From left: Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1); Bob Tetens, director of parks & recreation; county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie; and county treasurer Catherine McClary. (Photos by the writer.)

The board, comprised of elected officials representing nine districts, is responsible for budget decisions. The five positions that are elected by voters countywide – the sheriff, prosecuting attorney, treasurer, clerk/register of deeds and water resources commissioner – head up county departments but must have their budgets approved by the board.

The board is developing a process that will guide budget decisions regarding how to manage budget surpluses or shortfalls, including $3.9 million surplus from 2013 and about $600,000 in higher-than-budgeted property tax revenues in 2014. The county administrator, Verna McDaniel, is recommending that the $3.9 million be kept as general fund reserves. Some county commissioners would rather spend at least a portion of the surplus.

The recommendation from the electeds is to allocate a to-be-determined percentage of any surplus to these five areas: (1) unfunded liabilities for the pension fund; (2) unfunded liabilities for the retiree health care fund; (3) the county’s housing fund, which was eliminated in 2012; (4) the delinquent tax fund reserves, specifically for internal advances on county projects to save bonding costs; and (5) the capital reserve fund or unearmarked reserve fund.

Commissioners made no decision on these recommendations, other than to thank the electeds for their input.

In other budget-related action, the board gave final approval to put a 10-year parks & recreation millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot. Commissioners also set public hearings for two millages that are levied annually in December without voter approval – for support of indigent veterans and their families; and to fund economic development and agricultural activities. Those hearings, to solicit public input, will be held at the board’s July 9 meeting.

The board also gave final approval to set the county’s general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. This is an annual process that includes a public hearing, which was also held on June 4. One person spoke.

A final vote was also taken to create a new committee that will explore funding options for road repair. This follows the board’s rejection – at its meeting on May 21, 2014 – of a proposal to levy a countywide tax for this purpose. No committee members have been appointed yet.

The board was also briefed on work by the community corrections unit, which is part of the sheriff’s department. It provides services that include jail diversion and alternative sentencing options to the Washtenaw County Trial Court, pre-trial services, drug testing, and electronic monitoring. The use of electronic monitoring has increased dramatically, from an average number of cases between 25-30 at any given time in FY 2012-2013, to between 85-115 cases in FY 2013-14.

During public commentary, commissioners heard from David Schonberger, an Ann Arbor resident who thanked the board for passing a resolution last month to oppose oil exploration and drilling in the county. He urged them to use it as a starting point for more action. Specifically, he advocated that the board fund a robust public education campaign and establish an advisory committee to work with Scio Township and the city of Ann Arbor on this issue.

Budget Process

At its Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners approved a four-year general fund budget for 2014-2017. As part of that process, the board adopted a set of budget policies, which were revised at that meeting to address a process for allocating any revenue surpluses – beyond the amounts that are contributed to the county’s fund balance.

Here are the relevant policy sections:

11. The Board of Commissioners commits to long-term budget flexibility and sustainability, and an adequate level of cash flow with its attention to fund balance. A healthy fund balance is an essential ingredient and the following was considered to determine an appropriate level as a target: an appropriate level to fund at least 60 days of operations, to help offset negative cash flow (primarily from the seven month delay in property tax collections after incurred expenses), and to assist buffering any unexpected downturns. Therefore, the Board shall plan future budgets to meet the goal of a Reserve for Subsequent Years representing at least 20.0% of General Fund expenditures, net of indirect costs.

12. Any annual surplus or deficit will have options for use recommended by the County Administrator in alignment with the community outcomes and processes as outlined by the adopted Community Impact Resolution 13-TBD, presented to the Board of Commissioner for consideration and confirmed by Board action and authorization in July of each calendar year.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) has been leading the budget process for the board, as chair of its ways & means committee. On May 21, 2014, she presented a timeline for budget work in 2014. [.pdf of budget calendar resolution] Highlights are:

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

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

On May 21, Conan Smith (D-District 9) had expressed frustration at the approach, because the county administrator has already recommended to keep that amount in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves. He thought the process was “turning out to be little more than a rubber stamp of a decision that’s already been proposed by the administration.” Brabec stressed that commissioners will be discussing and making the final decision – which might differ from the administration’s recommendation.

Budget Process: Advice from “The Electeds”

On June 4, board vice chair Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was leading the board meeting in the absence of chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8). She noted that there were “special guests” at the meeting who would be making a presentation to the board – three of the five countywide elected officials: Sheriff Jerry Clayton, treasurer Catherine McClary, and prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie. Clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum and water resources commissioner Evan Pratt did not attend, but supported the written recommendation that was presented to the board. [.pdf of recommendation] These five positions are informally known as “the electeds.”

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) is vice chair of the county board.

Clayton referred to Ping’s introduction, joking that if they are viewed as guests then they should come to more meetings. He said the recommendation speaks for itself, but they wanted to frame it for the board. They understood that the board has the final authority and decision-making for the county budget, and for how revenues are spent. “We respect that,” Clayton said. But the five countywide-elected officials are part of the county leadership too, he added, and are responsible to all 340,000 residents that elected them into office. So they thought it was important to lend their perspective as the board undertakes its new budget process.

The countywide electeds are asking the board to factor in some set-asides for items that will continue to be a challenge, Clayton said. There are no recommendations regarding amounts or percentages, he noted – that determination is up to the board. “We plan on staying available and engaged in the process as you think about the budget,” he said. “We want to be seen as partners, as part of an overall collaborative effort – not as obstacles or as a group that’s trying to get in the way of the process, but quite frankly trying to enhance the process.”

McClary stressed that the recommendation is supported by all five countywide elected officials, and is presented in the spirit of partnership. She noted that several years ago, she had served on the county board, and for part of that time she served with Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). One of the most important things for the board to assert was its ability to set policy through its budget. “That is your primary responsibility and authority as a board of commissioners,” she said.

The board had taken a momentous step last year when they adopted a four-year budget, McClary continued, “and we want to commend you for that.” But a four-year budget requires being very conservative about revenue estimates. For example, the budget had projected a 1% increase in revenues this year, but the actually increase is about 2% – or about $600,000 more in property tax revenues than budgeted.

In addition, the county recently refinanced some bonds, saving more than $2 million, McClary noted. That amount had previously been budgeted for debt service. [.pdf of press release about bond re-funding] [.pdf of May 28, 2014 bond prospectus]

So knowing that there will likely be unanticipated increases in tax revenues over the next four years, the five electeds are asking that the board consider developing and adopting a formula by which to allocate that money. For example, McClary said the county has “severe” unfunded liabilities for its pension fund – a defined benefit plan called the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) – and for its Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) retiree health care fund. The county is working on a 27-year amortization to achieve 100% funding, but any money that’s put into the funds today will be compounded over that 27-year period, she noted.

In addition to allocating a percentage of any surplus to unfunded WCERS and VEBA liabilities, other recommendations for allocating surplus revenues are:

• Adding to the county’s delinquent tax fund reserves, specifically for internal advances on county projects to save bonding costs.
• Restoring the county’s housing fund. (The fund had received about $110,000 annually, but was eliminated in 2012 as the county made cuts to prevent a budget deficit.)
• Increasing the budgeted amount for the capital reserve fund or unearmarked reserve fund.

By having a plan and assigning percentages to different priorities, McClary noted, the board can strategically allocate surplus funds. She pointed out that the Ann Arbor city council had done something similar at its June 2 meeting – by voting to set aside 50% of the net proceeds from the possible sale of development rights on the Library Lane lot, and put those proceeds into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

McClary said she’d also been surprised by Ping’s description of the electeds as “guests,” calling it exceedingly polite. She again stressed that the five electeds hoped to be partners with the board, giving “on-the-ground information about what it’s like to run a department and to provide services to citizens in this county.”

Budget Process: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) responded to the presentation by quipping, “Thanks, roommates!” He asked McClary to explain the recommendation about adding to the delinquent tax fund reserves for internal advances.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

McClary replied that it’s a topic somewhat separate from any decision to allocate surplus revenues to it. She said the issue can be explored in more detail at a July 10 working session, when she and Evan Pratt – the county’s water resources commissioner – will be making a presentation.

McClary then described the proposal, which she had also mentioned in a presentation to the board at its March 19, 2014 meeting. The idea is for the county to internally fund some of its projects – for drains, roads, public works, parks – instead of bonding. The amount for internal advances would be small – in the $400,000 range or less. She noted that when the county issues bonds, it has to pay a bond attorney and financial advisor, in addition to other costs associated with a bond issue. About half of the money goes toward fees and interest payments, not for the project itself. “We believe we can save the taxpayers quite a bit of money,” she said, by taking care of these financing needs internally, which she called “self-funding.”

When she first became treasurer, McClary noted, there was about $20 million in the delinquent tax revolving fund, and delinquent taxes were about $15 million. So it would have been possible to self-fund some projects then, but the county administration at that time didn’t take that approach. Rather, any excess money above $4 million was moved to the capital projects fund – that’s how the county has been paying debt service for various projects over the last 20 years, she said.

In the past, the county board had authorized keeping up to $4 million in the delinquent tax revolving fund as reserves. Now, McClary is recommending to increase that amount incrementally so that there will be more money for self-funding. She said she already self-funds a small amount of projects, including drain projects from the office of the water resources commissioner.

As another example, McClary said she has discussed using the fund to help the road commission purchase trucks – as the commission typically need about $1 million for five trucks each year. Right now, the road commission is financing those purchases at an interest rate over 3%. McClary said her investment portfolio is earning half a percent. If the road commission agreed to a 2% interest rate in a self-funding arrangement, they’d save money and the general fund would earn more. “That’s the type of thing we want to talk with you about,” she said.

McClary noted that the four-year budget included very conservative estimates on property tax revenues, so there will likely be excess revenues. She told the board that this particular group of commissioners has been very policy-oriented, and meticulous about planning. “We’re thinking this would be a great partnership,” she said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Conan Smith agreed, saying the anticipated excess revenues provide a great opportunity to make strategic, systemic investments. It’s an opportunity that the county hasn’t had in many years, he said, and the advice from electeds is appreciated.

Other commissioners also thanked the group for these recommendations. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked about the recommendation to put a percentage of excess revenues toward unfunded liabilities in the WCERS pension fund. The recommendation includes a statement that WCERS is “now less than 60% funded, a level defined as below acceptable norms.” He asked McClary to elaborate, saying that it drew a bit of a red flag for him.

McClary said she thought the recent bond rating prospectus had mentioned that the pension funding was low. But it had also mentioned the management of the county and the strategic role that the board of commissioners is playing, she said. Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had gone with the administration to meet with the Standard & Poor’s staff prior to the bond issue, McClary said. She noted that she had participated in that meeting via conference call, and reported that Rabhi had conveyed in a very emphatic way the strategic approach that the board is taking. She pointed out that the county was successful in securing a triple-A rating.

The Government Finance Officers Association is the premier organization for assessing standards, McClary noted. LaBarre’s question would be a good one to ask of the county’s actuaries when they present to the board in July, she added. “They have indicated that anything under 60% is getting into territory that becomes problematic,” she said.

LaBarre clarified with McClary that the term “below acceptable norms” didn’t come from an audit or official statement from the actuaries.

Budget Process: Working Session

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) gave an update on the hiring of a consultant for helping the board on budget-related work. By way of background, at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, commissioners authorized county administrator Verna McDaniel to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. As county administrator, McDaniel has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts.

Two candidates were selected for interviews, but one of them subsequently withdrew, Brabec said. The remaining candidate will be interviewed on June 5, she added.

Also on June 5, the board would be holding a budget discussion at its working session, including how to use the 2013 budget surplus. Responding to a query from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Brabec said that no decisions would be made at the working session, “but we wanted to start to have that conversation.” At some point, the board will develop a document with guidelines that will direct their decisions about allocating any surplus.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Public Hearings for Millages

The board was asked to set public hearings for its July 9 meeting to get input on two millages that Washtenaw county levies without voter approval: (1) for support of indigent veterans and their families; and (2) to fund economic development and agricultural activities.

From left: Commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), standing, talk with Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management.

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

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

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

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

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

In previous years, the board has taken action in the fall to levy these millages. When queried by The Chronicle about the earlier timeline this year, finance director Kelly Belknap said the required documentation for these millages must be submitted by Sept. 30. “Prior to submitting the required documentation the Commissioners must first approve the levy. So it is just about timing and getting the documents submitted within the required timeframe,” she said.

Outcome: Without discussion, the public hearings for these millages were set for July 9.

Parks & Recreation Millage

The agenda included a resolution giving final approval to put a 10-year parks & recreation operations millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

From left: Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). Sizemore also serves on the county parks & recreation commission.

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: Without discussion, the board gave final approval to put the parks & recreation operations millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

General Operating Millage

The June 4 meeting included a final vote to set the county’s 2014 general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. This is an annual process that includes a public hearing, which was also held on June 4. One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke, advocating for more resources to provide services for the county’s most vulnerable residents.

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

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

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

Outcome: The millage rate was set by a unanimous vote, without discussion.

Community Corrections

A request to approve the application for a $421,900 state community corrections grant appeared on the June 4 agenda.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton talks with Judy Foy, left, and Renee Wilson, director of community corrections. Foy serves on the community corrections advisory board.

The grant from the Michigan Dept. of Corrections is for the period from Oct. 1, 2014 through Sept. 30, 2015. This is part of a regular, annual grant process to fund services that include diversion and alternative sentencing options to the Washtenaw County Trial Court, pre-trial services, drug testing, electronic monitoring and “social education,” according to a staff memo. The total program of $1.18 million also includes $240,983 in county matching funds, $280,584 in estimated program revenue, and $239,554 in the use of fund balance. The community corrections program is part of the county sheriff’s office. [.pdf of staff memo] [.pdf of grant application]

This year’s program includes a new position – with a salary range between $31,912 and $43,674 – to help supervise a substantial increase in use of electronic monitoring by all Washtenaw County courts, for pretrial and sentenced offenders as an alternative to jail. According to the staff memo, the use of electronic monitoring increased 256% over the previous fiscal year. Average electronic monitoring cases for FY 2012-13 were between 25-30 at any given time, and increased to between 85-115 cases in FY 2013-14. Increased revenue from the electronic monitoring program and use of fund balance will be used to fund the increase in staffing.

The grant was submitted to the state in May.

Community Corrections: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) described community corrections as a “gem” that most residents aren’t aware of. She asked for more information about the increase in the number of people who are served through this program.

Renee Wilson, community corrections director, replied that there’s been a constant increase over the past two or three years, for a variety of reasons. Community corrections has established itself as a service for the courts and county prosecutor’s office that they have confidence in, she said, in terms of pre-trial supervision. Systemically, she added, the county is approaching the management of jail overcrowding better than in the past, diverting people who don’t need to be in jail during the pre-trial period by using community corrections.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton and commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

There’s also been an increase in drug testing. “We’ve pretty much become the sole provider of drug-testing services to all of Washtenaw County,” Wilson said. In past years, there were some private entities that provided those services, but the courts have moved to looking at community corrections for that service, she said.

The case load for electronic monitoring is another area that’s increased, Wilson noted. One factor is the increase in specialty courts throughout the county, which each have different requirements for services, including electronic monitoring. Also, the 14-A District Court no longer runs its own tether program, she noted, so that’s coming to community corrections as well.

Courts are doing risk assessment for pre-trial offenders, Wilson explained. Court magistrates, prior to every arraignment, identify people who would be appropriate to release on bond, and determine what type of supervision would be appropriate for them. Some of those people are being referred to the electronic monitoring program, she said.

