda for Feb. 16 – will add to Bluffs Park.

Hieftje led off the discussion on Monday night by noting that there was a need to pay off the bonds that had already been sold. Hieftje said that the greenbelt program would benefit the community in the long-term and that it would be a mistake not to take the opportunity, especially in the current market with land values depressed. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) stated that he shared the mayor’s view. He added that the dollars being used are also being leveraged. Jayne Miller confirmed that the average match received for greenbelt initiatives was 35-50%.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that the millage was passed on 2003 – she said she supported it then and she still supports it. However, she said she would not be opposed to asking voters to look at it. She pointed out that the current 0.47 mill rate could then be reset to bring it back up to its original 0.5 mill rate. [The rate has been rolled back because of the Headlee Amendment.] She concluded, “I think it should stay in the mix.”

Concerning the greenbelt millage, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that concerns have been raised about the number of parks in the city. She asked for a clarification: What percentage of greenbelt money could be spent within city limits – was it 30%?

Miller clarified that there was no requirement about where the greenbelt money could be spent. It could range from zero to 100% spent in the city. With respect to greenbelt dollars that had been spent inside the city, therefore taking land off the tax rolls, Briere said she would like to think that it had been non-developable land.

Briere asked about the continuing maintenance issue for such properties. Miller clarified that for land acquired outside the city, there is money set aside for monitoring property, as part of the acquisition of development rights. When parkland is added to the city by the greenbelt millage, she allowed, maintenance costs did increase. Briere noted that those costs are paid out of the parks maintenance millage. Miller allowed that being able to maintain what the city owns now is a challenge. When parkland is added, she said, people typically want at least some trails and other amenities installed.

Hohnke clarified that for greenbelt money spent on land outside of the city, there is no maintenance cost. That’s because the deal is typically a purchase of development rights, not an outright purchase of property.

Real Estate

While the greenbelt millage is all about acquiring development rights and land, councilmembers on Monday night also talked about what to do with land already owned by the city.

Huron Clinton Metro Authority

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took the opportunity to ask Jayne Miller a question related to her future position as director of the Huron Clinton Metro Authority (HCMA). Had there been any discussions about the HCMA taking over some city parks? Miller said that one of the challenges is philosophical. The HCMA is more interested in dealing with large parcels of land at 3,000 to 4,000 acres apiece, she said. Most of the city parks are much smaller than that.

First & Washington

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked what the proceeds from the still-pending sale of the First & Washington parcel – to be developed by Village Green as the City Apartments project – would be used for. Fraser’s answer: As a down payment on the municipal center currently under construction next door to the Larcom Building.

Old YMCA Lot

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) raised the question of the old YMCA lot: Why doesn’t the city put it up for sale? Fraser’s initial reply was that it’s currently generating revenue. Fraser clarified that the agreement recently struck between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority sends either the net revenue from the surface parking lot on that location or else $100,000 per year – whichever is greater – to the city’s general fund.

Kunselman pointed out that the city is making interest-only payments on the parcel – then ticked through the costs associated with the lot: its purchase, demolition of the building, rent for displaced residents, interest-only payments since its purchase in 2003, insurance deductible for a pending lawsuit, cost of the construction of a parking lot. Kunselman calculated that the city had invested some $5-$6 million in the parcel and that it was perhaps time to “cut our losses.”

Kunselman continued by saying that he thought it was time to give up the idea that “we, as politicians, can create affordable housing.” He suggested that the existing fund balance in the housing trust fund be transferred to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Mayor John Hieftje allowed that Kunselman was making a good point, but that it was really a matter of timing – the parking provided by the old YMCA lot is currently needed, especially since the surface parking at the city-owned Library Lot was now unavailable while an underground parking garage is under construction. Once the parking structure is finished, said Hieftje, the YMCA parcel would be more valuable.

Fraser concurred that the old YMCA lot would become more marketable when the underground parking garage is completed. Kunselman expressed some skepticism that the parcel would bring in all that much more in the future, noting that the old Ann Arbor News building was currently for sale for around $9 million.

It’s not the first time a councilmember has weighed in for unloading the lot. From Chronicle coverage of the Dec. 1, 2008 council meeting:

The item on the agenda was to approve a continued financing of the property on the corner of Fifth and William through interest-only payments. The Bank of Ann Arbor, which will provide the financing, was one of two out of seven institutions that responded to the request for bids. The other one was Chase Equipment Leasing, whose bid of a 6.14% interest rate did not compare favorably with the 3.89% offered by the Bank of Ann Arbor.

