At the May 23 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners' task force on animal control services, commissioner Rob Turner discusses the different service levels the county could provide. Turner is also the board's liaison to a work group led by sheriff Jerry Clayton that's developing a cost analysis of animal control services. (Photos by the writer.)

It was the second meeting scheduled. The first one – on May 9 – was canceled after only two commissioners showed up. The intent is to set policy that will guide a request for proposals that the county plans to issue later this year, for its next contract to provide animal control services. Those services are currently handled by the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV), in a contract that expires at the end of 2012.

The wide-ranging discussion revealed tensions between the push to control costs – a point that’s been driving these changes – and a desire by some to provide a higher level of service than what’s mandated by the state. There seemed to be at least some initial consensus that while the state mandate focuses on stray dogs and animal cruelty, the county should support a broader range of animal control services, depending on the cost.

Also discussed was the need to bring more communities into the conversation – at least those that have their own animal control ordinances, including Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. Representatives from those municipalities are participating in a separate work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, that’s developing a cost structure for animal control services. The hope is that other communities will also give financial support to HSHV, or possibly another service provider.

Four additional task force meetings are scheduled: on June 13, July 25, Aug. 22 and Sept. 12. All meetings are open to the public and will provide an opportunity for public commentary. They’ll take place from 8-10 a.m. at the county’s Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave., and are being facilitated by representatives of the Dispute Resolution Center.

Animal Control Services: Background

When it developed the 2012-2013 budget, the county board decided to reduce funding for animal control services, which it has handled through a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV). Until Dec. 31, 2011, the county had paid HSHV $500,000 annually. The budget originally approved by the county board in late 2011 cut funding for animal control services to $250,000, although commissioners also discussed the possibility of paying an additional $180,000 to HSHV – if the nonprofit took over work previously done by the county’s animal control officers. That brought the total amount budgeted for animal control to $430,000 in 2012. HSHV officials rejected that contract offer, saying that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

Through mid-February 2012, the county and HSHV operated under a $29,000 month-by-month contract, while trying to reach a new agreement. At the county board’s Feb. 15 meeting, commissioners approved a $415,000 contract with the HSHV that will provide animal control services for the county just through Dec. 31, 2012. [.pdf of current HSHV contract] The intent was to give the county time to develop and issue a request for proposals (RFP) later this year to solicit bids for the next contract.

Also at that Feb. 15 meeting, the county board passed a resolution creating two entities – a policy task force and a work group –  to work through issues related to animal control services. [.pdf of Feb. 15 resolution] The work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, is tasked with developing a methodology to determine the cost of providing animal control services. The work group includes representatives from HSHV, the county, and other municipalities that have animal control ordinances.

The task force was created for county commissioners to develop a policy that would guide the work group. Commissioners had set a May 15 deadline for an initial report from the task force, but that goal was not met. The first meeting of the task force, on May 9, was canceled after only two commissioners showed up – board chair Conan Smith, who had organized the meeting, and Barbara Bergman.

At the May 23 task force meeting, turnout was better – five commissioners attended: Smith, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi and Rob Turner. The meeting was also attended by four people affiliated with the Dispute Resolution Center, as well as county administrator Verna McDaniel and deputy county clerk Peter Simms, who took minutes. One member of the public was present: Kate Murphy, an HSHV volunteer. There was opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting, but by then Murphy had left.

Smith had prepared a binder with 115 pages of documents related to animal control issues. [.pdf of binder documents] He started the discussion by describing the focus of the task force: to identify the county’s mandated animal control services, and their minimum level of serviceability. That’s a level that might not be the amount of service the county wants to provide, he said, but it’s what Washtenaw County has to provide. The decision of the policy task force will be communicated to the work group that’s led by the sheriff, Smith continued, which will report back to the board regarding what it would cost to implement the policy and provide those services.

Smith noted that the county’s labor negotiations have been using interest-based bargaining for several years. It’s an approach that’s widely used at the federal level, he said, but generally it hasn’t been embraced by state or local governments. He said it can be a powerful tool for developing public policy, and it’s a technique that the Dispute Resolution Center uses – that’s why he asked the DRC to help with this task force work.

Animal Control: What’s the Goal?

Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Dispute Resolution Center, was one of four DRC facilitators who attended the May 23 meeting. She told commissioners that the DRC would be a neutral facilitator – the center had no horse in this race, she said. Dulin noted that this isn’t a new discussion for commissioners, and she asked them to start by describing their ideal outcome.

County administrator Verna McDaniel began by saying she’d like the board to set a policy to guide what animal control services the county buys. While county officials should be clear that in an ideal world they’d like to provide full services, she said, there is also the need for cost containment. The services that the county has been receiving from the Humane Society of Huron Valley are excellent, McDaniel said – there’s no doubt about the quality. But the county is now in an era that requires defining those services and having a plan on how to pay for them. A policy would be very helpful in making budget projections, she said, as well as in monitoring the quality and level of services provided.

McDaniel concluded by saying she’d like the outcome of these discussions to be a clear determination of what services the county is purchasing, and projections of the costs and levels of those services.

Yousef Rabhi said he agreed with everything McDaniel said. The reason this conversation is happening is because of the county’s budget situation, he said. It’s not because commissioners don’t care about animals. The county board needs to know what they’re buying and how to budget for it, based on the levels of service they want to provide. He said his stance on the mandate is based on months of discussion by the board, and by a comprehensive report that the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, has provided regarding the mandate and minimum serviceability levels as required by state law. He noted that HSHV representatives had given input to the document, and it’s quite comprehensive. It should be their guiding document, Rabhi said. [.pdf of Hedger's memo]

The memo summarizes the county’s legal obligations in this way:

The County is responsible for the housing of stray dogs under the Dog Law of 1919. The County must pay for those dogs to be boarded for the statutory holding period of 4 days if the dog has a collar, license or other indicia of ownership or 7 days if it does not have such evidence of ownership. After this holding period, the dog could be euthanized and the county would have no further responsibility for the animal.

The County has no similar financial responsibility for other stray animals. While a county may, by ordinance, create an animal control agency to address the handling of these other species, Washtenaw County has never adopted such an ordinance and thus is not generally responsible for these animals.

The County has no financial responsibility for animals boarded under the Dangerous Animal or Fighting Dog laws as the acts specifically allocate the cost of boarding any animals under those laws, to the animal’s owner.

The County would have financial responsibility to pay for animals boarded under the general animal cruelty law found in MCLA 750.49-53. However, the two main sections involving animal cruelty, MCLA 750.50 and MCLA 750.50b both provide a process for the animal to be forfeited to the animal control or protection shelter. In addition, each of these acts encourages judges to assess boarding costs against the animal’s owner.

Finally, under the Public Health Code, the county would be responsible for holding certain animals suspected of having come into contact with a rabid animal for a period of time up to 10 days depending upon whether the animal was a stray, had indicia of ownership etc.

Rabhi said that after the cost of those minimum levels of service is determined, then the county can see what additional services they can afford.

Sally Brush of the Dispute Resolution Center takes notes during the May 23 meeting of the county board's animal control task force. She was one of four people from the DRC who helped facilitate the meeting.

Ronnie Peterson was brief in stating his desired outcome: How can the county go beyond its mandate, and keep its reputation for providing excellent services.

Wes Prater began by saying he was learning things he hadn’t heard before. The document from Hedger was very informative, he said. [Although other commissioners told him that Hedger's memo had been distributed last fall, Prater contended that he hadn't previously received it.] The mandate is the minimum, Prater said, though he added that he agreed with Peterson – they should also look at levels of service that have been historically provided.

Residents need to understand that revenues are shrinking, Prater said: “That’s just the way it is, and we have to live with what we’ve got.” Yet Prater also wanted to see what HSHV believes are the appropriate levels of service. For example, although mandates relate to dogs and not cats, the county has a significant feral cat problem, he said. [HSHV has a program to help manage the feral cat population by capturing, neutering, then returning the cats to their original habitat.]

Rob Turner noted that he serves as the board’s liaison to the work group that’s developing a cost structure for animal control services. He said there are three questions commissioners need to answer: (1) Are they looking at animal control from a state-mandate perspective? (2) Are they looking at it from the perspective of cost structure? (3) Are they making decisions based on their conscience?