Brabec asked Wilson to talk about the number of jail beds saved by this approach. According to Wilson, from 2010 to 2013, the diversion efforts resulted in 91,375 jail bed days that weren’t used, saving the county $11,513,250. Wilson noted that these figures only included “successful completions” for all pre-trial and sentenced supervision programs. That is, the figures don’t include savings from people who were initially part of a program but who were then sent back to jail for whatever reason, she said.

Between 2012 and 2013 there was an increase in the estimated per-day cost of a jail bed per inmate. Prior to 2012, the cost was estimated at $85 per day, based on a study that the county had done in 2003. That figure was updated for 2013, based on internal cost studies done by the sheriff’s office. The current estimated per-day cost of a jail bed is $126.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the grant application.

Road Funding

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to create a new committee that will explore funding options for countywide road repair.

Lew Kidder of Scio Township has been active in road funding issues.

Commissioners had given initial approval to the idea at their May 21, 2014 meeting, after rejecting a proposal to levy a 0.4-mill countywide road tax in December. The tax would have been levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval.

In arguing against levying the tax at this time, some commissioners cited the need to study funding options – including a possible Act 283 levy – before making a decision. The committee will consist of seven members: (1) a road commissioner or designee; (2) the road commission managing director or designee; (3) the county board’s road commission liaison; (4) one additional county commissioner; (5) a position representing townships; (6) a position representing incorporated municipalities; and (7) a member of the general public. Members will be appointed at a later date.

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

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

On June 4, there was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9). Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) were absent.

Board of Health

The June 4 board agenda included a resolution to create a board of health, an entity that would prove advice on public health issues for the county. Commissioners had given initial approval to the item at their May 21, 2014 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s public health officer, attended the June 4 meeting but left when she was told that the item would be postponed.

There was no discussion on this item, but Conan Smith (D-District 9) moved to postpone it until the board’s July 9 meeting. He did not give an explanation for the postponement.

Outcome: The item was postponed until the July 9 meeting.

Bonding for Malletts Creek Drain Project

The board was asked to authorize bonding for up to $650,000 to fund the Malletts Creek Springwater sub-drain project in Ann Arbor. Bond payments would be made through special assessments against the city of Ann Arbor. The project will include stormwater management improvements in the city’s Springwater subdivision. According to a staff memo, the financing will be made through the state revolving loan fund at 2.5% over 20 years. [.pdf of staff memo]

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners granted initial approval for the bonding. A final vote is expected on July 9.

Proclamations

There were two resolutions of appreciation on the June 4 agenda.

Gloria Brooks, CEO of the nonprofit Arbor Hospice.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) presented a resolution honoring Arbor Hospice on its 30th anniversary. It was founded in 1984 by Mary Lindquist, a registered nurse, to provide care for the terminally ill and their families.

The nonprofit’s CEO, Gloria Brooks, was on hand to accept a framed copy of the resolution. She thanked commissioners, saying it was “amazing to have a 30-year journey as we help families experience their end-of-life journey.” Arbor Hospice helps 50% of the residents of Washtenaw County, she said – it’s the largest provider in this county. She invited commissioners to a celebration on June 11.

Brooks received a round of applause from the board and staff.

Another resolution of appreciation honored Roy Wilbanks for his service to Washtenaw County and Eastern Michigan University. Wilbanks, a former EMU regent, did not attend the June 4 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

During the June 4 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Oil Drilling

David Schonberger spoke during public commentary, introducing himself as a resident of Ann Arbor from the district represented by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7). He provided a handout to commissioners, in addition to his commentary. [.pdf of handout]

He thanked commissioners for passing a resolution at their May 21, 2014 meeting to oppose gas and oil drilling. He urged them to use it as a starting point for more action. Specifically, he advocated that the board fund a robust public education campaign and establish an advisory committee to work with Scio Township and the city of Ann Arbor on this issue. Schonberger noted that his research shows a gray area in relevant state laws, opening the door to “numerous creative ways to intervene and discourage that particular type of local economic development.”

From left: Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and commissioners Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Schonberger cited a 1990 summary judgment upheld by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit Court in the case of West Bay Exploration Co. v AIG et. al. [West Bay is seeking a permit for oil exploration in Scio Township.] “This citizen action is a statement about documented violations of state law, reckless irresponsibility, intentional corporate misconduct, and gross negligence at facilities located in Michigan,” he said. He added that NIMBY is particularly justified in this matter, and that the risks of such proposed activities in Washtenaw County vastly exceed any potential benefits.

Responding to his commentary, Conan Smith (D-District 9) agreed that the county could be doing more to help people restrain gas and oil exploration here. Educating residents is one of the key ways to do that, within the structure of the current state law, he added. The county “may or may not have regulatory authority that we can leverage, but we can certainly help people to organize, and to use their own property rights to protect their interests and the interests in the environment,” Smith said.

As an example, Smith stated that it takes a majority of property owners to agree to lease their land in order for the exploration to happen. There are also clauses regarding environmental protection that can be incorporated into lease agreements. He reported that the environmental health code board of appeals has been discussing these issues, “and I’ll make sure we continue the conversation at that level.”

Communications & Commentary: VEBA, WCERS Special Meeting

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that there will be a special joint meeting of the boards of the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) retiree health care fund. It will take place on Thursday, June 12 at 1 p.m. in the county administration building’s boardroom, 220 N. Main St. The actuarial reports will be presented for those two plans.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke during both opportunities for public commentary. He urged the board to keep focused on the priorities of ending homelessness, increasing affordable housing, expanding public transportation, and providing better access to health care and education. He also supported Democrat Mark Schauer for governor, so that these priorities can be addressed on a statewide level.

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

Absent: Dan Smith, Yousef Rabhi.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Commissioners had given initial approval to the idea at their May 21, 2014 meeting, after rejecting a proposal to levy a 0.4-mill countywide road tax in December. The tax would have been levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval.

In arguing against levying the tax at this time, some commissioners cited the need to study funding options – including a possible Act 283 levy – before making a decision. The committee will consist of seven members: (1) a road commissioner or designee; (2) the road commission managing director or designee; (3) the county board’s road commission liaison; (4) one additional county commissioner; (5) a position representing townships; (6) a position representing incorporated municipalities; and (7) a member of the general public. Members will be appointed at a later date.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

The resolved clauses stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road Tax: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road Tax: Board Discussion

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

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road Tax: Roads Funding Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road Tax: Public Hearing

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

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

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

Parks Millage Renewal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Board of Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oil Drilling

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

The two resolved clauses state:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Washtenaw County, Michigan:

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

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

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

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

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

Oil Drilling: Public Commentary

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

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

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

Oil Drilling: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014 Budget Calendar

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

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

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

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPARK Grant

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

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

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

There was no discussion on this item.

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

Coordinated Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was no discussion of this item.

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

Appointments

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

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

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

Millage Rate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proclamations

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

Outcome: All resolutions were passed unanimously.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Success by Six

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

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

Absent: Alicia Ping.

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

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

The tax would have been levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval.

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

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

At the board’s May 7, 2014 meeting, Dan Smith (R-District 2) brought forward a resolution that would have authorized levying a 1 mill tax – under Act 283 – in December 2014. A 1-mill tax would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.” On May 7, the board debated the issue at length but ultimately voted to postpone the resolution until May 21 over dissent from Ping.

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

The resolved clauses stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From left: Washtenaw County corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2). (Photos by the writer.)

Following a lengthy discussion, commissioners voted to set a public hearing about a possible countywide road millage. The hearing will be held at their meeting on May 21 so that the public can give input on a proposal to levy up to 1 mill for roads in 2014. The tax would be levied under Act 283 of 1909.

No final decision is expected at the May 21 meeting about levying a tax – although a resolution to levy a 1-mill tax is on the May 21 agenda for initial consideration.

Commissioners all appeared to support finding a way to secure more road funding, but some voiced concern about process and timing – especially because a tax under Act 283 would be levied without voter approval.

The May 7 discussion began when Dan Smith (R-District 2) brought forward a resolution that would authorize levying a 1 mill tax – under Act 283 – in December 2014. It would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.” The board ultimately voted to postpone the resolution until May 21 over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

During the wide-ranging discussion, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) expressed concern that the public hadn’t yet been informed about the Act 283 proposal. At the request of board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Roy Townsend – managing director of the county road commission – had prepared a list of road projects that could be funded by an Act 283 millage, which was distributed at the May 7 meeting. Townsend and two of the three road commissioners – Barb Fuller and Bill McFarlane – attended the May 7 meeting, and Townsend fielded questions from the board.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger cautioned that Act 283 lays out a specific process, which calls for a presentation of proposed road projects at a meeting in late September or October, prior to the December levy. Responding to those concerns, Dan Smith noted that options might include passing a resolution this month or in June to indicate the board’s intent to levy the tax, then possibly using money from the general fund’s fund balance to pay for road work this summer. The fund balance would be reimbursed when the tax revenues are collected in December. Hedger pointed out a risk in that approach: If someone sues the county and a court issues an injunction, then the county might be unable to levy the tax – after already spending general fund dollars.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) supported the Act 283 tax. “I’m almost of a mindset of ‘Let’s do it’ – and if someone wants to sue us over it, you know, then when they file a lawsuit we can reconsider,” he said. Smith preferred the Act 283 levy over a ballot initiative that voters would be asked to approve, saying there are other funding proposals he’d rather put on the ballot – for public safety and human services.

The board discussion on this issue will continue at the May 21 meeting.

In other road-related items on the May 7 agenda, the board voted to accept the recommendations of a subcommittee that was appointed last year to explore options enabled by state legislators. The subcommittee had recommended not to make the road commission part of county operations, and not to make the job of road commissioner an elected position.

The May 7 meeting also included an update about the community’s approach to addressing homelessness. The briefing was in response to a board directive given to staff on April 2, 2014 to develop a plan for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness. The blueprint was adopted in 2004. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

Responding to information that there’s been an increase in people from outside of Washtenaw County coming to the Delonis Center shelter in Ann Arbor, Conan Smith cautioned against making that kind of distinction, saying it “dehumanized” people who are seeking help, regardless of where they’re from.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, told Smith that his point was well taken. But she noted that unless the state asks other communities to provide something close to the level of support that Washtenaw County provides, “then it’s an issue of volume. I’m sorry, but it’s not about dehumanizing.” Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, noted that 96% of the shelter’s budget comes from local public funding, and the shelter was built for people who became homeless in Washtenaw County. She said it was her job “to hold that line.”

During the May 7 meeting, commissioners also gave initial approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders. The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

In other action, the board appointed Ellen Rabinowitz as health officer for the Washtenaw public health department; passed a resolution calling for an increase in Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour; and received a first-quarter budget update from the county’s finance staff. First-quarter projections tend to be conservative, because they’re based on only three months of the year, with limited evidence of budget trends. At this point, the 2014 general fund is projected to have a $70,230 shortfall by year’s end – with total revenues of $103,404,537 and total expenditures of $103,474,767. There is no planned use of fund balance for this year’s budget.

Road Funding

The May 7 agenda included a discussion item for road funding options, but there was originally no resolution on the published agenda. At the end of the ways & means committee meeting, Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the board has discussed road commission issues for years. He said he continuously hears from residents that they’re sick of the terrible roads, and they’re tired of hearing explanations about why the roads are so bad. People seem willing to raise their taxes to do it, Smith said. He’d even heard support from “an old Dutchman” at his church, which Smith characterized as the strongest endorsement for increasing taxes that he’ll ever get.

Road commissioner Barb Fuller.

Smith thought the board needed to act on this issue, pointing to the impact that an unusually harsh winter has had on the roads. So he put forward a resolution to levy a 1-mill tax authorized under Act 283 of 1909.

Act 283 requires the road commission to submit a plan of recommended road repairs and the cost to undertake the projects. The law allows the county board to levy a millage to cover those costs, without voter approval. [.pdf of relevant section from Act 283, including summary by Lew Kidder of Scio Township.] Because the law is more than a century old and pre-dates the state’s Headlee amendment, there’s some uncertainty about the ability of county governments to use it.

Commissioners have previously held several discussions about the possibility of additional funding sources for road repair – most recently at a lengthy working session on April 17, 2014. In addition to a possible Act 283 levy, another option that’s been discussed is to put a countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot for voter approval. A draft resolution circulated at the working session called for a four-year, 0.5 mill tax – from 2014-2017 – that would raise $7.15 million in its first year.

The resolution brought forward by Dan Smith on May 7 would authorize levying a 1 mill tax under Act 283 in December 2014. It would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.” [.pdf of draft resolution]

Smith’s resolution would earmark 50% of the gross revenues to be used in the municipality in which the revenue was generated. Beyond that, 10% would be used for non-motorized transportation needs – like bike lanes and pedestrian paths – with the remainder to be allocated “based on use, need, and impact to the traveling public.”

The resolution also addresses concerns about the potential legal issues related to Act 283. From the draft resolution:

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel is directed to provide an exhaustive formal written opinion, by September 30, 2014, which clearly and convincingly details the exact mechanism under which Act 283 of 1909 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people; and that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners waives any attorney/client privilege concerning this opinion.

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

Road Funding: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d met with the road commission earlier that week. He noted that the road commission had prepared a list of possible projects that could be funded under Act 283. The project list had been prepared based on levying 0.4 mills. [.xls spreadsheet of proposed road projects based on 0.4 mill tax] [.xls spreadsheet of possible amounts raised by jurisdiction] [.pdf map showing location of proposed projects]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Rabhi said if the board decided to levy the full mill, there would be more projects that could be added to the list.

However, Rabhi said he’d spoken with the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, and now had concerns that Act 283 might not be the right approach to get road projects done this year. It might work for next year, Rabhi noted, “but unless we find a creative way of financing this, I think it’s going to be difficult for us to put the dollars levied to road projects in 2014, just because of limitations in the law.”

Yousef asked Hedger when the county could collect the tax under Act 283. Hedger replied, saying he understood there’s some urgency to get money to fix roads. Hedger cautioned that Act 283 lays out a specific process, which calls for a presentation of proposed road projects at a meeting in late September or October, prior to the December levy. It’s meant to be an annual levy, with the road commission determining the projects that need to be done and how much it would cost to do the work. That project list is given to the county clerk, who passes it along to the county board for consideration at an “annual meeting of the board of supervisors.” Hedger noted that Act 283 defines the annual meeting as one that takes place after Sept. 14 and before Oct. 16. Three county board meetings are scheduled during that period this year, he noted.

However, Hedger thought it’s premature to look at levying a millage under Act 283 right now, because the process needs to be followed. The county can’t put the levy on the summer tax bills, he added. Right now, the county levies its general operating millage in July, and every other county tax in December. The state statute allows certain smaller levies to be put on the July tax bill, but not one as large as the Act 283 levy, he said.

Rabhi said he supports what Dan Smith is trying to do, and he knows the road commission is working hard to address the condition of the roads. But no effort, however well-meaning, can overcome the force of nature combined with the force of Lansing, he said, “or the unforce of Lansing.” The situation demands creative thinking, Rabhi said, and there are at least two options. One is levying a millage under Act 283, and the other is asking voters to approve a millage for roads.

Rabhi called the Act 283 levy a “stopgap, Band-aid approach.” If used properly, it can help, he added, but he didn’t know if it would be possible to use it in 2014.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) chaired the board’s subcommittee on possible road commission restructuring.

Responding to those concerns, Dan Smith noted that options might include passing a resolution this month or in June to indicate the board’s intent to levy the Act 283 tax, then possibly using money from the general fund’s fund balance to pay for road work this summer. The fund balance would be reimbursed when the tax revenues are collected in December.

Rabhi asked Hedger if it would be possible to use general fund dollars for road work, then get reimbursed later from Act 283 revenues. Hedger replied that general fund dollars can be used for anything. The reimbursement aspect is trickier, he said, because the statute states that the Act 283 revenues must be used “exclusively for the purposes herein mentioned.” So if the money is fronted from the general fund, the Act 283 revenues wouldn’t technically be used for the purposes of road project – they’d be reimbursing the county.