In deliberations, councilmember Sandi Smith said that she would support the continued financing of the property, because they had no other choice, but that she urged her colleagues to begin thinking of master planning the area so that the city could divest itself of the property as soon as possible. Smith noted that given the $5,000 cost of supporting a homeless person, the interest-only payments could be used to support 27 people. The math goes like this: ($3,500,000)*(.0389)/5,000.

Main & William

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) suggested that the old YMCA lot merited a community discussion. An additional land parcel downtown that Rapundalo thought warranted some focus was the parking lot at Main & William, next to Palios restaurant. He noted that there were just 21 parking spaces at the lot, but it was possibly ripe for investment. He wanted to know if  it was on the list somewhere. Fraser told him it was on a list, but not near the top.

Sale of Parkland

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) cautioned that they should not be patching operations holes with capital dollars. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that there was the same issue with the idea of selling parkland – patching operations with capital dollars.

Fraser responded to Briere’s point by clarifying that it was the maintenance expenses and limited use of specific parks that had resulted in their inclusion on the list provided to council. Fraser said he was not asking council to consider the capital value of parkland, but rather the ongoing maintenance cost that the parcels represented. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and mayor John Hiefje asked for additional information about maintenance costs for the parks that had been identified as those it made the most sense to sell, if the city were to sell any of its parks.

More Revenue?

While it’s related to how the city uses its land, and while the possible sale of the land upon which Huron Hills Golf Course sits has a controversial history, we still slot Monday’s discussion of golf courses into the section on revenue generation. One of the “big ideas” considered by the council is the idea of a public-private partnership for operation of Huron Hills Golf Course.

Revenue: Do You Golf?

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he wanted to learn more about cost savings that could be achieved through private partnerships connected to public golf courses. He asked if the next step would be to issue an request for proposals (RFP) for Huron Hills Golf Course. Jayne Miller said she would recommend issuing an RFP – even though a private golf initiative would not be operational in time to have an impact on FY 2011, the council would get information needed to plan for FY 2012, she said. Margie Teall (Ward 4) stated that she wanted to see that happen.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) chats with Colin Smith before the Feb. 8 meeting. Smith is manager of the city's parks and recreation programs.

Sabre Briere (Ward 1) wanted to know why Leslie Park Golf Course was not also being considered for a public-private partnership. Miller noted that Leslie represented a fairly decent chance of becoming self-sustaining and that allowing a private enterprise to take it over would essentially take money out of the city’s pocket.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) then introduced an analogy that flummoxed his colleagues sitting on the other side of the table: “We have the wolf by the ears with golf,” he said. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) later asked him to clarify what he meant by that. Taylor then referenced the Jeffersonian analogy to slavery in America, which compared the U.S. relationship to slavery as having a wolf by the ears.

On the question of entering a private-public partnership on the Leslie Park Golf Course, Miller explained that a consultant [Golf Convergence] – who had been hired to look at the courses in conjunction with the creation of the city’s golf task force – found that there was little interest by anyone in either of the two golf courses. Now that the Leslie course has started to show some improvement in its finances [and now enjoys a liquor license], there had been some interest in it. Rapundalo, however, said that entering a public-private partnership on Leslie would be like “giving away our crown jewel.”

The result of the discussion – which Hieftje and Fraser took care to not label as a “decision,” but rather as giving direction to the city administrator – was that city staff will start preparing an RFP for a public-private partnership on the Huron Hills Golf Course.

Revenue: Compost as Merchant Operation

The subject of converting the city’s composting facilities to a merchant operation – that is, operated by a business – arose out of one of the “big ideas” on the list, which was to analyze the possible benefits of discontinuing the city’s leaf collection program in favor of requiring citizens to “containerize” leaves – through bagging or placing them in carts.

Responding to a question from Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sue McCormick, public services area administrator, said that while the leaf collection program was not a general fund program, costs in the solid waste fund needed to be addressed as well. [The reduction in property values affects millage revenues across the board.]