The county must be safe for its residents and humane to its animals, Turner said, but the definition of “humane” is open to interpretation. Ultimately, the county also has to live within its budget, he said. The mandate for the work group is to determine the cost of current services – that report is supposed to be ready in mid-June. Does that influence the board’s policy? he asked. Can the county only afford its mandate? Or does the board follow its conscience – and at what cost?

Developing a Cost Structure

Although it’s the sheriff’s work group that is charged with developing a detailed cost analysis for animal control services, much of the discussion at the May 23 task force meeting centered on this issue, too.

Rob Turner noted that the Humane Society of Huron Valley is working on an itemized list of costs, similar to the costs that were detailed for a police services unit. [For background on that effort, see Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw OKs Price for Police Services"] With an itemized list, he said, the board can see what it can afford, and make decisions based in part on that. He noted that the police services costs were itemized down to the price for ammunition in a gun. With a list like that, he said, the county would have flexibility to make choices.

Conan Smith observed that the itemized cost report is due on June 12, and could be discussed at the June 13 meeting of the policy task force. Task force members could give their feedback on it, he said, and that feedback could be communicated to the work group.

Turner cautioned that the June 12 date might be overly optimistic – it’s been asked for, but it wasn’t clear if it would be delivered. He said that when he initially requested the itemized costs, Tanya Hilgendorf, HSHV’s executive director, had said it couldn’t be done. When he told her it had to be done, Turner said she “begrudgingly agreed.” Unless sheriff Jerry Clayton holds the HSHV’s feet to the fire, Turner said he was afraid that the county would end up where it has in the past – with a generalized cost estimate, but not an itemized list of costs. Turner said it was important to have an accurate cost analysis, because that ultimately will determine the county’s policy for years to come.

Yousef Rabhi noted that an itemized list would be helpful so that the county could identify appropriate funding sources. For example, if a certain amount is used for gas in HSHV vehicles, the county might be able to fund that item from its fuel purchasing account, rather than the general fund.

Turner said that HSHV regularly brings up the animal cruelty case at a Salem Township horse farm late last year, as an example of expenses that the organization incurs and that the county is mandated to cover. But he said that’s an anomaly, like the mid-March tornado that struck the Dexter area. “Sure, you’ll have a cow every once in a while,” he said, but it’s something you just have to deal with when it happens – it can’t be built into a budget.

County commissioner Wes Prater.

Rabhi replied that animal cruelty cases fall under the state mandate, and are the county’s responsibility. That’s true, Turner said, but how do you budget for that kind of emergency?

Wes Prater suggested having a line-item for emergencies, based on the county’s best guess. Ronnie Peterson noted that HSHV should expect reasonable compensation for its work.

Peterson asked how the work group’s cost analysis would impact the deliberations of the task force. Smith said that he and Clayton have talked through the roles of each group and how the two entities interact. There needs to be a lot of information-sharing, he said. The task force is heavily dependent on the HSHV for information about costs, and the work group will be guided in part by the board’s policy. At some point, the two groups will need to merge, Smith said.

Another factor is that the scope goes beyond just the board of commissioners, Smith added. More members of the executive branch of county government need to be involved, he said – the treasurer and county prosecuting attorney, in addition to the sheriff. [The treasurer administers dog licenses. The prosecuting attorney's office handles animal cruelty cases.]

For example, Smith said, he wasn’t sure whether the county prosecuting attorney, Brian Mackie, regularly requests the release of animals from their owners in animal cruelty cases – asking the court to require that the animals be turned over to HSHV. The judges need to be part of the conversation too, he said. In animal cruelty cases, the law says the burden of cost – for the boarding and care of animals during the case – is on the owner. But often the owners don’t have the means to pay, he noted. Prater observed that judges have a lot of leeway in assessing fees, if the owner has the wherewithal to pay.

Smith reminded the group that the issue of cost recovery is a topic for the July 25 meeting of the task force – it’s a big issue. Prater disagreed, saying there are very few cruelty cases to deal with. Smith replied that although there might be a small number of cases, the issue is complex.

In terms of revenue, Turner noted that licensing is another source. He said the balance needs to be just right, however – if a license costs too much, people won’t pay. He also floated the possibility of licensing cats, which prompted Prater to respond: “Hold it right there! If you want to license cats, you’re opening the barn door.” Belinda Dulin of the DRC noted that the general topic of revenue is part of the focus of the task force’s July 25 meeting.

Tom Brush with the DRC asked whether the board conducts this kind of process for each of its funding decisions. Prater noted that it was used for resolving issues with police services, but that took several years to develop and only really got started after sheriff Clayton was elected. Rabhi added that the animal control process is slightly different, in that there are two groups – a policy task force, and cost work group – that are on parallel tracks.

What Type of Services?

In addressing the question of service levels, Conan Smith returned to Rob Turner’s earlier framing of the issue – cost and conscience. County administrator Verna McDaniel had indicated that the county needs a blend of the two, Smith said.

Wes Prater observed that everything hinges on revenue – “that’s where the rub’s gonna be,” he said.

Smith continued by noting that the state mandate breaks the county’s responsibilities into two areas: stray dogs, and animal cruelty. For him, there are a handful of questions that the board needs to answer related to serviceability in those areas. How long does the county keep an animal? The law isn’t clear about that, Smith said. In animal cruelty cases, some animals are held more than a year – that goes beyond the mandate, he said.

Turner noted that in animal cruelty cases, the county is required to keep the animal until the trial or the case comes to completion, or until the owner signs over the rights to the animal – which in many cases, the owners won’t do, he said. Otherwise, the number of days for holding animals is laid out (between 4-7 days) but that’s where the difference between mandate and mission emerges, Turner said. If the Humane Society’s mission is to hold animals longer than that, then that’s the nonprofit’s responsibility.

Or that could be the conscience piece of the county’s policy, Smith added. True, Turner replied, but conscience comes with a cost. It’s sad to say, but there needs to be cost controls on conscience, he said. So until the board gets information on cost, they can’t make a final decision about policy.

Prater observed that the difference between his conscience and someone else’s “might be miles apart.” That’s true with the 11 commissioners, and even more so with citizens throughout the county. “And I don’t know where to go with that one,” he said.

When the 1919 dog law was passed, stray dogs were the big issue, Ronnie Peterson said. But today, he added, animal control should be broader than that.

Mission vs. Mandate

Wes Prater suggested that the board step back from the Humane Society of Huron Valley. Instead of talking about HSHV, they should be asking what the scope of service would be for the RFP (request for proposals).

Rob Turner countered that HSHV is a big piece of the discussion. The county in the past has made a big commitment to the organization – helping secure financing for its new facility, and contributing a lot of money to that. And until the latest budget cycle, the county has given HSHV the funds it has requested, he said.

County commissioner Ronnie Peterson. In the background is Kate Murphy, a volunteer with the Humane Society of Huron Valley who attended the meeting as an observer.

Ronnie Peterson argued that HSHV volunteers and donors are the people who help keep costs down – that makes a big difference. The only other organization that comes close might be the homeless shelter, he said. [The Delonis Center in Ann Arbor, run by the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, was a project spearheaded by the county.]

The relationship between the county and HSHV is a two-way partnership, Peterson said, and it saves the county money. The board needs to look at the benefits that HSHV brings to the county, he added. That needs to be a factor as they develop an animal control policy.

Conan Smith said he appreciated Peterson’s comment. The county’s state mandate is for dogs, but the community mandate is likely broader, he said. If the county were to start an animal control department from scratch, Smith said he’d ask: (1) What do we want to do? and (2) What revenues do we have? Donors could be one revenue stream, he noted, and it’s important to embrace the fact that revenues from donors contribute to animal control.

Prater again said the conversation should move away from HSHV – a dog pound is required by the state, but that’s very different from the mission of the HSHV.

County administrator Verna McDaniel noted that the HSHV has a unique goal of achieving a 100% save rate, and that’s commendable, she said. On the other hand, the county’s mandate is to protect the health and safety of residents. To marry those two perspectives is virtually impossible, she said, from the standpoint of the county’s budget. So what middle ground can they find that’s satisfactory to both?

The county doesn’t have any business trying to change the mission of the HSHV, McDaniel said. But the county does have a responsibility to all its residents. These are rugged times. Every time you turn around, you face erosion of another revenue source, she said. Many things are beyond the county’s control, she added, but somehow the county needs to figure out a policy that allows them to meet their goals.

Everyone recognizes the value of the excellent services provided by HSHV, McDaniel continued, and the county would like to see HSHV continue providing those services. “The problem is the cost,” she said.