The bigger issue, though, is if the county paid for the work out of the general fund, but then is sued later in the year and given an injunction that would prevent levying the Act 283 tax, Hedger said. “Then we would have spent the money, and you have no way to recoup it.” He noted that as the county’s attorney, he’s paid to be a pessimist and to explain the potential downsides.

Rabhi then asked if the road commission would be comfortable spending money this year with the understanding that a millage would be levied in December. Hedger noted that the same risks would be involved for the road commission.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked whether an Act 283 millage would be subject to a voter referendum, if citizens decide to do a petition against it. Hedger said it’s not mentioned in the act, so he didn’t think it would be subject to a referendum.

Peterson wondered what would be wrong with putting a millage proposal on the ballot. Let the citizens decide, he said. Peterson complained that the board didn’t support his progressive agenda, and had cut programs like Head Start – yet he was expected to support a road millage. He said he wasn’t necessarily against the road tax, but thought residents should be allowed to weigh in.

Peterson also wondered why the road commission couldn’t issue bonds to cover the work. He said he’d support postponement until the May 21 meeting, so that these questions could be addressed, and so Hedger can put some of these things in writing.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) directed a series of questions to Roy Townsend, managing director of the road commission. He asked about the flexibility of funding that the road commission uses, including formula funding from Act 51. Are those funds discretionary? Townsend replied that the road commission receives Act 51 funding each month from the state, which varies between about $1.1 million to $1.8 million. Townsend indicated that there’s some flexibility in spending those funds. It depends on what priorities are for the townships, and how much township funding is available.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

If the road commission gets direction in May or June, Townsend said, there’s still time to do more road work this season.

Conan Smith suggested working with the road commission on projects for 2015 that could be paid with an Act 283 levy in December of 2014. That approach might free up funds this year for other projects that can be funded with non-Act 283 revenues.

Townsend hoped there’d be a way to figure out how to make more revenues available. He reported getting a call from a resident who lived on Willis Road, who had collected pieces of the road in a wheel barrel – because the road was disintegrating – and wanted the road commission to pick it up.

Conan Smith noted that Act 283 isn’t the best vehicle for road funding, but it’s an option. “I’m almost of a mindset of ‘Let’s do it’ – and if someone wants to sue us over it, you know, then when they file a lawsuit we can reconsider. But know that if you file a lawsuit, there isn’t money for the project anymore.” There’s a sense of urgency that the county board needs to meet, he said.

Responding to Peterson’s question about putting a road tax before voters, C. Smith noted that the earliest the board could get to the ballot would be August – if they voted on it that night – and after that, it would be in November. And there’s no guarantee that voters would approve it, he noted.

The other issue, C. Smith said, is that he has other priorities that can only be funded by going to the ballot. The sheriff has repeatedly articulated challenges regarding public safety, Smith said, and the only mechanism for funding that is to put a millage proposal on the ballot. Human service needs are another area that could be funded with a ballot initiative. With roads, the county has the option of going to the ballot, but also has another means of funding – Act 283. “I’d like to use the other means [for road funding], and save the ballot for those issues that I really, really deeply care about,” Smith said.

C. Smith thanked Dan Smith for bringing forward this proposal, and for designating 10% of the funds raised through Act 283 to work on the non-motorized transportation network. “If you’re a biker or a walker, you know that network is as messed up as the road system is,” C. Smith said.

C. Smith said he was comfortable taking an initial vote on this resolution that night at the ways & means committee meeting, with a final vote on May 21. If everyone else wanted to postpone, that was fine with him too.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he’d been in Lansing the previous day, and had spoken to both of the state senators who represent parts of Washtenaw County. One of those was Sen. Randy Richardville (R-District 17), who is the senate majority leader. Richardville had indicated support for a plan that’s being worked on in Lansing, that might allocate up to $2 billion for a more comprehensive fix to repair roads in Michigan. LaBarre didn’t think it would hurt to wait a few weeks to see what the state legislature would do. “I have zero faith in them as an institution – that’s probably by this point a relatively bipartisan statement – but here’s the deal: They are the only ones, short of the feds, that can dedicate enough resources to actually do this in a way that’s comprehensive.”

LaBarre also wanted to wait so that the other issues raised during the May 7 discussion could be addressed. He wanted to be in a position to defend the board’s decision, if they levied Act 283, to show they did it in the most prudent, thought-out way.

Dan Smith said he was comfortable with the options discussed – postponement or initial approval. As far as seeing what state legislators might do, “I’m greatly tired of waiting for Lansing,” he said. State lawmakers have been talking about it a long time, he noted, and if the county board wants to do anything about its infrastructure, they need to do it themselves. If the state steps in later, “so much the better for transportation infrastructure in Washtenaw County.”

He stressed that an Act 283 levy would raise revenues for projects in cities as well as townships. He also supported putting a tax proposal before voters, but he understood the concerns that Conan Smith had raised.

Road Funding: Board Discussion – Postponement

Peterson moved to postpone the Act 283 resolution until the May 21 ways & means committee meeting, for an initial vote. He stressed the need for some kind of public process – particularly since it’s an election year. [All nine county commissioner seats are up for election in 2014.]

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners postponed the resolution until May 21. Dissenting was Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Road Funding: Board Discussion – Public Hearing

Yousef Rabhi proposed scheduling a public hearing to get feedback on road funding proposals. Dan Smith moved to schedule a public hearing for the board’s May 21 meeting.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Ronnie Peterson wondered what the voters would be responding to: Would the road commission have a plan prepared before then? He also wanted a document from corporation counsel Curtis Hedger, laying out the legal issues. He thought the public should have access to the same information that commissioners have.

Rabhi said the plan that was prepared by the road commission – based on an Act 283 levy of 0.4 mills – had been approved by the road commission board. Rabhi said he appreciated Peterson’s comments, because the resolution for funding proposes a 1-mill tax.

Dan Smith noted that a public hearing isn’t required, but he was in favor of having one anyway. He thought that by the time the May 21 agenda was posted, there would be sufficient information available to the public. He wasn’t too worried about the board eventually deciding to levy less than 1 mill – he didn’t think any citizens would object to a lower levy.

Felicia Brabec wanted time to talk with township officials in the district she presents.

Rabhi noted that the board already has a plan from the road commission for projects that could be funded with Act 283 revenues. But it was confusing, given the different amounts mentioned in the road commission’s plan and Dan Smith’s resolution, so he wouldn’t support scheduling a public hearing yet.

Alicia Ping pointed out that the allocations outlined in the resolution: Of the 1 mill levy, 50% of the revenues would go back to the individual jurisdictions – townships, villages and cities – and 10% would be designated for non-motorized transportation. That brings the amount close to the 0.4 mills mentioned in the road commission plan, she said.

Dan Smith pointed out that a public hearing would be a generic public hearing about levying 1 mill under Act 283. He thought there would be more than enough information in the board packet.

Hedger suggested that the wording of the public hearing notice could be for a levy of “up to 1 mill.” Conan Smith offered that wording as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: On a 5-3 vote, commissioners approved setting a public hearing for an Act 283 levy at the May 21 meeting. Dissenting were Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson and Yousef Rabhi. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Road Funding: Public Commentary

During the evening’s second opportunity for public commentary, Jeff Hayner of Ann Arbor spoke to the board. He said he’d been watching the proceedings from home and thought he’d come to the meeting to say a few words. He’d been surprised to see a public hearing scheduled for May 21 on the Act 283 millage. He noted that a road millage had recently passed in Grand Rapids, and that the previous day, on May 6, a new transit tax had been passed by voters in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. “Now we’re paying more for buses than we pay for the roads they ride on,” Hayner said. “And it got me thinking, you know? The taxpayers’ corpse isn’t even cold yet, and you guys are reaching into their pockets for more.”

He didn’t think it was right that a tax proposal wouldn’t be put before voters for approval. He thought the state’s Headlee Amendment was put in place to give taxpayers a voice. He didn’t think it was right that taxes would be doubled. Hayner pointed out that advocates for a public transit millage had years to prepare, and even that didn’t seem like enough time for a decent conversation, he said. He urged commissioners to take more time so that they could hear from people about the possible road tax.

Road Funding: Subcommittee Recommendations

In another road-related item, the May 7 agenda included a resolution to accept the recommendations of a subcommittee that was appointed last year to explore options enabled by state legislators. The subcommittee had recommended not to make the road commission part of county operations, and not to make the job of road commissioner an elected position.

State legislation enacted in 2012 allowed for: (1) a county board of commissioners to exercise the powers and duties of a road commission; and (2) the functions of a road commission to be transferred to the county board. A sunset clause means that the laws expire on Jan. 1, 2015. That deadline prompted the county board to examine these options.

Outcome: The resolution passed, initially without dissent. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was not in the room when the vote was taken. A few minutes after the vote, Conan Smith (D-District 9) spoke with Pete Simms, a member of the county clerk’s staff who takes minutes for the board. The communication was inaudible to the public, but board chair Yousef Rabhi subsequently announced that Smith had indicated his intention to vote against the resolution.

The following night, on May 8, the board’s working session included a discussion of another restructuring option: Expanding the road commission board. See Chronicle coverage: “County Debates Expanded Road Commission.”

Road Funding: Letter to State Legislature

Dan Smith (R-District 2) drafted a letter to be sent to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, urging passage of House Bills 5117 and 5118, which would remove the sunset clause from state legislation that had been enacted in 2012 regarding the possible restructuring of road commissions. [.pdf of letter]

From the letter:

Washtenaw County’s roads are a critical public asset; stewarding this infrastructure is the responsibility of an independent entity, with negligible input or funding from the elected Board of Commissioners. Eliminating the sunset would provide the board with more options for managing roads, including the possibility of additional locally-generated revenue. We urge passage of HB 5117 and HB 5118.

Yousef Rabhi, Alicia Ping and Kent Martinez-Kratz asked that their names not be included as signatories. After consulting with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger during the meeting, Rabhi told commissioners that if anyone else wanted their names removed from the letter, they should let Smith know.

Outcome: It was not a voting item.

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders.

Community activist Lefiest Galimore and Eileen Spring, president and CEO of the nonprofit Food Gatherers.

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

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

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

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

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized as part of the county board’s overall coordinated funding resolution, passed on Nov. 6, 2013. The changes were described in a staff memo:

The County’s Human Services and Children’s Well-being funding will continue to focus on critical services for early childhood, aging, housing/homelessness, safety net health, school-aged children and youth, and food security/hunger relief. Under this proposal, this funding will not necessarily be allocated to these six priority areas in proportional amounts consistent with historic trends. Allocations to these six priority areas will be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized.

Under this proposal, the application pre-screening process will be broadened to better accommodate smaller non-profit organizations. New types of financial documentation will allow smaller agencies to illustrate their viability in the absence of an independent audit. Capacity-building grants would be available to target smaller agencies that need to improve their governance or financial structure to be eligible for the application process, with the goal of expanding the opportunities for all agencies providing human services in the County in an equitable fashion.

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary about coordinated funding and the county’s support for nonprofits. Several others who are involved in coordinated funding – as board members or executive directors of the nonprofits that receive funding – attended the meeting but did not formally address the county board.

Lefiest Galimore noted that he had previously shared his concerns with the board about the coordinated funding approach. The process eliminates African-American organizations out of the funding process, he said. He’s heard that the issue is a nonprofit’s capacity, but “that’s no longer an acceptable excuse,” he said. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. People are trying to do good things but they can’t get funded, he said, so they’re taking money out of their own pockets. Some organizations are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars, Galimore said, but there’s no accountability. African-Americans account for 16% of the county’s population, but over 50% of people incarcerated at the county jail are African-Americans, he said, and the situation isn’t getting better.

Steve Powers, Ann Arbor city administrator.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers told commissioners he wanted them to understand that the Ann Arbor city council is fully committed to the coordinated funding process. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council endorsed the coordinated funding model, and council would be considering the city’s over $1.2 million general fund allocation for coordinated funding at its May 19 meeting. The process is bringing together the community, the public and private sector, and nonprofits to focus on outcomes that matter, he said.

Nicole Adelman, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House, told commissioners that she lives in Washtenaw County, and is also a board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and the HIV-AIDS Resource Center. She thanked the board for supporting local human service agencies, and for spending time later in the meeting to talk about homelessness in Washtenaw County. She reminded everyone of the children and families that experience homelessness, who often aren’t talked about. There are 8 parents and 13 kids at the Alpha House shelter that night, she said. Any discussion about homelessness should include not just individual adults, but also children and families.

Speaking next was Debbie Jackson, director of community impact for community impact for the United Way of Washtenaw County, one of the coordinated funding partners. She noted that together, the six partners leverage about $12.5 million for human services. On May 5, the United Way board had approved the recommendations that county commissioners were now considering. United Way’s commitment to the process this year is $1.8 million, she noted. She thanked commissioners and others in the community for their support.

Carole McCabe, executive director of Avalon Housing, thanked the board for their interest in homelessness, calling it an urgent priority for the community. She reminded them that Avalon’s work to provide permanent supportive housing is an effective solution to homelessness. They operate 260 apartments at 20 different sites around Ann Arbor, providing housing to 160 adults, about 100 families and 150 children. She described the range of services that Avalon provides, and noted that Avalon is a founding member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

Chris Levleit, operations director for Michigan Ability Partners, described the work of that nonprofit in providing housing stability for veterans and others with disabilities. She encouraged commissioners to continue providing support to address homelessness.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said the board had passed a resolution to set up a committee to look at human services funding, and he wondered what the status was for that committee. He said the vote had occurred during the board’s budget discussions last year, at the same time that the board had voted to establish a committee to handle Act 88 allocations.

No one else on the board indicated that they recalled such a resolution, nor did county administrator Verna McDaniel. Peterson hoped someone could research that by the next board meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who serves as board chair, promised to follow up with Peterson.

Peterson spoke at length about the need for supporting human services nonprofits and the residents they serve – especially those struggling with homelessness. He noted that the eastern part of the county, including the Ypsilanti area that he represents, is one of the few places that has affordable housing. The county needs to be involved in addressing some of these unmet needs, he said, and in providing a better “front door” to the county’s own human service agencies.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked the representatives from local nonprofits who were attending the meeting, saying he also interacted with many of them during his “day job.” [LaBarre is vice president for government relations at the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber.] He thanked them for their work in the community.

Rabhi also thanked the nonprofit leaders, noting that they help leverage public dollars for the public good.

Outcome: Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) recused herself from the funding allocation for Food Gatherers, noting that she serves on that nonprofit’s board. Otherwise, the coordinated funding allocations were endorsed unanimously. The board is expected to take a final vote to allocate funding on May 21.

Response to Homelessness

At their May 7 meeting, commissioners were briefed on possible responses to homelessness and a lack of affordable housing in this community. The briefing came in response to a board directive given to staff on April 2, 2014 to develop a plan for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness. The blueprint was adopted in 2004. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County.

The May 7 presentation was given by three different staff members: Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community and economic development; Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center homeless shelter; and Amanda Carlisle, director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Several WHA board members also attended the May 7 meeting, including former county administrator Bob Guenzel, who serves as WHA board president, and attorney Dick Soble, the board’s secretary. [.pdf of presentation]

Schulmeister reviewed the contributing factors to homelessness, including untreated mental illness, increased poverty, a lack of affordable housing and more. She noted that 78% of the people who come to the shelter have income less than $500 per month, and 71% have no income.

The good news is that homelessness “just plain ends with housing,” she said, “and that’s an important phrase to remember.” The formula for success, she added, is permanent affordable housing plus supportive services. That includes “rapid rehousing,” where people who are homeless are quickly given housing with a short- to medium-term subsidy, coupled with supportive services.