McCormick reported that they’d looked at the economic side of the equation, and that the estimated net savings using conservative estimates (not factoring in behavior changes that would reduce the number of leaves set out by residents) was $100,000. In conversation with Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), McCormick stated that the situation would be helped by additional deployment of compost carts, which can be emptied through an automatic arm.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that in his neighborhood [Burns Park] people put a few leaves each week and that this had eliminated the need to sweep the leaves into the street. McCormick cautioned against compacting too many leaves into the containers, as it sometimes made emptying them difficult. [The automated arms tilt the carts upside down – whereupon the contents are liberated from the confines of the cart through a physical attractive force, a so-called "gravity."] McCormick pointed to the benefit of bagging as (i) providing more control, and (ii) limiting the amount of disruption in the community.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) quizzed McCormick on the proposed conversion of the compost operation to a merchant operation. Given the reduction in volume that would be anticipated as a result of required bagging of leaves, how would that make money? It had to be due to expanded operations to process non-resident yard waste, he concluded. McCormick deferred answering the question, saying that she’d like to take that on as a topic unto itself and provide a full analysis. [The city issued an RFP for the contract last year.]

Revenue: City Income Tax

On the question of possible sale of parkland, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that he would rather go to voters with something direct on revenue – an apparent reference to the idea of putting a referendum on a possible city income tax before voters. [The city of Ann Arbor's charter specifies that it can levy a property tax for general operating expenses or a city income tax, but not both.]

At a recent meeting of the city council’s budget committee, city administrator Roger Fraser had recommended to the council that they at least invest in the gathering of information about voter attitudes related to an income tax – in the same way that the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority recently did with respect to a possible countywide transportation millage. [The AATA's survey of 1,100 Washtenaw County voters cost $40,918, according to AATA spokeswoman Mary Stasiak.]

Revenue: Recreation Fees

On the subject of charging an additional rental fee for a third person in a canoe at the city’s canoe liveries, Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked if that was standard practice in other communities. Jayne Miller confirmed that it was an industry standard – Huron Clinton Metro Authority charges per person, for example.

Teall then ask about other users of the water besides canoes – on the analogy that the water was like a playing field. Miller noted that part of the difficulty in assessing a fee was that there were multiple places to enter and exit the water, as it was a public waterway. Teall allowed that yes, walking across a park should not result in a fee being assessed, but she was talking about organized use that might prevent other people from using the water. Miller then said, “The thing that comes to mind is rowing.”

Miller then put the question in the larger context of the Argo Dam. Its maintenance funding is currently in the city’s water fund, but needs to be moved out of that fund. [Roger Fraser has previously indicated that this is something that will be undertaken in the current budget cycle.]

Fees at recreational facilities, of course, generate revenue for those facilities. Miller referred the council to a spreadsheet that listed out each recreational facility with expenses, revenues and visitors. Asked what facilities should be closed, Miller said she had no simple answer.

She noted that it’s not a matter of how much the facility costs to operate. Once revenues are added in, the cost savings that the city gets from closing the facility are much less than the number in the cost column. An important question to ask in evaluating a recreational facility, she said, was this: Is this service being offered elsewhere? So the question was whether it was possible to close a facility but not eliminate the service.

At the conclusion of the meeting, city administrator Roger Fraser said, "I think it's appropriate to thank Jayne (Miller). She's done an extraordinary job." Councilmembers gave Miller, who's leaving the city to head the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, a round of applause.

If the city had three pools, for example, and one of them were to be closed, the service would still be available elsewhere. But, she cautioned, that could have a negative impact on the other two pools, due to capacity limitations. Based purely on the numbers, she said, the two facilities she would recommend closing were the two that she had in fact already recommended closing: Mack Pool, and the Ann Arbor Senior Center.

With respect to the senior center and the available-services-elsewhere metric, Miller said that there were, in fact, other places that people could get those services. However, she said, it was clear that it was not simply a matter of services, but rather the fact that people who visited the senior center use that as their social network.

That’s the dilemma, she said. Miller also said that the two task forces dedicated to looking at those two facilities had identified cost savings and revenue enhancements that also needed to be considered in any decision.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked about increasing fees for facility use and whether there was an elasticity of demand. Miller clarified that through the 1990s, fees had been consistently raised, but in the early 2000s they had been reduced because the city realized that they were losing customers. Miller also clarified that some of the revenue potential had to do with constraints resulting from the location of facilities in neighborhoods. Buhr Ice Rink, for example, has restricted hours of operation due to the noise from pucks and people crashing into the boards. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she would like to see some information on the impact of raising rates.