Smith said he was thinking about the issue politically, too. There’s a divide among commissioners – some believe the county should only provide the minimum mandated services, while at least one commissioner would spend any spare dime to provide animal welfare. The board needs to articulate the minimum level of service as a starting point, he said, then have a conversation about how far above the minimum they should go. If commissioners can agree on a minimum level of services and the cost of those services, at least they’ll know what the floor is for budgeting purposes.

Turner observed that the HSHV is a tool for determining costs to help guide the county in determining its policy and writing an RFP for services. But the policy that’s developed should not specifically reference HSHV, he said. “It has to be a generic policy.”

Turner also noted that most of the animals that come to the HSHV aren’t brought in by the county’s animal control officers. Most animals are brought by people off the street, he said. “If someone brings in a box of kitties they found on the side of the road, is that our responsibility?” If it’s not, he observed, that cuts the county’s costs in half.

Prater said there are two different issues – a state-mandated dog pound, and the HSHV’s mission of taking care of animals. He said he’s as passionate about taking care of animals as anyone, but the question is whether that’s the county’s role.

Belinda Dulin of the DRC suggested that it might be helpful to start using the term “service provider” rather than HSHV.

Ronnie Peterson said he didn’t understand how the county could look at other service providers aside from HSHV. How can commissioners use a formula to value the hundreds of donors and volunteers that HSHV brings to the table? The police services discussion didn’t have that element, he said.

Smith replied that HSHV has now agreed to work with the county’s finance staff, and he was sure they could come up with a cost structure that reflects in-kind contributions. If that’s the case, Peterson said, then perhaps it also could be used as a model for funding other agencies – like human service nonprofits – that the county supports financially.

Bringing Others to the Table

Belinda Dulin of the DRC asked about the other partners in this process, in addition to the county board. Verna McDaniel noted that the city of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township both have animal control ordinances, but haven’t historically paid the HSHV for animal control services. Conan Smith said the city of Ypsilanti also has an animal control ordinance. [.pdf of Ann Arbor animal control ordinance] [.pdf of Ypsilanti animal control ordinance] [.pdf of Ypsilanti Township animal control ordinance]

Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Dispute Resolution Center, moderated the discussion at the May 23 task force meeting.

McDaniel said she sees these communities as partners, and there might be others. The county has been paying HSHV for animal control services, and has also budgeted for two animal control officers in the sheriff’s department. Costs have been approaching $1 million annually, she said. Other communities with animal control ordinances are significant stakeholders in this process, she said – that’s one reason why the county wanted to use the police services model to develop a cost structure. [Representatives from communities that contract with the county for sheriff deputy patrols were involved in developing the cost model for that service.]

Smith noted that two-thirds of the animals brought to HSHV come from communities with animal control ordinances.

Ronnie Peterson argued that if the county sees these communities as a major resource, then representatives from those communities should be at the table to develop an animal control policy. And in fact, he said, all communities in the county have a stake – everyone should be at the table. Resources should come from each community in the county, he said.

Wes Prater pointed out that it’s the county’s mandate to take care of stray dogs and animal cruelty cases. They’ll have a hard time convincing other communities to help pay for that, he said.

That’s why clarifying the mandate is so important, Smith replied. The mandate goes to a certain level, but many community ordinances go beyond that, so those communities should share the costs. But no one can have a conversation about that until a mandated level of service is determined, he said.

Turner noted that Ypsilanti Township and the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor each have a representative on the sheriff’s work group. Peterson said all communities should be involved in that group, too.

Further, Peterson said communities that don’t have animal control ordinances should adopt them, and come to the table with resources. Prater wondered how those communities could be enticed to do that.

Next Steps

Conan Smith suggested that he work with county administrator Verna McDaniel and corporation counsel Curtis Hedger to develop a draft statement outlining the county’s minimum level of responsibilities. That would be brought to the next task force meeting, on June 13.

Rob Turner said he was interested in seeing court rulings on this issue, noting that the HSHV has argued that the 1919 legislation mandating animal control has been modified by the courts since then. Smith replied that there are just two applicable court cases and a handful of attorney general opinions – and most of them date back several decades. The courts have not spoken clearly, he said, so it’s incumbent on local units of government to interpret the mandate. [.pdf of 1919 dog law legislation] [.pdf of court rulings] [.pdf of attorney general opinions]

The board can determine the minimum, Smith said, so the next step should be figuring out what to do beyond that. Turner said the question is based on conscience, and the public will help inform the answer. The board needs to find out the community’s collective conscience regarding animal welfare, he said, and make policy decisions based on that. Some say it should be based on just the mandate, while some feel much more should be done, he said. Turner characterized his own views as in the middle.

Ronnie Peterson felt they should at least keep the current level of service provided by HSHV.

Wes Prater cautioned that the board shouldn’t just listen to the people who come and speak during public commentary. [In the past, HSHV supporters have been vocal in their support, attending county board meetings and demonstrating outside of the county administration building.] The public at large should be included, he said. A lot of people – including his wife, who thinks their cat is a person – are supportive of a higher level of service, he said, but a lot of others aren’t. He reminded commissioners that thousands of Washtenaw County residents don’t have health insurance, and many live in poverty.

Peterson said he didn’t think he would attend future meetings of the task force. Everyone knew his position, he said. Belinda Dulin of the DRC told him she hoped he’d reconsider.

Four more meetings of this policy group are scheduled from 8-10 a.m. at the county’s Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave.:

• June 13: Preferred serviceability levels
• July 25: Revenue and cost recovery options
• Aug. 22: Scope of services and revenue recommendations
• Sept. 12: Final recommendations and RFP

All meetings are open to the public and will be facilitated by members of the Dispute Resolution Center.

The Chronicle would 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!

Republican Alicia Ping and Democrat Wes Prater currently serve Districts 3 and 4, respectively, on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. They will face each other in the Nov. 6 general election due to redistricting of the board that takes effect in the next election cycle. They'll both vie for the new District 3. The filing deadline for candidates was the day before the board's May 16, 2012 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The 2012 budget update covered the first three months of the year, but also looked at projections for the full year. Overall revenues for the general fund are now projected to be about $1.165 million more than budgeted  in 2012 – thanks in large part to about $2.5 million more in property tax revenues than originally anticipated, but offset by revenue shortfalls in other areas. Total revenues for the 2012 general fund are expected to reach $99.9 million.

But expenditures for the general fund are $893,527 more than budgeted, primarily due to $669,000 in higher-than-expected costs in the sheriff’s office from greater use of part‐time temporary workers and overtime, operating supplies, and jail medical/food contracts.

The 2012 budget had anticipated a surplus of $1.889 million, but the administration is now projecting a surplus of just $272,238. That surplus is intended to carry over into the 2013 fund balance – so the county faces a $1.617 million shortfall in the amount it had budgeted for the fund balance contribution in 2013. Currently, the county has a $14.5 million fund balance.

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, told commissioners that she’ll have a much clearer picture of the budget outlook when she gives a second-quarter update at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting. She listed out several areas that the administration intends to monitor closely, including medical costs, state revenue-sharing, personal property tax reform, and actuarial valuations for the retirement plan and retiree health benefits.

The board also took an initial vote to set the 2012 county 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 (0.2353 mills and 0.236 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, which is also unchanged from 2011. One mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

This is an annual procedural action, not a vote to levy new taxes, and it’s typically passed without discussion. But this time Wes Prater raised concerns about a $29 million fund balance for the parks and recreation department, saying it was too high and wondering whether it indicated that the tax levy for parks should be lowered. Several other commissioners – including those who serve on the parks & recreation commission (which oversees those funds) – defended the fund balance, noting that several major capital projects are in the works that will tap that money.

In another budget-related action, commissioners gave final approval to the Urban County’s annual plan for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 with a $3.59 million budget. The Urban County is a consortium of local municipalities that receive federal funding for projects in low-income neighborhoods. In a separate vote, the board approved adding Webster Township to the consortium, which includes the city of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and several townships.

Two residents spoke during public commentary, objecting to funding for Planned Parenthood that was included in the annual plan. That particular funding had already been approved last year by the board, as part of a coordinated funding model that pools includes money from the county, the Urban County, Washtenaw United Way, and the city of Ann Arbor to fund several dozen human services nonprofits.