This community has a long history of addressing the problem, including creation of the Blueprint to End Homelessness. That effort involved over 300 community members and organizations, including the private sector, sheriff’s office, University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. Carlisle reviewed the blueprint’s four main goals: prevention, housing with services, reforming the system of care, and engaging the community.

Carlisle also described some of the achievements since the blueprint was developed, and pointed commissioners to a more comprehensive report about these efforts that’s posted on WHA’s website. [.pdf of progress report] Highlights include work by Project Outreach Team (PORT) and the Justice Project Outreach Team (JPORT); the Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC), which provides a single entry-point for people seeking services; creation of an endowment for permanent supporting housing; the FUSE (Frequent User Systems Engagement) project, a national pilot program that integrates services for high-risk adults; and creation of a street outreach court and rapid re-housing program, among several other initiatives.

A map showing the percentage of households on public assistance, by census tract: Dark orange (over 30%), light orange (20-30%), tan (10-20%) and cream (0-10%).

Callan noted that a lot has happened in the last 10 years, but it’s no surprise that they haven’t come close to ending homelessness. In 2013, 4,542 people were homeless in Washtenaw County – a 25% increase since 2011. On any given night, 510 people experience homelessness in Washtenaw County. Callan also pointed out that the Delonis Center has seen a 38% increase in people using the shelter from outside of Washtenaw County, from 2012 to 2014.

Several organizations provide a total of 299 emergency shelter beds, but demand far exceeds available resources. Callan noted that the goal isn’t to add more shelter beds, because the solution to homelessness is housing. Temporary shelters are also the most expensive way to address homelessness, she said.

Callan reviewed the spectrum of affordable housing options in Washtenaw County, from temporary shelters and transitional housing to market-rate apartments, public housing, cooperatives, group homes, vouchers, and other options. She noted that during the recession, it was easier to find affordable housing to rent and easier to find landlords who were willing to reduce their rents. Now that the economy is recovering, affordable units are getting more difficult to find, Callan said.

Callan also reviewed the many barriers to helping people find housing. This is the costliest housing market in Michigan. There are only 18 units of affordable, available housing for every 100 of the lowest-income families. The fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Ann Arbor is $942, compared to the average $784 statewide. Callan noted that there’s a $106 difference in rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Ann Arbor compared to Ypsilanti – less than a mile away. “That disparity grows bigger as you go further east,” she said.

Dick Soble, a board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

To put the rent in context, Callan noted that you’d need to earn an hourly wage of $18.31 to afford a two-bedroom apartment renting at $942 a month. The living wage set by the county board is $13.65, while the federal minimum wage is $7.25. Residents who earn that federal minimum wage would have to work 100 hours a week to afford the two-bedroom apartment.

Callan noted that a growing number of residents are spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs, and there’s a growing income disparity.

Callan also highlighted the increased pressure on the county’s shelter system, with a 38% increase in the number of out-of-county people using the Delonis Center in Ann Arbor. It’s untenable for everyone to have Washtenaw County serve as the shelter for all of southeast Michigan, she said.

Schulmeister noted that the three-county region of Macomb, Oakland and Wayne have 14 shelters and a population of just over 4 million. Washtenaw County has 8 shelters for a population of 344,000. There are no shelters in Livingston County, and only two shelters in Jackson County, she noted. In the last year, 43% of the out-of-county people who used the Delonis Center came from Wayne County.

Callan laid out several options that the county and its partners have for addressing these issues:

• Restore funding for affordable housing projects, such as rapid rehousing, affordable housing development, and permanent supportive housing.
• Create and fund a mission-style shelter and/or a permanent warming center.
• Use county assets to advance affordable housing projects.
• Continue to stabilize existing providers, including PORT and local nonprofits.
• Provide funding for short-term motel/hotel stays to engage people in permanent housing programs.

As an example of costs, Callan explained that it would cost about $1.5 million annually to operate a “mission-style” shelter with a day center. That’s based on a 25,000-square-foot facility for overnight sleeping and daytime “warming” for 100 people. It assumes a staff of about 17 full-time employees but does not include capital costs or overhead like accounting.

By comparison, that same $1.5 million could provide rapid rehousing of about 200 people each year, or permanent supportive housing for 107 people. It could also pay for a new housing development with nine units, Callan noted. She again stressed that shelters are the most expensive option, and not a long-term solution. Schulmeister told commissioners that the goal is to turn over shelter beds by finding housing for people, not by kicking them out because they’ve “timed out” of the system.

Callan provided a list of advocacy options that the county board could pursue:

• Support waiver requests from HUD for an increase in the fair-market-rate allowance for Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor housing commission has already started working on this issue.
• Advocate for a “local preference” option for individuals seeking shelter services. “Does it mean we’d turn away anyone who’s not from Washtenaw County? No, we have never done that,” Callan said. But Washtenaw County is doing more than its fair share, she said, so the state should either provide more funding or allow the county’s shelter services to prioritize working with people from Washtenaw County.
• Advocate for state enabling legislation to allow “voluntary inclusionary zoning.” This is more of a city or township issue, Callan said, that would allow jurisdictions to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units in any new development.
• Implement and support new source-of-income anti-discrimination policies at the county and state level. A lot of landlords automatically exclude any income that comes from a housing voucher, and there’s nothing to prevent that.

There are also several options for the county board to engage in working to overcome homelessness, Callan said. They could support the recommendations of a task force on sustainable revenue for supportive housing services, which will be making a presentation at the board’s May 22 working session. They could participate in the Continuum of Care, a broad-based community group that focuses on housing and homelessness. In September, there will be a bus tour of housing and homelessness providers, and later in the fall there will be a “community conversation” forum on these issues.

Response to Homelessness: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he’d been hoping to see a specific timeline for how the Blueprint to End Homelessness will be updated. Amanda Carlisle of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance said the WHA board had been talking about that, and it’s something that will likely happen in the fall. Mary Jo Callan said the original blueprint was developed as a community-wide project, and the update would involve a broad community effort as well, led by the WHA.

Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College and a member of the county’s Community Action Board, and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development.

Responding to another query from Rabhi, former county administrator Bob Guenzel – who serves as WHA’s board chair – said the county and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti had authorized WHA to work on developing the blueprint 10 years ago. Then each of those three public bodies approved the blueprint. He said the WHA would appreciate that same kind of support for the update.

Rabhi hoped it would be possible to develop a more detailed timeline on how the update would occur, to ensure it would be done in 2014. Guenzel indicated that WHA has the same goal.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he was really disturbed by how homeless people are “dehumanized” if they come here from other communities. “They came here because we have high quality of life,” he said. He wanted to stop making that issue a part of the conversation regarding shelter services.

Ellen Schulmeister of the Shelter Association responded. She noted that 96% of the shelter’s budget comes from local public funding, and the shelter was built for people who became homeless in Washtenaw County. It was her job, as director, “to hold that line,” Schulmeister said. To do that, they established the location of a person’s last permanent residence as well as the reason for coming to this county. About 25% of the shelter’s spots were provided to out-of-county people. Anyone who was turned away who isn’t from Washtenaw County was given transportation to wherever they had connections, she said.

A lot of supportive services are funded based on the county’s boundaries, she noted. Many people had court cases in other counties, and didn’t have transportation to get there. There are many barriers to helping people who aren’t from this county, she said.

Conan Smith said he appreciated how Schulmeister framed the issue, calling it a “very hot-button thing” with some people objecting to their money being spent to support anyone who’s not from here. To him, that’s a poor attitude.

Schulmeister pointed out that the shelter is a limited resource. “So we have to make sure we’re taking care of the people in our community with the building that we have,” she said.

C. Smith replied that it’s a very difficult line to draw. What if someone works here but lives in Oakland County and becomes homeless there? Schulmeister said that if someone has a job in Washtenaw County, they’re considered a resident here. She told commissioners that other counties are shipping people to Washtenaw County for shelter services. “That’s not an appropriate way to treat people, either,” she said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

C. Smith told Schulmeister that she was taking the conversation too personally about the shelter. He was talking about a community attitude.

Mary Jo Callan told Smith that his point was well taken. But she noted that unless the state asks other communities to provide something close to the level of support that Washtenaw County provides, “then it’s an issue of volume. I’m sorry, but it’s not about dehumanizing.”

Smith responded: “What you’re saying is it’s a matter of triage. You’re saying a certain kind of person is a better kind of person to serve.”

“I’m not saying that,” Callan replied. “Your point is well taken, but I don’t think that’s what we’re saying.”

Smith acknowledged that it’s a huge challenge, and a comprehensive solution across the entire system is important. Regardless of where people come from, “homeless people have rights, and one of those rights to me is housing.” He hoped they wouldn’t get hung up on the distinction of where people came from. “I think we should just own the fact that we’re going to care for people because they need to be cared for.”

Smith said he thought an economic development strategy needs to be a key component of a solution to homelessness. People need an income in order to sustain their housing, he noted. He asked that Callan, Schulmeister and Carlisle give the same presentation to the county’s workforce development board. Smith said that the chamber of commerce and Ann Arbor SPARK need to understand their role in this effort, too.

Smith also wondered how many of the 4,500 homeless people would likely need supportive housing permanently. Carlisle said that an estimated 1,700 units of permanent supportive housing are needed. Callan added that an upcoming needs assessment will attempt to quantify the need.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Smith said the county wants to have a big role in addressing homelessness, because there are resources that the county can bring to bear on the issue – spanning everything from economic development to community corrections. “Please think holistically and reach out to all of our teams and engage them,” he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) indicated that she didn’t believe housing could end homelessness, because there are so many contributing factors to homelessness that also need to be addressed. If people don’t have the supportive services they need, they won’t be able to sustain their housing.

She pointed to the example of Utah, where officials decided it was more economical to providing housing to everyone who needs and wants it, as well as supportive services. She thought it was an inventive approach.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) invited Callan, Schulmeister and Carlisle to the board’s May 22 working session, to continue the discussion. He chairs the working sessions and sets the agenda.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wanted to talk more about partners who can help the county address this problem, including partnerships with surrounding counties.

Yousef Rabhi wrapped up the discussion by saying people should have a choice about where they live, but “if Washtenaw County is their only option, then we have failed them as a region.” The goal should be making sure that each individual can live in the community of their choice, for whatever reason, he said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

1st Quarter Budget Update

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, delivered a financial report on the county’s general fund budget, for first three months of 2014 – from January through March. She noted that the first-quarter projections tend to be conservative, because they’re based on only three months of the year, with limited evidence of budget trends. [.pdf of Gavalier's presentation]

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

As the board had learned at its April 16, 2014 meeting, Gavalier reported that property tax revenues will be about $720,000 greater than originally projected. The budget had been adopted in late 2013 with an assumption that the tax base would increase by 1% in 2014. According to the equalization report delivered in April, the increase is higher – 2.02%.

Also showing a revenue surplus is the sheriff’s office, with a projected surplus of $111,000 primarily due to higher-than-expected local, state and federal reimbursements.

There are currently projected revenue shortfalls in several areas, including the clerk/register of deeds office ($403,000), district court ($89,000) and interest revenue ($71,000).

In total, there’s now a projected revenue surplus of $277,335 for the general fund, Gavalier said – with shortfalls being more than offset by the property tax surplus.

On the expense side, the sheriff’s office is about $564,000 over the amount budgeted for this year, due to higher-than-expected overtime costs, expenses for inmate food and medical expenses. For all other departments combined, so far expenses are projected to be about $54,000 over budget. Those amounts are partially offset by a projected surplus of about $239,000 in tax appeals and refunds – that is, it’s expected that those expenses will be less than budgeted. Gavalier noted that most of that tax appeal and refund activity will take place in the third quarter, so the amount of any surplus would be clearer then.

Gavalier noted that structural and non-structural adjustments made to the budget since it was passed in late 2013 total about $560,000 in increased expenses. Those include the addition of autism health care coverage, the board’s decision to hire a position for budget work, a “local government initiative” intern, a position in the sheriff’s office, and allocations to keep the homeless shelter’s warming center open in April.

In total, there are $347,565 in general fund over-expenditures as of March 31.

Based on the first-quarter report of revenues and expenses, the 2014 general fund is projected to have a $70,230 shortfall by year’s end – with total revenues of $103,404,537 and total expenditures of $103,474,767. There is no planned use of fund balance for this year’s budget.

Gavalier also reported on several items that will be monitored in the coming months:

• higher expenses in child care programs – for the trial court, children’s services detention, and the department of human services – due to increased caseloads and placements
• fringe benefits
• personal property tax reform
• Act 88 legislation repeal or reform
• annual actuarial valuations for pensions and retiree health care
• annual cost allocation plan
• state revenue-sharing

In the near future, Gavalier said, county administrator Verna McDaniel will present the board with recommendations for dealing with any projected deficits or surpluses. The next quarterly update will occur in August, with a budget affirmation process for 2015 through 2017 taking place this fall.

1st Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the “local government initiative intern” line item. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that it refers to a fellowship that’s being developed to help with budget-related work.

By way of background, at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, commissioners authorized McDaniel to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. As county administrator, McDaniel has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts. She’s taking the approach of creating a fellowship, with the hopes of tapping students from institutions like the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy, for example.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Smith then asked how the current first quarter compares to other years. Gavalier noted that one of the main differences this year is that the budget doesn’t include the use of fund balance. In recent years, the budget has used reserves to help balance the general fund budget.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked about the shortfall in the clerk/register of deeds office. It had been primarily related to a decrease in revenues from document-processing, so he wondered if there was a corresponding decrease in expenses. If so, was the $403,000 a net or gross amount? Gavalier replied that revenues and expenses are looked at separately, because most departments don’t have enough general fund revenue to cover their general fund expenditures. She noted that the budgeted revenues for the clerk/register of deeds in 2014 was $700,000 higher than 2013.

Dan Smith said that his expectation would be to see expenses decrease, if fewer documents are being processed. Gavalier said she’d follow up with him on that.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked about the budget for veterans relief. It seems that the department of veterans affairs regularly shows a shortfall, he said. If the county isn’t levying at a high enough rate to take care of veterans in Washtenaw County, the board should look at increasing that levy, he said. Rabhi asked Gavalier to comment on that.

By way of background, the board voted to levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services on Oct. 16, 2014. The rate of 1/30th of a mill was levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It was expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The previous rate, levied in December 2012, was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 in 2013.

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

Gavalier noted that the board has increased the rate in the past two years. Rabhi replied that it still might not be enough. It’s a priority to take care of veterans who have sacrificed so much, he said. Gavalier indicated it would be possible to discuss options, based on looking at the last two years and the first quarter of 2014. Rabhi noted that the levy is relatively small, which is good from a taxpayers’ perspective, but there’s a need to provide services for indigent veterans.

Switching topics, Conan Smith said he’d like to consider creating a “budget stabilization fund,” like the state has. The state has a “rainy day” fund with money set aside in case something goes wrong, he said. The county’s approach is to leave money in its fund balance, he noted. The target is to have a fund balance that’s 20% of the county’s general fund budget. Smith noted that since November 2013, the board has tapped the fund balance for about $500,000 for various reasons. “When we spend money without identifying a source, that means it comes out of fund balance,” he said. So if they really want to be deliberate in building up a strategic reserve, he thought they should consider creating a separate budget stabilization fund. He hoped the board could talk about that as part of its budget discussions.

Dan Smith said he liked the idea. The board could then as a body make decisions on allocating the funds toward specific activities. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) also supported creating some kind of designated fund reserve.

On another note, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) observed that last year, the administration and board had been on a path to borrow $350 million to cover employee pension and retiree health care costs. He thought they needed to discuss that issue too.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Rabinowitz Appointment

Ellen Rabinowitz was nominated for appointment as health officer for the Washtenaw public health department, after serving in that position on an interim basis since late last year. The appointment is effective May 19.