Two commissioners commented on issues related to animal control services during the May 16 meeting. Barbara Bergman noted that there had been a “failed meeting” of a task force on May 9 – only she and board chair Conan Smith had attended from the board, although the task force is open to all commissioners. [See Chronicle coverage: "Low Turnout for Animal Control Task Force."] The intent is to set policy that will guide a request for proposals that the county plans to issue later this year, for its next contract to provide animal control services. Those services are currently handled by the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV), in a contract that expires at the end of 2012. [A subsequent task force meeting on the morning of May 23 drew five of the 11 commissioners, and will be reported in a separate Chronicle article.]

A separate work group on animal control services is being led by the sheriff’s office. That group is tasked with developing a methodology to determine the cost of providing animal control services. It includes representatives from HSHV, the county, and other municipalities that have animal control ordinances. Commissioner Rob Turner, who serves on the group, reported that the HSHV has agreed to work with the county’s finance department to come up with a cost breakdown for the services it currently provides.

The May 16 meeting also included a brief swearing-in ceremony for Felicia Brabec, who won a May 8 special election to represent District 7. Brabec had been appointed to the board last October following Kristin Judge’s resignation.

First-Quarter Budget Update

Tina Gavalier, Washtenaw County’s finance analyst, gave a first-quarter financial update that contained mixed news. The county’s fiscal year is based on a calendar year – the update covered the first three months of 2012, through March 31. [.pdf of chart showing general fund projections]

County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the presentation by saying that the main message is “stay the course.” While the good news is that property tax revenues are higher than expected, those revenues are still in decline, she noted, and the county must continue to monitor its expenditures.

Gavalier began by observing that the first-quarter projections tend to be very conservative, because not very much information is available yet.

First-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Revenues

Revenues for the general fund are now projected to be about $1.165 million more than budgeted – thanks in large part to about $2.5 million more in property tax revenues than originally anticipated. Total revenues for the 2012 general fund are expected to reach $99.9 million. [The board had received the news about the higher property tax revenues at its April 18, 2012 meeting, when the county equalization report was presented.]

Gavalier highlighted some of the revenue variances for specific units. Revenues for the sheriff’s office are projected to be about $949,000 less than budgeted. About two‐thirds of that amount – or roughly $660,000 – is due primarily to the delayed implementation of the county’s dispatch consolidation with the city of Ann Arbor. [At its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a $759,089 annual contract with the county, which was supposed to start in March of 2012. It's now expected to begin this summer.] Other items that contributed to the shortfall include no revenue so far for towing contract administration fees (contract amendments are now in progress) and lower-than-projected concessions revenue for the corrections service center lobby coffee shop and other food venues.

Projected revenues for the Washtenaw County Trial Court also are falling short of budgeted amounts by about $226,000. Gavalier said that’s due to lower-than-budgeted court equity funds that are disbursed by the state. A projected shortfall of about $135,000 in the 14A District Court is due to lower court fees and fines, attributed to a declining trend in case filings. Now, the District Court’s 2012 revenue from fees and services is expected to align with 2011 and 2010 actual amounts of about $2 million.

First-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Expenditures

Gavalier then said she wanted to remind commissioners of amendments they made to the budget in late 2011 and early 2012. At their Dec. 7, 2011 meeting, commissioners voted to reinstate $128,538 in funds for human services nonprofits – administered via the coordinated funding model – that had previously been cut from the budget. On Jan. 18, 2012, the board voted to approve the consolidated dispatch between the county and city of Ann Arbor, and authorized the creation of 15 full-time positions. That vote increased the budget – on both the revenue and expenditure sides – by about $1.4 million. Also, at their Feb. 15, 2012 meeting, commissioners approved a $165,000 expenditure increase as part of a new contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, for animal control services through 2012.

First-quarter Washtenaw County general fund budget projection. (Links to larger image)

Turning to overall expenditures, Gavalier reported that expenses are $893,527 more than budgeted for the general fund. That’s primarily due to $669,000 in higher-than-expected costs in the sheriff’s office from greater use of part‐time temporary workers and overtime, operating supplies, and jail medical/food contracts. She said the board will be asked later this year to approve a $200,000 reserve for inmate hospital care, which will require a budget adjustment.

Gavalier noted that the general fund expenditure projections include an assumption that there will be a lump sum expense reduction of $2.481 million for the year – an amount that’s not specific to any particular department, but that will be gained from across the organization. So far, $1 million in reductions have been identified, due to the high number of retirements last year (118) with 97 of those coming in the last quarter of 2011. The savings come from several unfilled positions following those retirements, as well as from lower salary and fringe benefit costs for new employees replacing the retirees.

However, some of those savings have been offset by increases in part‐time temporary costs and increased fringe benefit costs. A high number of medical claims were made over the last five months of 2011, Gavalier reported. Since there’s typically a six-month processing delay for those claims, most are being paid in 2012. Changes in the county’s employee medical plan are expected to contribute to the lump sum reductions later this year, she said. Overall, only about $282,000 in net lump sum reductions have been realized so far this year.

Other highlights on the expense side include about $238,000 so far this year in tax refunds – the total budgeted amount for refunds in 2012 is $1.5 million. Also, the Washtenaw Trial Court is expected to exceed the cost reductions it had planned for 2012 and show a surplus by year’s end.

The 2012 budget had anticipated a surplus of $1.889 million, but the administration is now projecting a surplus of just $272,238. That surplus is intended to carry over into the 2013 fund balance – so the county faces a $1.617 million shortfall in the amount it had budgeted for the fund balance contribution. Currently, the county has a $14.5 million fund balance.

First-Quarter Budget Update: Non-General Fund Items

Gavalier gave an overview of several county operations that are not supported by general fund revenues. Units that are projected to be on budget include facilities management, Friend of the Court (due to trial court consolidation and cost containment efforts), the office of community & economic development, the prosecuting attorney’s office, and the office of veteran’s relief.

Projecting a surplus are building inspection operations and risk management – assuming there are no major settlements or disasters. Regarding the building inspection unit, that unit owes about $780,000 on an amount it previously borrowed from the county’s capital reserve. Any contributions to the unit’s fund balance over $51,000 must be used to repay the debt. Because the building inspection fund balance stood at about $162,000 at the end of 2011, about $111,000 will be returned to the capital reserve fund.

Finally, two units – public/environmental health, and programs supported by the Act 88 millage – have projected shortfalls but had budgeted to use their respective fund balances in 2012 to cover the overages, Gavalier said.

First-Quarter Budget Update: Issues to Watch

Gavalier listed out several areas that the administration intends to monitor closely. Medical costs are difficult to project, because the trend of claims is evolving under the new medical plans for employees. The budget was developed based in part on projected costs provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield, Gavalier noted. But because the county is self‐insured, it pays the actual costs of its employees’ medical claims. July will be the first month that the county will start to see how claims have adjusted under the new medical plans, she said. So the third quarter of this year – from July through September – will show a better reflection of actual savings.

Another area to watch relates to state revenue-sharing and the state’s new economic vitality incentive program, intended as a replacement to revenue sharing. Gavalier reminded commissioners that the county’s revenue-sharing reserve fund will be depleted in 2013. Currently, Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed budget includes a partial allocation for 2013 – of just under $1.2 million – with specific compliance incentives and defined eligibility requirements outlined in order to receive those funds. The state Senate and House of Representatives are deliberating on funding amounts and criteria, she said.

Personal property tax (PPT) reform legislation is another uncertainty, Gavalier said. There will be an impact, but the magnitude is uncertain. Currently, PPT revenue for the county is $5.6 million. Current versions of bills to repeal the PPT  include reductions in tax revenue starting in 2013 of about $390,000 for industrial and commercial properties, with additional reductions phased in each year through 2022.

Gavalier also reported that the county’s annual actuarial valuations for its retirement plan (the Washtenaw Employees Retirement System, or WERS) and retiree health benefits (the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA) will be completed this summer. With 118 retirements in 2011, there will certainly be a cost impact to those plans, she said. The valuations might also increase the cost of fringe benefits for active employees too.

In addition, the county expects to complete a cost allocation plan (CAP) by this summer, Gavalier said, outlining how much each department will be accessed. CAP is an amount charged to each county department for things like the county attorney and administration. CAP amounts have been waived or frozen in recent years, but will be adjusted for the 2012-2013 budget cycle.

First-Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Several commissioners had questions, while also praising Gavalier for the clarity of her presentation. Felicia Brabec asked about last year’s 118 retirements, and wondered if there are any estimates yet on the impact to the county’s retirement plans. County administrator Verna McDaniel said it’s difficult to guess at this point.

Dan Smith asked about the items that factored in to the projections – how many have already occurred, and how many are just anticipated? As an example, he cited the consolidated dispatch operations, which they know will happen later this year. Gavalier said the picture will become much clearer as the year progresses. She noted that commissioners will get a second-quarter budget update at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting. ”I will be more confident in August when I present than I am right now,” she said.

From right: Commissioners Rob Turner, Ronnie Peterson, Leah Gunn, and Barbara Bergman.

Smith then pointed to the anticipated 2012 surplus of $272,238, which is about $1.6 million less than the amount budgeted for the year. He asked whether Gavalier expected the surplus to increase. Yes, she replied, as the finance department gets a handle on medical expenses. She said she suspected the surplus would get larger.

Rob Turner wanted to know details about why the dispatch consolidation was delayed. It has an impact on the budgets for both the county and city of Ann Arbor, he noted. Could it be delayed even further? He also wondered what’s being done to address any roadblocks.

McDaniel noted that aggressive hiring is underway for the new dispatch positions, and she promised to bring the board a more detailed report at a future meeting.

Wes Prater asked about the $2.4 million budgeted lump sum reduction – he wondered where those cuts will be made. Gavalier replied that the reduction was built into the 2012 budget based on assumed savings from labor negotiations that hadn’t wrapped up by the time the budget was passed in late 2011. Savings in medical expenses are assumed to be a large part of that reduction, but until claims based on the new medical plans start coming in later this year, the administration won’t know exactly how much will be saved.

Prater also highlighted the projected personnel costs for 2012, which are an estimated $2.15 million higher than budgeted – a projected $65 million, compared to the budgeted $62.85 million. What accounts for those higher costs? Prater asked.

Gavalier reported that a big portion of those costs relate to overtime and part-time employees at the sheriff’s office. As the county works to fill positions that were vacated because of retirements, they’re using overtime and part-time staff as an interim measure. She again stated that although the general fund isn’t hitting its original budgeted surplus, a surplus is still projected for the year – just a smaller one than anticipated at this point.

Outcome: This was a presentation only – no board action was required.

Annual Millage Rate

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to the 2012 county 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 (0.2353 mills and 0.236 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2011.

This is an annual procedural action, and 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.

Annual Millage Rate: Board Discussion

Commissioner Wes Prater expressed concern that the county parks & recreation department was building up a fund balance that he felt was higher than necessary. He noted that the fund balance stands at $29.795 million, according to the county’s comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR).

Prater wondered whether perhaps the entire millage for parks & rec did not need to be levied. The department shouldn’t act like a bank, he said, and he suggested that the parks & rec director could be asked to explain it. [Bob Tetens, director of parks & recreation, typically attends all meetings of the board, but was not at the May 16 meeting because of family commitments.]

Several commissioners defended the use of millage proceeds. Dan Smith noted that he serves on the parks & recreation commission, along with commissioners Barbara Bergman and Rolland Sizemore Jr. He assured Prater that the department has a detailed plan for specific projects that will benefit residents throughout the county. It was a plan that came to the county board as part of the budget process last year, he said. The fund balance is large now because the department is getting ready for several major capital projects, Smith added, including a new enlarged “spray and play zone” at Independence Lake Park.

County commissioner Barbara Bergman of Ann Arbor also serves on the county parks & recreation commission.

[The parks & recreation department developed a five-year master plan in 2010 – see Chronicle coverage: "County Seeks Input on Parks Master Plan." For more recent actions, see Chronicle coverage of the parks & recreation commission meetings in April and May of 2012.]

Bergman pointed to new projects as well as maintenance, and noted that the county board doesn’t have a say in spending the millage: “It’s not our money.” The voters approved those millages, she said. The parks & rec commission isn’t acting as a bank, Bergman added – they are acting as stewards.

Yousef Rabhi also cited the parks & recreation department’s role as “conscientious stewards.” He pointed to The Chronicle’s coverage of the May 8, 2012 parks & rec commission meeting, where commissioners had discussed shifting more of an emphasis from acquisition to stewardship. As someone who works in this area, Rabhi said, he felt it was a wise conversation to have. [Rabhi is currently workday coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor's natural area preservation program.]

Leah Gunn noted that the millage supports both parkland and natural areas, and projects like the possible recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti. Voters have been very supportive, she said, and the millage should be maintained as it is.

Prater responded by saying he wasn’t trying to claim money for the county’s general fund or anything else. He just wanted to take a look at the funding. If everything is as other commissioners have described, he said, then it’s well documented and those documents should be easy to provide. He again pointed to the $29 million fund balance, and said he didn’t believe in keeping fund balances so high. It’s not good business, he concluded.

Outcome: The initial vote to set the annual millage rate passed unanimously, but Wes Prater indicated that he wanted more information about parks & recreation before he’d support final approval. The board also voted to set a public hearing for the millage rate at its June 6 meeting. Commissioners are expected to take a final vote on the millage at that time.

Urban County Annual Plan

Two items on the May 16 agenda related to the Washtenaw Urban County.

Commissioners were asked to approve the Urban County’s annual plan for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 with a $3.59 million budget. A public hearing on the plan had been held at the board’s May 2, 2012 meeting. The annual plan describes how the Urban County expects to spend the federal funding it receives from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) programs, operated by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). [.pdf of 2012-2013 draft annual plan] [.pdf of list of planned projects]

The board also authorized Webster Township to join the Urban County. The Washtenaw Urban County is a consortium of local municipalities that receive federal funding for projects in low-income neighborhoods. Current members include the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ypsilanti, Pittsfield, Ann Arbor, Bridgewater, Salem, Superior, York, Scio, and Northfield. Webster Township will be among an additional seven municipalities that will become part of the Urban County as of July 1, 2012. Other new members will include the city of Saline, the village of Manchester, and the townships of Dexter, Lima, Manchester, and Saline.

“Urban County” is a HUD designation, identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, making them entitled to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs.

The Washtenaw Urban County executive committee meets monthly and is chaired by county commissioner Yousef Rabhi. The program is administered by the staff of the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community & economic development.

Urban County: Public Commentary

The annual plan includes a list of funding for human services nonprofits, awarded through the relatively new coordinated funding model, a two-year pilot program that runs through June 2013. Partners include the Urban County, Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw United Way, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The model focuses funding on six priorities that have been identified for the entire county: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health and food.

For 2012-2013, about $4.1 million in funds are being awarded to 63 programs – these funds were approved by the county board in late 2011 as part of their two-year budget planning process. Only a portion of the funds are provided via the Urban County. [.pdf of nonprofit funding]

Among the programs to be funded are two awards to Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan: $14,400 for family planning for low-income women, and $53,040 for prenatal care services. That funding was the target for some of the public commentary at the May 16 meeting.

Paul Dobrowolski of Saline and Brigid Kowalczyk of Ann Arbor both spoke against funding for Planned Parenthood. Dobrowolski, who had also spoken in opposition to the funding a year ago, again asked that the programs not be given taxpayer dollars and that the grants be ended immediately. He argued that Planned Parenthood had plenty of other funding, and that the organization was being misleading about the types of services it provides. He also noted that 41% of clients for prenatal care come from outside of Washtenaw County. He urged commissioners not to support funding for Planned Parenthood.

Kowalczyk noted that a package of bills introduced in the state legislature aim to prevent women from being coerced into having an abortion. Many women feel coerced, she said, and there are examples of people – including NFL quarterback Tim Tebow and opera tenor Andrea Bocelli – whose mothers had been urged to abort them, but didn’t. Women don’t want health care that doesn’t respect life, Kowalczyk said. A better way is to fund organizations like Family Life Services, Hope Clinic and St. Joseph Mercy Hospital that provide alternatives to abortion, she said, and assist women through their pregnancies. Women deserve better, she concluded, and future county taxpayers should be welcomed with joy and expectation.

Thomas Partridge of Ann Arbor also addressed the Urban County annual plan during public commentary. He praised the amount of federal funding that was being received, but said the plan leaves unanswered the question of whether this funding is adequate for affordable housing, transit, health care and other needs of low-income residents. He called for more state assistance to support the most vulnerable population in the county.