Ellen Rabinowitz.

Rabinowitz will receive a salary of $126,098. That salary includes her role as executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, a job she’s held for 11 years.

A staff memo notes that the county will see a savings of $30,266 in personnel costs as a result of this appointment. The salary will be covered by the public health department (80%) and the Washtenaw Health Plan (20%). Fleece’s salary was covered in full by the public health department.

The county board appointed Rabinowitz as interim health officer on Nov. 6, 2013. The appointment was spurred by the retirement of former health officer Dick Fleece, effective Dec. 28, 2013.

The position is mandated by the state, and requires a graduate degree and 5 years of full-time public health administration. Responsibilities include overseeing the county’s public health department. [.pdf of Rabinowitz resume]

Outcome: The appointment was approved unanimously. Rabinowitz received a round of applause from commissioners and staff.

Support for Minimum Wage Increase

The May 7 agenda included a resolution calling for an increase in Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

At the board’s April 2, 2014 meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had indicated his intent to bring forward this resolution. Earlier that day, President Barack Obama had given a speech at the University of Michigan that focused on the need to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10.

The resolution debated on May 7 includes a quote from Obama’s speech: “We believe our economy grows best not from the top down, but from the middle out, and from the bottom up paychecks and wages that allow you to support a family…Nobody who works full-time should be raising their family in poverty.” [.pdf of resolution]

The two resolved clauses state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby voices support for the efforts of President Obama to increase the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 per hour.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners supports the current efforts of legislators and citizen groups to increase Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

There was no discussion on this item prior to the vote.

Outcome: The resolution passed, over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Not voting yes was also Dan Smith (R-District 2), who stated “Present” for his vote. In the past, Smith has objected to the board weighing in on state-level issues. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was not in the room when the vote was taken.

Resolutions of Appreciation

The May 7 meeting included three resolutions that showed appreciation in various ways:

• Declaring the week of May 11-17, 2014 as Police and Correction Officers Week, and designating May 15, 2014 as Peace Officers Memorial Day to honor all police and corrections officers who’ve lost their lives in the line of duty;
• Recognizing work of the county’s office of community & economic development as part of the 50th anniversary of the federal Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, when community action agencies were created, and declaring May 2014 as Community Action Month;
• Honoring Tyler Lukomski, a Chelsea resident, for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College and a member of the county’s Community Action Board, accepted the resolution declaring May as Community Action Month. He thanked commissioners for including human services in their list of budget priorities, and for committing $1.15 million to coordinated funding.

Communications & Commentary

During the May 7 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Environmental Issues

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d been in Lansing talking with Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality staff about the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume. He said it seems like there’s progress on that issue, although the timeline is much longer than he hoped. He said he’d continue to press on that.

Rabhi also said he’d met with residents from the west side of the county about the threat of oil extraction. A drilling permit has been applied for in Scio Township, and residents are afraid that the state will grant the permit. Residents might be coming to the county board to ask for support in delaying the permitting process, so that there could be more community input. He hoped to bring forward a resolution at the May 21 meeting.

Update: A resolution is now on the May 21 agenda. The two resolved clauses state:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Washtenaw County, Michigan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Conan Smith (D-District 9) advocated for expanding the road commission board from three members to five. (Photos by the writer.)

The road commission board is a three-member entity, and is run independently from county operations. The county board, an elected body that appoints the road commissioners, is enabled under state law to expand the road commission board to five members. The possibility of expansion has been discussed periodically for years, but was always met with resistance – most notably from some of the road commissioners themselves.

Although there have been tensions in the past, several county commissioners commented on the current positive relationship between the county and the road commission, and noted that two of the three road commissioners – Barb Fuller and Bill McFarlane – are new. The third road commissioner, Doug Fuller, has served in that role since 2008, and is the current chair. [Barb and Doug Fuller are not related.]

Commissioners who argued against expansion at this time cited the need for the relatively new road commission board to gain more experience before any changes are made.

Arguing in favor of expansion, Conan Smith (D-District 9) scoffed at the idea that the road commission was “some magical institution that needs special treatment.” The only result of leaving the road commission board at three members instead of five is that it will consolidate political power among the three current road commissioners, he said. “Those people who are there longer get to build stronger relationships, get deeper knowledge, and they have that ability then to leverage that knowledge and political authority to their own ends.” Adding two more road commissioners will bring more diversity to the governance of that organization, he argued, saying it’s something that should have been done years ago.

Smith said it’s crucial to bring more voices to bear on one of the most contentious, critical issues that the county will face in a long time – the management of the local transportation network. Over the past decade, he said, the people who’ve served as road commissioners haven’t “had the wherewithal to tackle this issue in a way that presents a comprehensive solution.” Given the changing nature of transportation, the economy and economic development, the most important thing that’s needed is a greater diversity of voices at the table, Smith concluded.

Smith, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) indicated that they support expansion. Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) were inclined to keep a three-member road commission board at this time, while two other commissioners – Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) – seemed on the fence, or leaning toward picking up the issue at a later date. Commissioners Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) did not attend the May 8 working session.

The meeting was attended by one of the three current road commissioners, Barb Fuller. She did not formally address the board.

The issue of possible expansion comes in the broader context of discussions about whether to change the structure of the road commission – by absorbing the commission into county operations. At their Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, county commissioners created a seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” The subcommittee made recommendations to the board earlier this year that called for leaving the road commission as an independent entity. The subcommittee did not make a recommendation about expanding the road commission from three to five members, calling it a political decision that the county commissioners should make.

The board accepted the subcommittee’s recommendations at their May 7, 2014 meeting, but have not yet made a decision about expansion.

Following the working session discussion, it’s still unclear what action, if any, will be taken regarding the possible expansion of the road commission board. Any of the county commissioners have the option of bringing forward a resolution on the issue.

Road Commission: Background

The issue of expanding the road commission board has been discussed for years, pre-dating The Chronicle’s coverage of the county board, which started in September 2008.

At that time, Democrat Jeff Irwin of Ann Arbor – who now serves as state representative for District 53 – was chair of the county board. At an Oct. 8, 2008 caucus, county commissioners discussed the pending appointment of Doug Fuller to the road commission board, and touched on issues that are still being discussed today. From Chronicle coverage:

[Jessica] Ping first pressed for details about why Irwin had met with only five of the 15 applicants. The process followed here, said Ping, is not specified in the rules and regulations. Irwin explained that those conversations were in addition to the process – that’s how you make appointments, you talk to people, it doesn’t need to be enshrined in the rules in order to undertake that kind of outreach. [Conan] Smith expressed his view that it should be enshrined.

Ping said to protect the board of commissioners, that process should be specified in the rules and regulations, possibly through an amendment. [Mark] Ouimet said that the process should be laid out explicitly (steps one, two and three, and then the chair of the board of commissioners makes a recommendation) especially now as the possibility is explored of expanding the road commission from a 3-member body to a 5-member body. Irwin said that this kind of specification of the process within the rules and regulations could be undertaken at the beginning of the year when the new board of commissioners is in place or it could be undertaken sooner if there was a consensus to do that. Irwin said that it made most sense to consider an explicit process for road commission and the parks commission, as it was these two bodies that are responsible for oversight over expenditure of significant amounts of taxpayer money.

Ping underscored her concern that the board be protected by a rigorously spelled-out process, saying, “We all get blamed for the road commission.” Ouimet weighed in for the revision to rules and regulations by the new board next year versus some of the current commissioners who may or may not be here then. [Leah] Gunn stressed that the current rules don’t preclude anyone from talking to any of the applicants and that other commissioners had been free to undertake such conversations as well. Irwin said he was trying to make the process as robust as possible and as visible as possible, stating that pursuing interviews with five applicants “doesn’t impeach the process we engaged for this.”

[Karen] Lovejoy Roe said that in her estimation, another engineer (like Fuller) is not what we need on the road commission. She said she’d heard he was the candidate of choice for the controlling faction of the board before any applications came in, but said, “That’s okay, that’s the reality. Whatever process the chair wants to use is fine.” Lovejoy Roe expressed the view that every applicant would be interviewed unless it didn’t matter what was said in those interviews.

Responding to Lovejoy Roe’s concerns about lack of diversity in professional background, Irwin offered that diversity on the road commission is of interest with respect to not just experience, but also with respect to gender, geography and ideology. Irwin continued by pointing out that the term for Fred Veigel [who at that time served on the road commission along with David Rutledge] expires at the end of 2008, and that it is no secret that there have been discussions of expanding the commission from a 3-member to a 5-member body, thus there were additional opportunities in the near term to achieve additional diversity. [Ken] Schwartz said that the board needed to nail down the process for the appointments.

The appointment process mentioned at that caucus was not implemented.

Four years ago – at the board’s April 21, 2010 meeting – Conan Smith brought forward a resolution to set a public hearing on possible expansion of the road commission board. His resolution was tabled until the May 19, 2010 meeting, when the board set a public hearing for possible expansion, after vigorous debate. The hearing was held on July 7, 2010. After another lengthy and sometimes heated discussion, the board majority voted to end the process, over dissent from Irwin and Smith.

In 2011, county commissioners debated the possibility of levying a tax for road repairs, but did not pursue that option. Discussions about the tax proposal at that time were not tied to possible expansion of the road commission board. [See Chronicle coverage from 2011: "County Road Proposal Gets More Scrutiny" and "County Board Looks to the Future."]

The following year, in 2012, Conan Smith was serving as board chair. Late in the year, he had considered holding off on a reappointment of Doug Fuller to the road commission, saying he wanted to give the new county board – who would take office in January 2013 – some flexibility in discussing the future of the road commission, including a possible consolidation with county operations. However, in an email to the board on the morning of Dec. 5, 2012, Smith stated: “Although I am hopeful that the board next year will discuss the structure of our road commission, I’m convinced by leveler heads to make our appointment decisions based on current reality rather than the potential of that change.” Fuller was subsequently reappointed by the board for a six-year term ending on Dec. 31, 2018.

The discussion Smith hoped for eventually occurred. At their Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, Washtenaw County commissioners created a seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” Chaired by commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3), the subcommittee met in late 2013 and early 2014, and made recommendations to the board that called for leaving the road commission as an independent entity. The subcommittee did not make a recommendation about expanding the road commission from three to five members, calling it a political decision that the county commissioners should make.

The board accepted the subcommittee’s recommendations at their May 7, 2014 meeting, but have not yet made a decision about expansion.

For additional background on this 2013-2014 process, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board Sets Hearing on Road Tax,” “County Considers Road Funding Options,” “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) began the discussion at the May 8 working session by saying he wouldn’t want to disregard the potential for Open Meetings Act violations. However, he added, “at the end of the day, it’s a merely technical reason” for expansion. That reason alone wouldn’t be enough for him to support expanding the road commission board. He’d be more in favor of expansion if there was a way to “cast into stone” various things like making appointments based on regions of the county, or other ways of making sure there would be guaranteed broad representation. Given that there isn’t any way to do that, Smith said, he was leaning against expansion, though he was interested in what other commissioners thought.

From left: Commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) noted that this discussion had been prompted by past dialogues at the board table. The board has made some good appointments to the road commission, he said, and based on that track record, Rabhi thought they’d be able to appoint two new road commissioners who would be great representatives of county residents.

While the county board has created a partnership with the road commission that’s better than it’s been in a long time, “it shouldn’t be about the people who are there now,” Rabhi said. “It should be about do we have a system that works for the future, to mitigate the conflict that has existed in the past.”

One issue is that in the past, the road commission appointments have been one of the most political appointments that the county board makes, Rabhi said. While he thought that the recent appointments had stayed away from that, he didn’t know if that would remain the case in the future.

[By way of example, the county board appointed Wes Prater to the road commission board after Prater lost the election for his county commissioner seat in 2006. He subsequently resigned from the road commission during his 2008 campaign for the county board – an election he won. Similarly, Ken Schwartz was appointed to the road commission board in December 2010, after he lost a November 2010 county board re-election bid in District 2 to Republican Dan Smith. Schwartz resigned from the road commission in 2013 when the Superior Township board appointed him as supervisor, after Bill McFarlane retired. The county board appointed McFarlane to the road commission board earlier this year.]

Rabhi wanted to explore how to make the appointment process more thoughtful, deliberate and planful. How do county commissioners ensure that the appointments are representative of different parts of the community – not just geographically, but also in terms of diversity, experience, background and other aspects? These considerations need to be built into the road commissioner appointment process, he said.

Rabhi noted that for many other boards and commissions that the county board appoints, the positions have designated characteristics that the appointment must satisfy. It builds that diversity of representation into the process, he said. Such an approach would help to distance the county board from the incredible pressure and politics that comes from the road commissioner appointments, Rabhi said. The process shouldn’t be about “who has the most connections,” he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) also said she’d like to see an expanded road commission board, in order to have a broader representation among road commissioners.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Alicia Ping (R-District 3), who chaired the board’s road commission subcommittee, asked about the possible timing of an expansion. She noted that there are two relatively new road commissioners – Barb Fuller and Bill McFarlane – and she thought it would be good for them to get some experience before any changes are made. The composition of the county board won’t change until the end of this year, she said, so there’s still time to wait and do something later in 2014, if that’s what the board decides. [She was referring to the fact that terms for current county commissioners run through Dec. 31, 2014. All commissioners serve two-year terms, with seats on the ballot in the August primaries and November general election this year.]

Unlike other issues related to the structure of the road commission, an expansion of the road commission board could take place whenever the county board wants, Ping noted. So at this point, she’s in favor of leaving the road commission board at three members, then addressing expansion later in the year.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) observed that at the last working session – on April 17, 2014 – he’d said he was in favor of expansion, for reasons of increasing diversity. Since then, he’s talked with two of the road commissioners – Doug Fuller and Barb Fuller. [They are not related.] His takeaway from those conversations is that there’s a dynamic that exists on a three-person board, “and we don’t know if the changes that we make to that dynamic are going to be, on the whole, net positives to the county and the people we serve.” LaBarre said he’s genuinely conflicted, and he’s now inclined to support delaying any expansion, though he’d like to revisit it in the future.

LaBarre said that Ping’s point was a critical one. Since October of 2013, two of the three commissioners – two-thirds of the road commission board – have been switched out, he said. The county board is asking those road commissioners to do their job while the board is having substantive discussions about the road commission and road funding. There’s also uncertainty about what the state will do regarding road funding, LaBarre said.

So LaBarre favored waiting, in part not to upset the dynamics of the current road commission and staff – a staff that’s been operating on roughly the same pay scale since 2007, he noted.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) chairs the county board’s working sessions.

Dan Smith agreed with Rabhi about the statement that recent appointments to the road commission had been much more deliberative – and Rabhi is to be congratulated for that, Smith said. He noted that in addition to the two recent appointments, later this year the county board will be making another appointment to the road commission.

By way of background, former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane was appointed at the county board’s March 19, 2014 meeting to fill the seat left vacant by the death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. That term ends Dec. 31, 2014, so the county board will be making an appointment – or reappointment – later this year. Barb Fuller was appointed to the road commission on Oct. 16, 2013 to fill a seat vacated by Ken Schwartz when he took over as supervisor for Superior Township on Oct. 1. The position is for the remainder of a six-year term, through Dec. 31, 2016. And the third road commissioner, Doug Fuller, is serving a term that ends on Dec. 31, 2018.

So within a span of 15 months, three appointments will have been made. D. Smith called that “rather unprecedented.”