Urban County: Board Discussion

Two commissioners responded to the criticism of Planned Parenthood funding. Barbara Bergman spoke at length about the need to preserve choices for women. She noted that her beloved granddaughter is adopted, and expressed gratitude that her granddaughter’s birth mother had chosen to deliver her. No one wants abortion, Bergman said, but until there’s adequate sex education and universal health care, she hoped women would have the options they need.

Yousef Rabhi urged anyone who’s driving down Washtenaw Avenue past the intersection at Hill to check out The Rock, which Planned Parenthood has recently painted.

Other questions about the plan were more general. Felicia Brabec noted that the Urban County works from a five-year strategic plan, and this coming year will be the last year of the current plan. She wondered what direction the next five-year plan would take.

Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager at the office of community & economic development, replied that later this year the staff will start developing the next five-year plan, with broad goals that will guide specific projects. The goals will likely be similar to the current plan, he said, with a focus on affordable and supportive housing. The staff is also aware that it can’t take the county’s existing housing stock for granted, so that will likely be an element of the next strategic plan too, he said.

Alicia Ping asked when the next opportunity would be for other municipalities in the county could join the Urban County. Those decisions are made in three-year cycles, as mandated by the federal government. The next round will be open in mid-2015, Lenart said.

Wes Prater asked who pays for the matching funds related to the Urban County plan – $220,010 in in-kind costs from the county, plus a $172,306 local match. Lenart explained that matching funds for HOME grants typically come from the value of taxes that have been waived, as well as from donations of labor and materials toward projects. Matching funds for HUD’s emergency shelter grants come from the county’s human services funding. Other coordinated funding sources also count as matching funds.

Outcome: The annual plan for the Washtenaw Urban County was unanimously passed, as was the addition of Webster Township to the consortium.

Bond Re-Funding

Two resolutions related to re-funding of bonds previously issued by Washtenaw County were on the May 16 agenda. One of the actions – advised by the county’s bond counsel, John Axe with Axe & Ecklund of Grosse Pointe Farms – consolidates two previous bond issues and is expected to save $889,000 over the life of the bond repayments.

From left: County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger, and Greg Dill, infrastructure management director.

In 2004, the county board had approved a bond sale of $6.365 million to fund energy efficiency improvements in county facilities. Chevron Energy Solutions was hired to oversee that effort, which is known as the Chevron project. About $4.69 million in principle is owed on that bond. [Commissioners were last updated on this project at their June 2010 working session.]

In 2005, the board approved a bond sale of $11.475 million to re-fund a 1999 bond issued for projects that included capital improvements for the juvenile detention center, buildings at 110 N. Fourth and 200 N. Main, and the environmental services building on Zeeb Road. About $7.835 million in principle is still owed on that bond issue.

Because of current low interest rates, Axe has advised the county board to authorize the sale of a single re-funding bond issue not to exceed $12.35 million. Commissioners gave initial approval to that action, as well as to a separate resolution authorizing continued disclosure on the re-funding bond issue, as required by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). The re-funding bonds will be called the County of Washtenaw Capital Improvement Re-funding Bond Series 2012.

Axe attended the meeting, but was not asked to the podium to answer questions.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners approved both bond-related items. A second, final vote is required and will likely be on the board’s June 6 agenda.

Sugar Creek Drain Bond

On the agenda was an item giving final approval to pledge the county’s full faith and credit for up to $270,000 in bonds to fund an extension of the Sugar Creek drainage district. The financing request came from water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin, whose office is managing the project. It had been given initial approval at the board’s May 2 meeting.

The project – which in total is budgeted at $349,899 – is being done at the behest of the Washtenaw County road commission. It entails relocating a portion of the county drain, including a section of 1,850 feet adjacent to Platt Road between Judd and Stoney Creek roads in York Township. A second phase includes removing sediment and vegetation, as well as making wingwall repairs, at the drain crossings of US-23, McCrone Road, and Gooding Road.

The Sugar Creek drainage district covers parts of York Township, Augusta Township and the city of Milan. The bonds will be repaid in part by assessing property owners in the district – 70% of the cost of the bonds will be paid in this way. [.pdf map of drainage district] The remainder of the funds will come from York and Augusta townships, the city of Milan, Washtenaw County, the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and two railroads – Ann Arbor Railroad and Norfolk Southern Railroad. The county’s share of the cost is $24,203 – half of that will be paid by the county road commission.

A contract for the work has been awarded to Mead Brothers Excavating of Springport, Mich., the lowest responsible bidder.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave final approval to the Sugar Creek drainage district bonds.

Project LIFT Funding

Commissioners were asked to authorize the application for a $1,348,853 federal grant from the U.S. Dept. of Labor to fund Project LIFT, a jobs training and service program for juvenile ex-offenders run by the county sheriff’s office. The program aims to serve 100 youth. [.pdf of program description]

A staff memo noted that while Washtenaw County

… has the best employment rates compared to its neighbors, it also has the highest rate of criminal recidivism in the state, with 80% of released prisoners being re-imprisoned 2-3 years later. In addition, many at-risk youth reside in communities that serve as a revolving door for offenders returning to society from our jails and prisons. With community-based reintegration in Washtenaw County still in its infancy, there is a need to engage youth before they are introduced to the criminal justice system as adults, within their own communities, that will deter them from criminal behavior.

According to the staff report, the sheriff’s community action team estimates there are 12-13 gangs active in Washtenaw County, with 9-10 gangs active in one neighborhood alone. The largest gang has an estimated 25 members.

There was only one question on this item, from commissioner Felicia Brabec. She pointed to information in the staff memo, which stated that the Washtenaw County Trial Court had identified 900 young people aged 18-21 who have been convicted in juvenile court, but have never been convicted of an adult offense. Of those, Project LIFT would only serve 100, and Brabec wanted to know what selection criteria would be used.

No one from the sheriff’s office was on hand to answer Brabec’s question, so county administrator Verna McDaniel promised to follow up and get that information.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously authorized application of federal funds for Project LIFT. A final vote is expected at the board’s June 6 meeting.

District 7 Swearing-In

County clerk Larry Kestenbaum was on hand to swear in Felicia Brabec in a short ceremony near the beginning of the May 16 meeting.

At the county board's May 16 meeting, Felicia Brabec was sworn in as District 7 commissioner after winning a May 8 special election. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum (foreground) officiated.

Brabec won a May 8 election against Republican Richard Conn to represent District 7 (Pittsfield Township) on the 11-member county board. It had been the only election for the county board, for a term that will run through the end of 2012. (County commissioners typically serve two-year terms.)

The unusual timing of the race stemmed from the October 2011 resignation of former District 7 commissioner Kristin Judge. The board appointed Brabec to replace Judge at its Oct. 19, 2011 meeting. Brabec had been encouraged by Judge to apply for the vacancy, and was one of two people interviewed for the position. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Meets District 7 Candidates"] There was a special primary election for the seat on Feb. 28, followed by the special general election on May 8.

Communications & Public Commentary

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

Communications: Animal Control Services

Two commissioners commented on issues related to animal control services. Barbara Bergman noted that there had been a “failed meeting” of the animal control services task force on May 9 . Only she and board chair Conan Smith had attended from the board, although the task force is open to all commissioners. The meeting was canceled when it became clear that no other commissioners would attend. [See Chronicle coverage: "Low Turnout for Animal Control Task Force."]

Smith did not attend the May 16 board meeting, so Bergman asked Alicia Ping – the board’s vice chair, who was running the meeting in Smith’s absence – to convey to Smith that a new meeting time should be set “PDQ.” The board needs to address policy issues related to animal control services so they don’t get “cut off at the knees,” Bergman said. “Frankly, I’m a little angry.”

When Ping mentioned that Smith had previously passed out a schedule of meeting times, Bergman indicated that Smith no longer planned to hold those sessions, in light of the low turnout for the first one. [Subsequent email from Smith confirmed dates for additional meetings – on May 23, June 13, July 25, Aug.22 and Sept. 12. A report of the May 23 meeting will be provided in a separate Chronicle article.]

Rob Turner, during his liaison report, gave an update on a work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, that’s tasked with developing a methodology to determine the cost of providing animal control services. The work group includes representatives from HSHV, the county, and other municipalities that have animal control ordinances.