D. Smith also noted that unlike the issue of the county absorbing the duties and responsibilities of the road commission, there is no deadline regarding expansion. Under current law, the county board could decide to expand the road commission board from three to five members at any time. “So we can take this up at some point in the future,” he said. Smith agreed with Ping about letting the fairly new road commissioners settle in. He noted that unlike in the past, the current working relationship with the road commission is good. With expansion, he said he was “quite fearful of the pressure that might be exerted to make appointments,” especially if there’s turnover on the county board. He thought there would be more opportunities to exert that political pressure with a larger road commission board.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) weighed in, saying that the road commission “isn’t really some magical institution that needs special treatment.” It’s a political body, that serves a governmental purpose, he said, “and really nothing more than that.” The concern over whether new, diverse voices on the road commission board “is somehow going to be tragically disruptive” doesn’t bear out in any context, he said. In fact, if it were true that two-thirds of a board changing in six years were so disruptive, then that meant that he, Ronnie Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr. should be running the county board, Smith joked. [Those three commissioners have the longest tenure on the county board.]

“We’ve seen that kind of turnover,” C. Smith continued. “We know that it doesn’t end the world.” The reason that it’s not disruptive is that the county government and road commission have professional staff, who make sure there’s continuity and stability “despite the ramifications of the political process,” Smith said. If the road commission board were expanded, he added, “I don’t think you’re going to see some sort of crisis of politics emerge.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

C. Smith praised Rabhi’s process of vetting road commission appointments, calling it incredibly deliberate. He expected any process for future appointments under Rabhi’s leadership would be the same. “I’m sure we would get excellent people who would not be a disruptive force on the road commission in an expanded function.”

In fact, C. Smith argued, the only purpose that’s truly served by constraining the road commission to three people instead of five “is to consolidate political power amongst the three people who are already there.” A delay in expansion serves the same purpose, he said. “Those people who are there longer get to build stronger relationships, get deeper knowledge, and they have that ability then to leverage that knowledge and political authority to their own ends.”

Putting new people on the road commission board and adding diversity is a good thing, he said. It’s important to bring more voices to bear on one of the most contentious, critical issues that the county will face in a long time – the management of the local transportation network. It’s something that should be done quickly, he said – it should have been done 10 years ago. “We knew this was coming, this crisis in funding, this challenge of management. And we’ve really taken no steps toward that.”

C. Smith said he was excited about the new road commissioners, but over the past decade, the people who’ve served haven’t “had the wherewithal to tackle this issue in a way that presents a comprehensive solution,” he said. Given the changing nature of transportation, the economy and economic development, the most important thing that’s needed is a greater diversity of voices at the table, he concluded.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) responded, saying he’d been inclined to support expansion of the road commission board. But what makes him hesitant now is hearing commissioners talk about the need for a new, diverse board. Two-thirds of the road commission board already is new, he noted, and county commissioners have recently had the opportunity to appoint a new, diverse board. Road commissioners are geographically diverse and gender diverse, he said. So it makes him uncomfortable that some county commissioners already want another new, diverse board. Conan Smith’s comments have made him skeptical, Martinez-Kratz said. “I almost think it’s, like, politically motivated – the notion of this expansion.”

Dan Smith said he wanted to play devil’s advocate. If the county board wants to expand the road commission from three to five members, then why not from five to seven members – or even nine? A nine-member board would be possible if the county board absorbed the duties and responsibilities of the road commission – a decision that the county commissioners are not pursuing. D. Smith noted that if they did pursue that option, then the county board could conceivable appoint a road commission board that would have nine members – one representing each district of the county. He said he wasn’t suggesting this as an alternative, but it would be possible to do.

Taking it one step further, D. Smith said, he noted that the road commission works very closely with the townships. He pointed out that the road commission was initially created when the county had a board of supervisors, with representatives from each municipality. So that would be another model for a road commission board, appointing 29 members – one for each township, two from each city, and 1 for Milan. [Only part of the city of Milan is within Washtenaw County.] At first glance, that seems totally unworkable, he said, but the Oakland County board of commissioners has 21 members “and they manage to conduct business.”

D. Smith said he wasn’t advocating for a 29-member road commission board, but what’s the right number?

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Conan Smith replied, saying that he appreciated D. Smith’s point. But C. Smith noted that the county board had just voted the previous night to accept a recommendation that the road commission not be absorbed into the county operations. “So all other options are off the table at this point,” he said. “You all made it very clear that the only thing you are conceivably interested in, with regards to road commission reform, is possibly expanding” from three to five members. [C. Smith had voted against accepting the recommendation.]

C. Smith said he also wanted to respond to allegations made by Martinez-Kratz about the politicization of the road commission. He noted that every current road commissioner has been appointed by a county board chair from an Ann Arbor district. “If this were a politicized process, certainly we could have done things that worked out differently in that regard.” He pointed out that he had been one of those chairs. [Jeff Irwin, a former Ann Arbor commissioner who's now the state representative for District 53, was chair when Doug Fuller was first appointed to the road commission in 2008, to fill the remainder of Wes Prater's term through 2012. C. Smith was chair when Doug Fuller was re-appointed in 2012 for a full six-year term. Another Ann Arbor commissioner, Yousef Rabhi, is the current board chair and nominated the other two sitting road commissioners – Barb Fuller and Bill McFarlane.]

“It’s not a political process,” C. Smith contended. He said it’s also not something new. “I’ve sat at this table for a decade and advocated for the exact same thing, every year.” It’s a matter of trying to get better, broader representation, he concluded, “given the systemic changes that we have to face in our transportation network.”

Rabhi also responded to Martinez-Kratz. Rabhi said he wanted to de-politicize the process, but he wasn’t sure that he’d made himself clear about that. In the past, it’s been a political process, he said, and now he’s trying to make the process more rational and deliberate. He noted that it’s true there will be another appointment made to the road commission at the end of this year, but he expects it will be a reappointment of the same person [Bill McFarlane].

However, if there are more positions on the road commission board, that would allow for more diversity, Rabhi said. He noted that diversity might mean more conservative voices. “I’m a liberal Democrat, but I think diversity of opinion is important.” Or maybe there could be more representation from the county’s north side, he said, which isn’t directly represented right now.

Road commissioner Barb Fuller.

Rabhi said the argument that a bigger board would be more burdensome to staff “just doesn’t pan out, in my opinion.” He also argued that the Open Meetings Act issue is an important one. He reported that before that night’s working session, he and Conan Smith had met and had a conversation about “the issues of the day.” They were able to do that because it’s not a violation of the OMA for two commissioners to meet, given the size of the nine-member county board. “The road commissioners are not legally allowed to do that,” Rabhi added. Road commissioners can’t deliberate toward a decision if there’s a quorum of commissioners present, unless the meeting is posted and open to the public, he noted. With a three-member road commission board, two members constitute a quorum.

Rabhi stressed that the issue isn’t a problem with the current road commissioners. Rather, it’s about setting up a better approach for the future. For the most recent appointment, 10 people applied, Rabhi noted. People are out there who want to serve and who are qualified and can bring a lot to the table. “Just as someone can say, ‘Why do it?’” Rabhi said, “I would say ‘Why not?’” Change is difficult, he added, but necessary.

LaBarre noted that some commissioners have argued it’s not a political process, but he disagreed. “I think it is, and that’s just fine. Politics, to me, is the tool by which we do things without having to fight each other, and it’s ok.”

LaBarre said he didn’t doubt that current road commissioners and staff had the capacity to change. But he thought they needed some time to adapt to the changes that have already occurred. What’s more, expansion of the road commission board isn’t the paramount issue they need to address right now, he said.

Dan Smith agreed that it’s not the most pressing issue. He suggested that when it’s time to make an appointment later this year, it would be possible for someone to bring forward a proposal for expanding the road commission board from three to five members. That decision might be influenced by things that happen in the next six months, he said, including what the county board does regarding road funding.

LaBarre noted that by his count, it sounded like the board was split on this issue 4-4. Ronnie Peterson had previously indicated support for expansion, LaBarre said, but he didn’t know how Rolland Sizemore Jr. was leaning. [Peterson and Sizemore were absent from the working session.]

At this point it’s unclear what action, if any, will be taken regarding the possible expansion of the road commission board. Any of the commissioners have the option of bringing forward a resolution on the issue at any time.

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

The tax would  be levied under Act 283 of 1909. The vote to set the public hearing was 5-3, over dissent from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was out of the room when the vote was taken.

No final decision about whether to levy the millage is expected at the May 21 meeting, although an initial vote might be taken then.

Commissioners all appeared to support finding a way to secure more road funding, but some voiced concern about process and timing – especially since a levy under Act 283 would be done without voter approval.

Act 283 requires the road commission to submit a plan of recommended road repairs and the cost to undertake the projects. The law allows the county board to levy a millage to cover those costs, without voter approval. [.pdf of relevant section from Act 283, including summary by Lew Kidder of Scio Township.] Because the law is more than a century old and pre-dates the state’s Headlee amendment, there’s some uncertainty about the ability of county governments to use it.

Commissioners have previously held several discussions about the possibility of additional funding sources for road repair, most recently at a lengthy working session on April 17, 2014. In addition to a possible Act 283 levy, another option that’s been discussed is to put a countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot for voter approval. A draft resolution circulated at the working session called for a four-year, 0.5 mill tax – from 2014-2017 – that would raise $7.15 million in its first year.

The May 7 discussion began when Dan Smith (R-District 2) brought forward a resolution that would authorize levying a 1 mill tax – under Act 283 – in December 2014. It would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.” [.pdf of draft resolution] The board ultimately voted to postpone the resolution until May 21 over dissent from Alicia Ping.

Smith’s resolution would earmark 50% of the gross revenues to be used in the municipality in which the revenue was generated. Beyond that, 10% would be used for non-motorized transportation needs – like bike lanes and pedestrian paths – with the remainder to be allocated “based on use, need, and impact to the traveling public.”

The resolution also addresses concerns about the potential legal issues related to Act 283. From the draft resolution:

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel is directed to provide an exhaustive formal written opinion, by September 30, 2014, which clearly and convincingly details the exact mechanism under which Act 283 of 1909 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people; and that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners waives any attorney/client privilege concerning this opinion.

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

During the wide-ranging discussion on May 7, Peterson expressed concern that the public hadn’t yet been informed about the Act 283 proposal. At the request of board chair Yousef Rabhi, Roy Townsend – managing director of the county road commission – had prepared a list of road projects that could be funded by an Act 283 millage, which was distributed at the May 7 meeting. Townsend and two of the three road commissioners – Barb Fuller and Bill McFarlane – attended the May 7 meeting, and Townsend fielded questions from the board. [.xls spreadsheet of proposed road projects based on 0.4 mill tax] [.xls spreadsheet of possible amounts raised by jurisdiction] [.pdf map showing location of proposed projects]

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger cautioned that Act 283 lays out a specific process, which calls for a presentation of proposed road projects at a meeting in late September or October, prior to the December levy. Responding to those concerns, Dan Smith noted that options might include passing a resolution this month or in June to indicate the board’s intent to levy the tax, then possibly using money from the general fund’s fund balance to pay for road work this summer. The fund balance would be reimbursed when the tax revenues are collected in December.

The board discussion on this issue will continue at the May 21 meeting. Before then, a May 8 working session agenda includes the topic of possible expansion of the road commission board.

In other road-related items on the May 7 agenda, the board voted to accept the recommendations of a subcommittee that was appointed last year to explore options enabled by state legislators. The subcommittee had recommended not to make the road commission part of county operations, and not to make the job of road commissioner an elected position. The vote to accept the recommendations was 7-1, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was not in the room when the vote was taken.

State legislation enacted in 2012 allowed for: (1) a county board of commissioners to exercise the powers and duties of a road commission; and (2) the functions of a road commission to be transferred to the county board. A sunset clause means that the laws expire on Jan. 1, 2015. That deadline prompted the county board to examine these options.

Related to that issue, Dan Smith drafted a letter to be sent to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, urging passage of House Bills 5117 and 5118, which would remove the sunset clause from the legislation. [.pdf of letter]

From the letter:

Washtenaw County’s roads are a critical public asset; stewarding this infrastructure is the responsibility of an independent entity, with negligible input or funding from the elected Board of Commissioners. Eliminating the sunset would provide the board with more options for managing roads, including the possibility of additional locally-generated revenue. We urge passage of HB 5117 and HB 5118.

Yousef Rabhi and Alicia Ping asked that their names not be included as signatories. After consulting with Hedger during the meeting, Rabhi told commissioners that if anyone else wanted their names removed from the letter, they should let Smith know. It was not a voting item.

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

Several Washtenaw County road commission employees attended the county board’s April 17 working session, as did some township officials. In the foreground is Manchester Township supervisor Gene DeRossett. (Photos by the writer.)

More likely, though not yet determined, are efforts to find additional funding sources for road maintenance – including a possible countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot.

Keeping the road commission unchanged had been the recommendation of a board subcommittee that met for several months to discuss available options, including the possibility of dissolving the road commission and making it part of county operations, rather than operate as an independent entity. Most county commissioners oppose that approach. The board’s May 7 agenda includes a resolution accepting the subcommittee recommendations, which also rejects making the job of road commissioner an elected position. The three road commissioners are currently appointed by the county board.

State legislation enacted in 2012 allowed for: (1) a county board of commissioners to exercise the powers and duties of a road commission; and (2) the functions of a road commission to be transferred to the county board. A sunset clause means that the laws expire on Jan. 1, 2015. That deadline prompted the county board to examine these options.

The board’s May 7 agenda includes a letter to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, urging passage of HB 5117 and 5118 – bills that would eliminate the current sunset clause and extend the options for changing the road commission functions.

Much of the focus of the April 17 working session was on funding options and long-term strategy for maintaining the county’s road network. Several township representatives who attended the session voiced support for special assessment districts, known as SADs, which are being used in Scio Township to pay for road maintenance.

But Conan Smith, an Ann Arbor Democrat who’s been vocal in urging the county board to take responsibility for the road commission, argued that SADs shouldn’t be a long-term approach. The road network is an asset to the entire county’s economy, he said, and the burden of maintaining it shouldn’t rest on the smaller communities.

Smith also noted that the economy is changing. Telecommuting, for example, might change the way people use the roads, he said. Later in the meeting, road commissioner Barb Fuller noted that other infrastructure needs are important to achieve the vision that Smith had described. “I would suggest that you folks look at making broadband ubiquitous across the county,” she said. For those commissioners who take access to broadband as a given, she said, “trust me – there are parts of the county where they can’t get a signal at all.”

Yousef Rabhi, another Ann Arbor commissioner, also spoke of the need for a broader vision. Roads should serve not just drivers, but also bicyclists and pedestrians. Potholes are a serious safety issue for cyclists, he noted. “We have to keep in mind that not every taxpayer drives a car.”

Regarding funding for roads, Rabhi wanted the discussion to be about the structure of a millage – not whether there should be a new road tax. “I think it’s pretty obvious that we need more money,” he said.

The May 7 agenda includes a discussion item on options for road funding. A draft resolution was circulated at the April 17 working session to put a countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot. The draft resolution calls for a four-year, 0.5 mill tax – from 2014-2017 – that would raise $7.15 million in its first year. It would earmark 50% of the gross revenues to be used in the municipality in which the revenue was generated. Beyond that, 10% would be used for non-motorized transportation needs – like bike lanes and pedestrian paths – with the remainder to be allocated “based on use, need, and impact to the traveling public.”

Another possibility is for the county board to levy a millage under Act 283. The law allows the county board to levy a millage to cover those costs, without voter approval. A draft resolution that’s been circulated among commissioners calls for levying a 1 mill tax in December 2014, which would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.”

On April 17, commissioners also discussed the possibility of expanding the road commission board from three to five members. That discussion will be continued at a May 8 working session agenda.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.“

Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary at the start of the April 17 working session.

Gene DeRossett, Manchester Township supervisor, began by describing attributes of his community. “I think Manchester is the best-kept secret in Washtenaw County,” he said, citing its stock of affordable housing, low tax rate, school system, volunteer fire department and other features. It’s the only school system in the county that provides iPads to all students from kindergarten through 12th grade. He noted that the rural township and village of Manchester don’t have the need for public transportation or a rail system.

Regarding the road commission, DeRossett said he’s worked with the road commission for 40 years in various capacities, including as a former state legislator chairing the transportation committee. The commission has always been solution-oriented, with good public policy, he said. It’s always good to look at how to improve services, especially for all citizens of Washtenaw County. But he couldn’t wrap his arms around why the county board should take more direct oversight of the road commission. He’s talked to a lot of people about it, but not one person has told him it’s a good idea. The road commission is not broken, he said. Road construction and engineering are very complicated, DeRossett said. “I would encourage you to leave the Washtenaw County road commission as it is.” If the county board does decide to expand the road commission board from three to five commissioners, DeRossett suggested that four of them should be based on geographic representation, with the fifth one an at-large commissioner.

There’s a work yard in Manchester Township for the road commission, DeRossett said, and he knows the employees who work there personally. It’s a good working relationship, and he’d hate to lose that. It would be a disservice to the people of Washtenaw County.

Ted Green described himself as a resident of Ann Arbor for about 35 years. He’d done fundraising to help repave Huron River Drive. In 2010 he raised about $45,000. The road commission agreed to double-match that amount so that an additional mile of the road could be repaved, and the county parks & recreation commission kicked in $50,000 to add bike lanes to several sections. After that work was done, there was still a section that needed repaving, Green said. So last year he started fundraising for that and has raised $41,000 so far. He’s also talking to the road commission, which he hopes will again provide a double-match. If this last segment is repaved, then Huron River Drive would have new pavement from Ann Arbor to Dexter, he said.

Green hoped that the county could provide more funding for the road commission. Everyone knows that the state isn’t putting enough money into the roads, he said, “and we don’t really see this improving drastically in the near future.” Because of this, he plans to work toward putting a countywide road millage on the ballot, probably in 2015. He hoped that some members of the county board would support that. He had nothing but praise for the road commission, having worked with them for several years.

Sharon Township supervisor Peter Psarouthakis told the board that the township wants to keep the road commission unchanged. Most of the roads are rural and dirt, which presents some unique issues, he said. He might not agree on everything that the road commission does, but they’re able to work together. His concern is that if the road commission is absorbed into the county, then Sharon Township “might be lost in the crowd.” Psarouthakis said he grew up in Ann Arbor and went to schools in Ann Arbor, and he’s familiar with the city – that’s why he’s concerned. He encouraged county commissioners to visit the township.

Lew Kidder of Scio Township explained how the township’s special assessment districts raise money for road repair.

Lew Kidder of Scio Township introduced himself as an original member of the township’s local roads advisory committee, and its current chair. They’ve been grappling with the issue of deteriorating roads over the last seven years. Everyone agrees that the problem is bad roads, he said, and everyone knows that it takes money to fix the roads. When you strip everything way, the money will come from taxpayers. So the only question is “how does it get from our pockets into the kitty that’s going to fix the bad roads,” Kidder said.

There are five options, Kidder continued. On one end is the U.S. government. Local taxpayers send all funds to the federal government, which then allocates it back for local roads. That’s not the most fiscally responsible approach, he said. The other option is state funding, which is the current approach – with money coming from the gas tax and vehicle registration fees. That’s not working out great, and it doesn’t look like it will improve, Kidder said. And locally, the county doesn’t always get back the amount it puts in, he noted.

So for the vast number of local roads, there needs to be local funding, Kidder said. For that, there are three possibilities: (1) the county; (2) municipalities like townships, villages, and cities; and (3) special assessment districts.

Scio Township is using special assessment districts (SADs) for neighborhood roads, Kidder explained. That’s facilitated by the township in two ways, he noted: an upfront cash grant to get the project started, and a promise that the township will do the road maintenance after the roads are upgraded. In addition, Scio Township has identified certain roads that serve as connectors, and there’s a township-wide special assessment to service those roads. Beyond that, however, there’s a set of roads that the townships can’t effectively deal with, Kidder said, characterizing them as “countywide connectors.” Those include North Territorial, Pleasant Lake, Ann Arbor-Saline, and Pontiac Trail. “In our view, that’s where the county should play a role,” he said.

Kidder urged the board to do three things. One is to be disciplined in their thinking about this issue. Secondly, he hoped they would think comprehensively, and find a system-wide solution. Third, he urged them to not let perfect be the enemy of the good. “Let’s figure out how to start moving toward that goal,” he said.

York Township supervisor John Stanowski noted that he had served on the county board’s road commission subcommittee, and he supported that committee’s recommendation not to dissolve the road commission. He praised the road commission employees, saying they are responsive and helpful. He was afraid that a consolidation would result in chaos and confusion. “What we have works well and efficiently,” he said. “It may not be the best system in the world, but it’s the most effective means for local townships to communicate with the road commissioners and get things done.”

John Posegay, a road commission employee, told commissioners that he’d spoken to the subcommittee and had said that the county board was mostly interested in control. He said that one of the county commissioners, Conan Smith, had denied that the reason for absorbing the road commission was about control. But Posegay contended that most of Smith’s comments during those subcommittee meetings actually “substantiated everything I talked about.” The road commission functions well, Posegay said, and if the county takes it over, it won’t function as well. He also objected to expanding the road commission board to five people, which he didn’t think was a good idea. It’s worked well with three road commissioners for years, he said, and they have never violated the Open Meetings Act to his knowledge. With more road commissioners, “the process slows down a lot,” Posegay said.

Presentation and Background

Andrew DeLeeuw, a graduate student at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy and an intern in the Washtenaw County administration office, gave a briefing about the board’s road commission subcommittee’s work. [.pdf of DeLeeuw's report]

Sharon Township supervisor Peter Psarouthakis, left, talks with Andrew DeLeeuw and county commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3), who chaired the county board’s road commission subcommittee. DeLeeuw is an intern with the county administration and a graduate student at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy.

The creation of the subcommittee – at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting – was prompted by state legislation enacted in 2012 that allowed forj: (1) a county board of commissioners to exercise the powers and duties of a road commission; and (2) the functions of a road commission to be transferred to the county board. A sunset clause means that the laws expire on Jan. 1, 2015, so the Washtenaw County board of commissioners decided to examine these options.

DeLeeuw noted that the Oct. 2 resolution included a $10,000 budget to support the subcommittee’s work, and set a deadline of March 31, 2014 to deliver recommendations to the board.

Members included four county commissioners: Alicia Ping of Saline (R-District 3), Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9), Dan Smith of Northfield Township (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. of Ypsilanti Township (D-District 5). Also appointed were three township supervisors: Mandy Grewal of Pittsfield Township, Ken Schwartz of Superior Township and Pat Kelly of Dexter Township. Grewal subsequently withdrew and was replaced by York Township supervisor John Stanowski. Ping served as the subcommittee’s chair.

To date, five counties in Michigan have decided to absorb their road commissions, DeLeeuw said. Those counties are Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson, Macomb and Wayne. At least two counties – Isabella and Ottawa – have debated the issue and decided not to absorb their road commissions.

DeLeeuw’s report notes that the subcommittee received letter from five townships supervisors – in the townships of Ann Arbor, Manchester, Scio, Sharon, Saline – that all supported keeping the current road commission structure. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he recently received a statement from Bridgewater Township supervisor Ron Smith, who said the township board had passed a resolution in support of dissolving the road commission.

In Washtenaw County, there are three road commissioners serving six-year terms: Doug Fuller, Barb Fuller, and Bill McFarlane. Barb Fuller and Bill McFarlane attended the April 17 working session.

The subcommittee met four times, with its last meeting on March 1, 2014. At that meeting, the subcommittee voted to make two recommendations: (1) that the powers and duties of the road commission not be transferred to the county board; and (2) that the county board not consider making the job of road commissioner an elected position. The first recommendation was a 5-1 vote, over dissent from county commissioner Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9), who argued that consolidating the road commission into the county would allow for more flexibility and accountability in oversight.

Bill McFarlane, foreground, is a former Superior Township supervisor who now serves as a county road commissioner. In the background is Ken Schwartz, a former road commissioner who was appointed by the Superior Township board of trustees to replace McFarlane as supervisor last year.

After DeLeeuw’s presentation, Bill McFarlane, the newest road commissioner, addressed the board. He’d been appointed at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. McFarlane had previously served as Superior Township’s supervisor for 21 years before retiring in the fall of 2013.

McFarlane said that in his years as supervisor, as well as in his previous job with the sheriff’s department, he’s had a lot of contact with the road commission. It’s always been positive, he said. The current composition of the road commission board is unique, he said. It’s the first time he can recall that the three commissioners are representing the east, central and west parts of the county. His working relationships with the other two road commissioners are very good, he said, and the same is true for road commission employees.

McFarlane said he didn’t know Ron Smith, the supervisor of Bridgewater Township who wants to dissolve the road commission. Smith was probably new, McFarlane added, “because they tend to go through supervisors frequently in that community, for whatever reason.” But for other township supervisors, McFarlane said, they’ve always wanted the road commission to keep its current composition and oversight. He said he doesn’t know of one person, other than Smith, who wants it to change.

Regarding road funding, McFarlane said that the bond issue that Ypsilanti Township has made to pay for roads is working well. Some townships have passed millages for that purpose, he said. Scio Township’s approach of using special assessment districts is being embraced by many other townships, he noted. It seems like a reasonable option to him. McFarlane argued that millages can be unfair to farmers, because their properties are so large, even though they don’t use the roads more than homeowners on small lots. So special assessments seem like the way to go, McFarlane said.

Addressing the possible expansion of the road commission board, McFarlane didn’t see it as a negative or positive, but noted that it’s the county board’s prerogative to do that. He thanked the county commissioners for appointing him.

Board Discussion

The wide-ranging discussion, lasting about two hours, covered four main topics: (1) recommendations of the board’s road commission subcommittee; (2) input on pending state legislation; (3) expanding the road commission board; and (4) options for road funding.

There was considerable overlap, but this report organizes the discussions based on those four issues.

Board Discussion: Subcommittee Recommendations

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked about the subcommittee’s discussion regarding possible expansion of the road commission board from three to five members. Alicia Ping (R-District 3), who chaired the subcommittee, said they hadn’t made a recommendation on that. The consensus was that it was an appropriate discussion for the county board to have, she said, and it wasn’t really part of the subcommittee’s charge.

County commissioners Yousef Rabhi and Alicia Ping at the April 17 working session.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) elaborated. He also served on the subcommittee, and said the members felt it was more of a political decision that should be made by the elected county board of commissioners. It wasn’t really an operational decision, he said, nor was there a sense that an expansion would result in operational gains.

Brabec also asked for more information about those counties that have made a decision about absorbing the road commission – or not. She wanted to know the rationale for those decisions. Andrew DeLeeuw indicated that the information was available. [.pdf of report with analysis from the counties of Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson and Ottawa.]

Ping replied that some counties consolidated for cost-saving reasons, while other counties were politically motivated. Brabec clarified with Ping that for Washtenaw County, there would be no savings gained by consolidating. [Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, had done an analysis on overlapping facilities and assets. (.pdf of Dill's report) Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, had prepared an analysis of any duplications in employee positions at the road commission and the county. (.pdf of Heidt's report)]

Dan Smith elaborated, saying that Ingham and Monroe county officials were drivers of the initial state legislation, so certainly in some communities the decision to consolidate was political. As for himself, Smith said it wasn’t about political reasons or control. Rather, he thought it proper to have a discussion about the possibility of consolidation, given the legislative window, and to decide whether it made sense for Washtenaw County. He noted that as a subcommittee member, he had voted to leave things as they are. To him, these kinds of discussions are “insider baseball,” Smith added. The primary concern for residents is fixing the roads. “To me, that’s really what this is all about.”

Dan Smith said he wasn’t convinced that the county will get any help from Lansing to fix the roads, in terms of funding. “If we really want to take care of the transportation infrastructure in Washtenaw County, we need to take that on and figure out what’s the right thing to do.”

Brabec also wanted to know what the rationale was for recommending not to have the road commissioners as elected positions. Conan Smith (D-District 9) replied. The sense was that elections would be dominated by urban voters who are heavily Democratic, but who would be electing commissioners to oversee road projects in rural communities. So there would likely be a disconnect between the people who govern and those who are responsible for the roads, he said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he was seeing no interest in taking over the road commission or making the road commissioners elected positions. That’s what people are interested in hearing, he said. He hoped to have closure on some of these issues. Although they couldn’t vote at a working session, he noted, they could still arrive at some consensus about these things, “so the public can rest.”

County commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz, left, talks with Dexter Township supervisor James Drolett before the April 17 working session.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) said he agreed with most of the sentiments he’d heard. His district represents five townships on the west side of Washtenaw County, and most officials from those townships want to maintain the road commission as it is. They have good relationships with the road commission employees, he said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) praised the current road commissioners, saying he had good working relationships with them. He said he’s talked to a lot of township supervisors, and the general consensus is that everyone likes the road commission as it is.

Rabhi then talked about reframing the issue. The county isn’t in the business of roads, he said. Instead, they should think of it as the business of transportation – getting people from one place to another as efficiently as possible. In the current society, that takes the form of roads, Rabhi said, because most people drive cars. But in the future, that might change. It might be something in the future that’s sustainable – from a financial perspective and an environmental resources perspective.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), who serves as the county board’s liaison to the road commission, also praised the current road commissioners. He said he was “kind of in the mood for a five-member board,” but basically he liked the current board. His only complaint was with the road commission’s PR, but he knew they were working on that.

Conan Smith said he’s been a big proponent of “what people are calling taking over the road commission.” He wanted to shy away from those words, saying it would be simply a matter of changing the legal status of the road commission. It doesn’t necessarily mean changes to governance or staffing, he said. He’s particularly interested in the change of “ownership” of the road commission, because it might allow the county to do things in the future and create flexibility in a community that’s “actually ahead of the curve on a lot of big problems.” This county thinks critically about problems and designs ways to solve them, he said.

In Michigan, the approach to roads has been a one-size-fits-all solution, C. Smith said, and it might not be the best solution. Other counties that are charter counties – like Wayne and Oakland – have a different structure and can incorporate the road commissions into the county government, he said, and put more money toward roads.

The opportunity that’s in front of Washtenaw County commissioners, C. Smith said, is to design a system of governance that will work optimally to manage the road network. Smith noted that he lives in Ann Arbor, which has a 2 mill street tax and also gets Act 51 funds from the state. If the city wanted to, it would be able to raise even more money for roads, he said. As a larger community, Ann Arbor has more options. That’s not the case for more rural communities, he said.

The county has an interest in maintaining the rural character of its communities, but the current mechanisms for road funding put more burden on those sparsely populated areas, C. Smith said. If it’s important to stop suburban sprawl, then commissioners need to think about what that means in terms of resources for these smaller communities.

The issue of the road commission isn’t a people problem or even a structural problem – aside from perhaps the size of the road commission board, C. Smith continued. With only three members, the possibility of violating Michigan’s Open Meetings Act is inevitable, he said. Though it’s usually accidental, he added, “in a handful of cases, it was intentional.” Smith reported that when Ken Schwartz was road commissioner, Schwartz stood out in the rain waiting to meet with Smith because there’d been another road commissioner talking to Smith about roads. “You should be able to have a casual conversation with one of your colleagues on that board without running afoul of the law,” Smith said.

But adding two more road commissioners is a minor structural change, Smith said. What’s a problem is the current process and system for maintaining the county’s road network. “It’s not putting enough money in the right places at the right time – plain and simple,” he said.