A meeting was held on May 15, where Turner said the group heard a presentation by HSHV. He said he conveyed the county board’s charge to the group – that the goal is to develop a cost structure, similar to the process of developing the cost structure for a police services unit, which was approved by the board in last summer. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw OKs Price for Police Services"]

Initially, HSHV representatives said they didn’t think they could do it, Turner reported. But they know that they have to do it, he said, and they’ve agreed to work with the county’s finance department to come up with a cost breakdown. It’s a difficult task, he said, and he’ll report back to the board after the next work group meeting.

The work group and task force are part of a broader process that began last year when the county board – as part of developing the 2012-2013 budget – decided to cut funding for animal control services, which it has handled through a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV). The board subsequently approved a contract with the HSHV at its Feb. 15, 2012 meeting. That contract expires at the end of 2012, and the county plans to issue a request for proposals (RFP) later this year to solicit bids for the next contract.

Communications: Public Commentary

In addition to the public commentary reported above, Thomas Partridge of Ann Arbor spoke during both opportunities for the public to address the board. He noted that he is a candidate in the Democratic primary for the state House of Representatives in District 53. [Partridge will run against incumbent Democrat Jeff Irwin, a former county commissioner who's seeking his second two-year term in the House.] Partridge called for renewed energy and a new set of attitudes for providing services to those in need – attitudes of respect, integrity, and reaching out to residents rather than standing back or even retracting from them. The first priority should be affordable housing, he said.

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

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [check Chronicle calendar listing 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 would not have a sustainable budget 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 decision came after the state Bureau of Elections indicated late Friday afternoon that a determination made by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum earlier in the week was inappropriate. Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy county clerk and elections director, told The Chronicle on Saturday that Borregard had been apprised of the situation, and will be officially informed in writing on Monday, when his name will be removed from the list of candidates on the county’s election website.

Republican Dan Smith, shown here chairing the May 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board's ways & means committee, represents District 2 on the board of commissioners. He will be the only candidate on the ballot in District 2 for the Aug. 7 primary. (Photo by the writer.)

Borregard, a Dexter resident, had originally filed to run in District 1, which is the current district in which he resides. However, because of redistricting that takes effect for the upcoming election, his home will be located in the new District 2. Shortly after the 4 p.m. filing deadline on Tuesday, May 15, the county clerk’s office was alerted to this error by Kent Martinez-Kratz, a Democrat who’s running in District 1 against incumbent Republican Rob Turner. Acting to correct what he deemed a clerical error, Kestenbaum, a Democrat, approved an amendment to Borregard’s paperwork to allow him to appear on the District 2 ballot.

On Friday afternoon at 2 p.m., Kestenbaum told The Chronicle that he had talked with the county’s corporation counsel [Curtis Hedger] earlier in the week, as well as to staff in the state Bureau of Elections, and that he was comfortable that the change was within his authority to make. He said it was important not to create barriers to running for office. “There’s no trickery here,” he said.

Later that afternoon, Secretary of State spokesman Fred Woodhams told The Chronicle that staff were reviewing the situation and would potentially weigh on in it early next week. The Bureau of Elections is a division of the office of Secretary of State, a position held by Republican Ruth Johnson.

But just a few minutes before 5 p.m. on Friday, an official from the Bureau of Elections contacted the county clerk’s office, according to Golembiewski. The state’s view is that it was not appropriate to accept changes to the filing after the 4 p.m. deadline. As a result, Borregard’s name will not appear on the ballot. Kestenbaum left town Friday afternoon to attend an out-of-state funeral over the weekend and could not be reached. Golembiewski said that Kestenbaum had previously indicated he would abide by the state Bureau of Elections decision.

Borregard, who ran for county commissioner in 2010 but was defeated in the Democratic primary, has the option of challenging the decision in court. He could also choose to run as an independent in the Nov. 6 general election – the filing deadline for candidates who are not affiliated with a political party is July 19 at 4 p.m.

In another county board race, two Ypsilanti Township candidates who had previously filed to run for the commissioner seat in District 5 – Rick Roe and Michael White – have withdrawn from that Aug. 7 primary race. The deadline to withdraw was 4 p.m. Friday, May 18. That leaves incumbent Democrat Rolland Sizemore Jr. unchallenged in the primary.

For a list of county candidates in the Aug. 7 primary election, see Chronicle coverage: “Last Minute Filings: Washtenaw County Races.”

District 2 Ballot

Eric Borregard filed his affidavit to become a Democratic candidate for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners on March 8, 2012. He has run for office several times in the past, most recently in 2010 for the District 1 county board seat. In that race, he lost in the three-way August primary to Adam Zemke, earning 15.06% of the vote compared to 69.98% for Zemke and 14.69% for the other Democratic candidate, Reid McCarthy. Zemke was subsequently defeated by Republican Rob Turner in the general election.

When candidates file their paperwork to run for office, the county clerk’s staff checks to confirm the accuracy of information submitted by candidates by using the Michigan Qualified Voter File, a database maintained by the state. Initially, county clerk Larry Kestenbaum told The Chronicle that the day after Borregard filed for the 2012 election, the clerk’s staff checked the QVF and found that it listed Borregard as a resident of District 1. Kestenbaum explained this by saying that the state had not yet updated the QVF to reflect the new county districts.

But on Friday night, Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy county clerk and elections director, told The Chronicle that the state disputed that claim and that the QVF had been updated by the time that Borregard had filed in March. Golembiewski said he checked the county’s records again on Friday night and found that, in fact, the QVF had been updated at the time of Borregard’s original filing. It now appears that the candidate filed to run in the incorrect district, and the county clerk’s staff didn’t catch the error when reviewing Borregard’s paperwork.

The error came to the attention of the clerk’s staff a few minutes after the 4 p.m. filing deadline on Tuesday, May 15, when Kent Martinez-Kratz, the only other Democrat running in District 1, contacted the clerk’s office. At that point, Kestenbaum decided to offer Borregard the opportunity to amend his affidavit to reflect the correct district – District 2. Borregard submitted that amendment at 5:22 p.m. on May 15, more than an hour after the filing deadline.

Dan Smith, who was first elected in 2010 for a term beginning in January 2011, is unopposed in the Republican primary. And other than Borregard, no other Democratic candidates filed in District 2. Kestenbaum reported that Smith had inquired about the timeline of events regarding Borregard’s filing, and on Thursday, May 17 the county clerk’s staff prepared a written timeline at Smith’s request. [.pdf of timeline from clerk's office]

In an interview with The Chronicle early Friday afternoon, May 18, Kestenbaum said that he had consulted with the county’s corporation counsel and staff at the state Bureau of Elections, and “as far as I’m concerned, it’s settled.” Borregard filed in a timely matter, and filed in the district he believed was correct – and the clerk’s staff had confirmed that information, Kestenbaum said. He said it wasn’t the candidate’s fault that the QVF hadn’t been updated. [At the time of his conversation with The Chronicle, Kestenbaum asserted that the QVF had not been up to date.]

Kestenbaum said his general philosophy is to err on the side of letting people run for office so that voters can decide, and not create barriers to getting on the ballot. He noted that there was a special election on May 8 based on the current districts for the county board, while at the same time candidates were filing for races in the new districts. [Democrat Felicia Brabec won that May 8 election against Republican Richard Conn – a special election prompted by last year's resignation of former commissioner Kristin Judge.]

Regardless, Kestenbaum said, his office should have checked the candidates’ addresses against a map of the new county board districts, but they didn’t. Borregard relied on confirmation by the clerk’s office that his filing was accurate, Kestenbaum said.

[By way of background, Kestenbaum – a former county commissioner who represented one of Ann Arbor's districts – chaired the county apportionment commission, which developed and approved the county board redistricting plan in May of 2011. Other members of the apportionment commission were county treasurer Catherine McClary; county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie; Cleveland Chandler, chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party; and Mark Boonstra, then-chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee. See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Loses 2 Seats in Redistricting."]

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, in connection with the U.S. Census. So it would be rare for confusion about the district boundaries to arise in connection with candidate filings. Kestenbaum characterized it as a clerical error, and did not recall encountering any similar cases for this type of race.

Before the state weighed in, Kestenbaum had said that if Smith was aggrieved by the decision to include Borregard on the District 2 ballot, he had the option of filing a lawsuit in the 22nd Circuit Court. Now, Borregard would have that same option. Kestenbaum was uncertain whether there is a deadline by which such a filing would need to occur. Golembiewski noted that the ballots will be approved by the county board of election commissioners, which meets on June 11.

Kestenbaum, as county clerk, also serves on the board of election commissioners. Other members are the county treasurer (McClary) and Donald Shelton, chief judge of the 22nd Circuit Court. Kestenbaum and McClary were elected clerk and treasurer as Democrats, and are both running for re-election this year. Shelton was elected judge on a non-partisan ballot, but in the past has run for office as a Democrat. This group is also responsible for ruling on the clarity of ballot language for recall petitions, for example.

Ballots for the Aug. 7 primary elections will begin to be created as early as next week. The county contracts with Government Business Systems (GBS) to do its ballot programming.

Borregard also has the option to run as an independent in the Nov. 6 general election – the filing deadline for candidates who are not affiliated with a political party is July 19 at 4 p.m.

When asked about the partisan implications of this situation, Kestenbaum said he would have done the exact same thing if Borregard had been a Republican. “In fact, I wish it were a Republican,” he added, so that the partisan question would be irrelevant. He said he detests political considerations being a factor in what goes on the ballot, citing his disagreement with a recent decision by the state Board of State Canvassers as an example. That board denied approving petitions to put a repeal of the state’s emergency manager law on the ballot because the petitions weren’t circulated with the font size required by law. That decision is being appealed.

In a phone conversation with The Chronicle on Friday afternoon before the state weighed in, Smith had said he wasn’t prepared to make a statement on the issue. He had planned to talk with people about it over the weekend at the Republican state convention in Detroit – Smith is a delegate from Precinct 3 in Northfield Township.

Update: Late Sunday night, May 20, Dan Smith emailed this statement to The Chronicle: “Mr. Kestenbaum has jeopardized the transparency and integrity of the Clerk’s office; undermining the hard work of the dedicated public servants under his supervision. However, a detailed accounting at this time would do little to advance the concerns of those in the 2nd district. My focus remains on the residents of Washtenaw County: providing for their public safety needs, being accountable for their tax dollars, and ensuring the long-term financial stability of their government.”

This is an annual procedural action, and 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.

Commissioner Wes Prater expressed concern that the county parks & recreation department was building up a fund balance that is higher than necessary, and suggested that perhaps the entire millage for parks & rec did not need to be levied. Several commissioners defended the use of millage proceeds, noting that several large capital projects are on the horizon, including a possible recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti.

The board also voted to set a public hearing for the millage rate at its June 6 meeting. Commissioners are expected to take a final vote on the millage at that time.

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

Revenues for the general fund are now projected to be about $1.165 million more than budgeted – thanks in large part to about $2.5 million more in property tax revenues than originally anticipated. Total revenues for the 2012 general fund are expected to reach $99.9 million. [The board had received the news about the higher property tax revenues at its April 18, 2012 meeting, when the county equalization report was presented.]

But expenditures are $893,527 more than budgeted for the general fund, primarily due to $669,000 in higher-than-expected costs in the sheriff’s office from greater use of part‐time temporary workers and overtime, operating supplies, and jail medical/food contracts.

The 2012 budget had anticipated a surplus of $1.889 million, but the administration is now projecting a surplus of just $272,238. That surplus is intended to carry over into the 2013 fund balance – so the county faces a $1.617 million shortfall in the amount it had budgeted for the fund balance contribution. Currently, the county has a $14.5 million fund balance.

Gavalier listed out several areas that the administration intends to monitor closely, including medical costs, state revenue-sharing, personal property tax reform, and annual actuarial valuations for the retirement plan and retiree health benefits. Commissioners will get a second-quarter budget update at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting.

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

The county board approved a bond sale of $6.365 million in 2004 to fund energy efficiency improvements in county facilities. Chevron Energy Solutions was hired to oversee that effort, which is known as the Chevron project. About $4.69 million in principle is owed on that bond. [Commissioners were last updated on this project at their June 2010 working session.]

In 2005, the board approved a bond sale of $11.475 million to re-fund a 1999 bond issued for projects that included capital improvements for the juvenile detention center, buildings at 110 N. Fourth and 200 N. Main, and the environmental services building on Zeeb Road. About $7.835 million in principle is still owed on that bond issue.

Because of current low interest rates, Axe has advised the county board to authorize the sale of a single re-funding bond issue not to exceed $12.35 million. Commissioners gave initial approval to that action, as well as to a separate resolution authorizing continued disclosure on the re-funding bond issue, as required by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). The re-funding bonds will be called the County of Washtenaw Capital Improvement Re-funding Bond Series 2012.

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

Commissioners gave final approval to the Urban County’s annual plan for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 with a $3.59 million budget. A public hearing on the plan had been held at the board’s May 2, 2012 meeting. The annual plan describes how the Urban County expects to spend the federal funding it receives from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) programs, operated by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

[.pdf of 2012-2013 draft annual plan] [.pdf of list of planned projects]

The board also authorized Webster Township to join the Urban County. The Washtenaw Urban County is a consortium of local municipalities that receive federal funding for projects in low-income neighborhoods. Current members include the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ypsilanti, Pittsfield, Ann Arbor, Bridgewater, Salem, Superior, York, Scio, and Northfield. Webster Township will be among an additional seven municipalities that will become part of the Urban County as of July 1, 2012. Other new members will include the city of Saline, the village of Manchester, and the townships of Dexter, Lima, Manchester, and Saline.

“Urban County” is a HUD designation, identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, making them entitled to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs.

The Washtenaw Urban County executive committee meets monthly and is chaired by county commissioner Yousef Rabhi. The program is administered by the staff of the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development.

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

The project – which in total is budgeted at $349,899 – is being done at the behest of the Washtenaw County road commission. It entails relocating a portion of the county drain, including a section of 1,850 feet adjacent to Platt Road between Judd and Stoney Creek roads in York Township. A second phase includes removing sediment and vegetation, as well as making wingwall repairs, at the drain crossings of US-23, McCrone Road, and Gooding Road.

The Sugar Creek drainage district covers parts of York Township, Augusta Township and the city of Milan. The bonds will be repaid in part by assessing property owners in the district – 70% of the cost of the bonds will be paid in this way. [.pdf map of drainage district] The remainder of the funds will come from York and Augusta townships, the city of Milan, Washtenaw County, the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and two railroads – Ann Arbor Railroad and Norfolk Southern Railroad. The county’s share of the cost is $24,203 – half of that will be paid by the county road commission.

A contract for the work has been awarded to Mead Brothers Excavating of Springport, Mich., the lowest responsible bidder.

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

A staff memo notes that while Washtenaw County “has the best employment rates compared to its neighbors, it also has the highest rate of criminal recidivism in the state, with 80% of released prisoners being re-imprisoned 2-3 years later. In addition, many at-risk youth reside in communities that serve as a revolving door for offenders returning to society from our jails and prisons. With community-based reintegration in Washtenaw County still in its infancy, there is a need to engage youth before they are introduced to the criminal justice system as adults, within their own communities, that will deter them from criminal behavior.”

According to the staff report, the sheriff’s community action team estimates there are 12-13 gangs active in Washtenaw County, with 9-10 gangs active in one neighborhood alone. The largest gang has an estimated 25 members.

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

John Floyd has filed as the only Republican candidate in the new District 9 so far. Incumbent Conan Smith, who serves as the current board chair, is the only Democrat so far in that race. Floyd most recently was a Republican candidate in the 2010 Ward 5 Ann Arbor city council race, losing with 21.9% of the vote to incumbent Democrat Carsten Hohnke – in a three-way race that included Newcombe Clark, who ran as an independent. In 2008 Floyd had also challenged Hohnke, but lost with 20.3% of the vote.

In the new District 4, covering Pittsfield Township, incumbent Democrat Felicia Brabec has now filed and is the only Democrat so far in that primary race. On the Republican side, Richard Conn is the only candidate who’s filed for that district to date. Conn recently lost a May 8 special election for that seat to Brabec for a truncated term that runs through 2012. The special election resulted from the October 2011 resignation of former  commissioner Kristin Judge. The county board appointed Brabec to replace Judge at its Oct. 19, 2011 meeting.

Washtenaw County commissioners serve two-year terms. Currently there are 11 county districts, but redistricting that was completed last year will take effect for the 2012 election, shrinking the number of districts to nine. Three of the new districts – 7, 8 and 9 – will represent Ann Arbor, down from the current four. [map of new county board districts]

Candidates for other county races are unchanged from The Chronicle’s previous report.