County commissioner Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9) at a Jan. 22, 2014 meeting of the county board’s road commission subcommittee. In the background is Roy Townsend, managing director of the road commission.

The county board could vote to put a countywide road tax on the ballot now, C. Smith said. It’s been tried in the past and failed, he added, because there are serious, relevant politics about those decisions, given the current system. For example, Ann Arbor already taxes itself for roads, he said. “Should we tax ourselves more to take care of someone else’s roads? That makes it a very tough vote.” Under the current system, his constituents don’t feel they have a voice in guiding the expenditures of road commission funding. Unless these challenges can be resolved, the county’s road system will continue to deteriorate, he said.

The opportunity to make some of these changes expires at the end of 2014, C. Smith noted. Even if everything else remains the same – the same employees, the same size road commission board – just making the legal change to have the road commission as part of county government would open the door to future problem-solving, he said. That’s the most important step to take in 2014, he added.

Brabec asked what Smith meant by “opening the door” – what changes might result from that?

Right now, C. Smith replied, if the board takes no action, then after 2014 they’ll be locked in to the current system. One way to avoid that is to change the legal ownership of the road commission this year, he said. It’s not a “takeover,” he added, because nothing else would need to change. But it would allow a future county board to make changes, if necessary.

The county doesn’t have enough money to maintain the road infrastructure that currently exists, C. Smith noted. State funding hasn’t kept pace with the rate of inflation, so costs of labor and materials have increased more than available funding. “More money in the system could help a lot,” Smith said. But getting more money in the system would draw out all the other political challenges, he said.

In the past, whenever the board discussed expanding the road commission or putting more money into it, he said, there were questions about the geographic distribution of road commission board members. Right now, there’s probably the best geographic distribution of road commissioners in the past 50 years, he noted. But if all road commissioners are from the east side of the county, for example, then people on the county’s west side might not feel confident that their tax dollars are being spent equitably.

C. Smith also echoed Rabhi’s point that there needs to be a longer-term vision. Just throwing more money at existing roads won’t meet the needs of the county’s future economy. “If anything, your road network is an economic development asset to the county,” Smith said. And the economy is changing.

C. Smith reported that a University of Michigan urban planning professor, Jonathan Levine, makes the case that while wider roads are seen as an efficient way for getting people quickly from Point A to Point B, the most efficient way is to eliminate the need for that trip altogether. “So I see an increase in telecommuting,” Smith said. The dynamic of how the economy functions and how transportation fits into the economy is transforming, he argued, so the community ought to be thinking more deeply about this issue – not simply thinking about how to fix the roads.

Peterson supported exploring these longer-term issues with the road commission. He thought that all county departments should get better at master planning and communicating with each other.

County commissioner Andy LaBarre, left, talks with road commissioner Bill McFarlane.

C. Smith replied that it’s possible for the road commission and county board to collaborate on these broader issues, but “I will candidly say that has not always been the case.” The current road commissioners are different than in the past, he said. But the road commissioners, once appointed, are independent and have six-year terms, he noted – three times as long as the two-year terms for county commissioners. So the people who are elected – the county commissioners – lose influence, Smith said. “So is it possible [to collaborate]? Yes. Has our experience proven that it happens? It’s mixed reviews.”

Sizemore said that more collaboration is happening now than in the past. He wasn’t looking for the county board to take control over the road commission.

Peterson suggested working toward annual joint meetings, strategy sessions and goal-setting between the county board and road commission board.

Ping noted that she represents 10 municipalities. She heard from all but two of those communities. Of the eight communities she heard from, only one was in favor of making changes to the road commission. District 3 is the largest geographic district in the county, she said, and a lot of roads are covered by the road commission. Based on feedback she’s received, “my vote would be to not make any changes,” Ping said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he didn’t support taking the action to bring the road commission into the county government. Other things need to be in place in order for that to work at this time. He thought that C. Smith’s broader point was critical, that “this system is so broken that it questions the intelligence of anyone who chooses to continue using it. With that said, we’re probably going to continue using it,” LaBarre quipped.

Dan Smith noted that the road commission is set up as a separate entity now. Their structure pre-dates the county board of commissioners, because the road commission was established when there was a board of supervisors. As the name implies, it was composed of all the township supervisors, who are elected to four-year terms. These are some of the historical, structural issues that affect things today.

That said, D. Smith continued, the current road commission board is very different than it was even 15 months ago. He said the three road commissioners are terrific. [Barb Fuller was appointed to the road commission on Oct. 16, 2013 to fill a seat vacated by Ken Schwartz when he took over as supervisor for Superior Township on Oct. 1. The position is for the remainder of a six-year term, through Dec. 31, 2016. This year, former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane was appointed at the county board's March 19, 2014 meeting to fill the seat left vacant by the death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. That term ends Dec. 31, 2014. The third commissioner, Doug Fuller, is serving a term that ends on Dec. 31, 2018. Barb and Doug Fuller are not related.]

LaBarre said it appeared that the board had reached consensus not to take action to absorb the road commission.

Peterson noted that it also seemed there was consensus to accept the recommendation not to make the position of road commission an elected official.

Board Discussion: State Legislation

Regarding the expiration of current legislation that would allow for structural change, Dan Smith told commissioners that he’d drafted a letter to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, for consideration at the board’s May 7 meeting. [.pdf of letter] The letter supports passage of House Bills 5117 and 5118, which would remove the sunset clause from the legislation.

From the letter:

Washtenaw County’s roads are a critical public asset; stewarding this infrastructure is the responsibility of an independent entity, with negligible input or funding from the elected Board of Commissioners. Eliminating the sunset would provide the board with more options for managing roads, including the possibility of additional locally-generated revenue. We urge passage of HB 5117 and HB 5118.

The letter that’s included in the May 7 agenda is signed by eight of the nine commissioners. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) is not listed as one of the signatories.

Board Discussion: Expanding the Road Commission Board

Andy LaBarre wanted to discuss the possibility of expanding the road commission board from three members to five. Even if the road commission isn’t absorbed into the county operations, the county board still has the ability to expand the membership. LaBarre thought that would be a way to avoid the Open Meetings Act issues, and would provide additional voices for constituents in the county. He noted that in the Ann Arbor district that he represents, there are still township “islands” in the city.

County commissioner Dan Smith, right, talks with Lew Kidder of Scio Township.

He emphasized that the three current road commissioners do a great job.

Felicia Brabec said she’s excited about the diversity of the current road commission, in terms of gender and geography. [Bill McFarlane lives in Superior Township, on the east side of the county. Doug Fuller lives in Dexter, while Barb Fuller lives Sharon Township near Manchester, on the county's southwest side.]

Brabec said she supports increasing the number of road commissioners to five. She requested information about other counties that have expanded their road commission boards in this way. She wanted to know whether it was functioning well in other communities.

Roy Townsend, the road commission’s managing director, reported that 36 counties in Michigan have five road commissioners. Another 42 have three-member road commissions – including Washtenaw County. The remaining five road commissions “aren’t road commissions anymore,” he noted, because they’ve been absorbed into the county government operations. The largest road commission – in Oakland County – still has a three-member board.

Ronnie Peterson wanted to move the discussion of this topic to another night – possibly another working session. There’s interest in expanding, he said, but it would require a longer discussion.

Dan Smith agreed with Peterson, saying that another working session would likely be needed. He noted that expanding to five is the only option in terms of the number of road commissioners allowed. It’s also not possible to constrain those five positions into districts or having at-large members. All of those ideas are great, but unenforceable, he said. It would be possible for the county commissioners to appoint all five road commissioners from the city of Ann Arbor “if that’s what a future board chose to do – and there’s nothing anybody can do about it,” he said.

Yousef Rabhi responded, saying that Smith’s point about enforcement is true. However, he said, the current board can set a policy for itself, and that’s worth discussing. Also worth discussing is how the board handles the appointment process, Rabhi said. “I like the idea of operating with policy,” he said. “And even though it can’t necessarily bind future boards to do something, at least we’ve tried to be deliberate in the actions that we take.”

Generally, Rabhi said, he likes the idea of expanding the road commission board. But he wanted to talk with current road commissioners about it first and get their feedback.

LaBarre agreed to schedule a working session on the topic of road commission expansion. [The topic is now on the agenda for the May 8 working session.] Rabhi pointed out that in past years, the board has scheduled additional working sessions during the year, so that’s another option.

Board Discussion: Road Funding

Yousef Rabhi noted that there are different government entities that have responsibility for maintaining the roads, but “because we live in a democracy, it’s all of our responsibility to maintain the road system – because we all own the roads.” He wanted to discuss Act 283 as a funding option.

By way of brief background, Act 283 requires the road commission to submit a plan of recommended road repairs and the cost to do the projects. The law allows the county board to levy a millage to cover those costs, without voter approval. [.pdf of relevant section from Act 283, including summary by Lew Kidder of Scio Township.] Because the law is more than a century old and pre-dates the state’s Headlee amendment, there’s some uncertainty about the ability of county governments to use it.

Rabhi thought that a millage should serve not just drivers, but also bicyclists and pedestrians. Potholes are a serious safety issue for cyclists, he noted. “We have to keep in mind that not every taxpayer drives a car.”

But regardless of the other road commission issues that need to be addressed, funding is crucial, Rabhi said.

Dan Smith suggested adding the topic of road funding to a future working session.

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

Conan Smith noted that long-term funding issues are important, but there are also shorter-term needs for road repair. He asked Roy Townsend, the road commission’s managing director, to talk about the effect that this winter’s severe weather has had on roads, and what the increased costs might be.

Townsend told the board that this was a record-setting winter in terms of snow, and in terms of the amount of salt that the road commission used, diesel fuel, and hours logged. It seemed never-ending, he said. Crews were working from 4 a.m. until 8 p.m., then workers would go home for sleep and repeat the cycle.

Typically, the road commission makes about 400 tons of cold patch. This year, they made about 1,400 tons. That’s enough to fill about 300,000 potholes, Townsend said. He characterized it as “300,000 Band-Aids,” and stressed the need for a long-term solution.

Now that spring has arrived, you can see how badly the roads have deteriorated, he said. Even some of the newer roads are showing cracks, because the paving material wasn’t designed for such extreme cold over so long a period. “I’d say we probably lost two or three years of life out of these roads,” Townsend said.

The issue is exacerbated because there hasn’t been the necessary investment in roads in recent years, and in fact there’s been disinvestment, he said. The winter also took a serious toll on the road commission’s equipment. They started out the winter with 53 trucks. There are 46 snow routes. During some of the back-to-back storms, the road commission had fewer than 40 trucks available, because the older trucks break down. This year, they purchased four new trucks. After three months, those trucks had logged over 20,000 miles.

The state legislature has allocated more funding for roads this year as a stop-gap measure, Townsend said. Washtenaw County’s share was about $1.1 million. That will be some help, but not enough. “We’re getting by, but we’re doing less,” he said.

Townsend noted that road commissioners and staff are meeting with officials in all 20 townships to talk about how Scio Township is paying for its roads. If townships take care of smaller local roads, the road commission can focus on primary roads and connectors.

Conan Smith asked Townsend for cost estimates on the impact of this winter, and noted that the severe weather might be the “new normal.” Rabhi said that geothermal roads are one approach that might be considered in future road construction.

Rabhi wanted the discussion to be about the structure of a millage – not whether there should be a millage. “I think it’s pretty obvious that we need more money,” he said. He advocated for setting a public hearing about a possible millage – they could set the hearing at their May 7 meeting, to be held on a future date.

Public Commentary

Three people spoke during public commentary at the end of the working session.

John Posegay, a road commission employee, said that although some of the other ideas that were presented during the discussion were good, the priority should be roads – because roads are a priority for everybody. A few years ago, he said, one of the county commissioners had made a statement about selling a car and using free public transportation. Posegay said if that’s the logic, then the proceeds from selling a car should be put into a pot to help pay for public transportation. Everyone needs to take responsibility for the roads. Nothing is free, he said.

Sharon Township supervisor Peter Psarouthakis spoke again, saying that working with the townships on special assessment districts is an excellent idea. There would be a lot of support for that, he said. If a countywide millage keeps getting slapped down, people can take responsibility for their own areas. This effort doesn’t have to come from the top down, he said. “It can go from the bottom up.” Regarding the board’s plan to send a letter of support for House Bills 5117 and 5118, Psarouthakis encouraged them not to do that. The sunset clause is there for a reason. “I get the sense that there are some political agendas at play here in this room,” he said. Removing the sunset would only encourage more of that.

Road commissioner Barb Fuller talks with Victor Dobrin, a candidate in the Democratic primary for the District 5 seat on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Barb Fuller, one of the three road commissioners, made several points in response to the board’s discussion. She noted that there are 20 townships in Washtenaw County, and so far this year the road commission has gone to nine of those townships for annual meetings. Every year, the road commission hears from supervisors, township boards and residents directly, she said, and is paying attention to the problems, the needs, and desires of the local units of government and their citizens. The current geographic distribution of the road commissioners is refreshing, Fuller said, and they take that responsibility very seriously.

Fuller reported that there’s been fairly uniform support and interest from all of the townships about special assessment districts – the approach that Scio Township has taken. They like the idea of putting money from an SAD directly to support roads in that township. “It’s not going somewhere else to be put through the meat grinder and redistributed with some crazy formula, so that when it comes back, nothing happens,” she said. The road commission staff, including Roy Townsend, has been outstanding in working collaboratively and creatively with the townships to find ways to meet their needs, Fuller said.

Funding for roads will need to come from local sources, Fuller said, and the SADs are a viable way to do that.

Regarding Conan Smith’s idea of assuming the duties and responsibilities of the road commission and then delegating them back to the road commission, Fuller said she wasn’t sure that was legally feasible. “I question whether that’s even defensible legally,” she said.

Fuller also responded to Smith’s idea of eliminating trips through telecommuting. “I would suggest that you folks look at making broadband ubiquitous across the county,” she said. Referring to Gene DeRossett’s comment that Manchester schools have provided iPads for their students, Fuller pointed out that some of those kids can’t use them from home because they have no access to the Internet. So for those commissioners who take access to broadband as a given, she said, “trust me – there are parts of the county where they can’t get a signal at all.”

Regardless of whether the sunset clause remains in place or is eliminated, Fuller said there’s a window of opportunity now for more collaboration and long-term planning because of the attitude of people serving on the road commission board and staff. She asked what the county board hoped to achieve by expanding the road commission board to five members. “What is it that’s missing today that that would accomplish?”

The road commission is more than willing to work with the county board, Fuller said. “Give us a chance to address your concerns and please always assume that we’re really willing and ready to work with you. Please don’t assume it in the other direction.”

Responding to public commentary, Conan Smith said that special assessment districts are a good way to overcome a tactical challenge, “but I hope that it is not our long-term solution.” The county has a network of roads that everyone relies on, he said – whether the road is in front of your house and you use it every day, or it’s 10 miles away and you use it occasionally. Even though he doesn’t live in Dexter Township, for example, Smith said he still benefits from a good quality transportation infrastructure there, “and I frankly should have some participatory responsibility to make sure that network is good.”

The SAD approach and the localization of that responsibility is admirable, Smith said, “but it should not be our answer as a society to make it one small community’s problem, or one individual’s problem or one small neighborhood’s problem that our road network is broken. It’s all of our responsibility, and we should find a way that we all together invest in making it well.”

Next Steps

Three items related to the road commission appear on the board’s May 7 agenda: (1) a resolution accepting the recommendations of the board’s road commission subcommittee; (2) a letter to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, urging passage of HB 5117 and 5118; and (3) a discussion item on options for road funding.

A draft resolution was circulated at the April 17 working session, to put a countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot. The resolved clauses from that draft resolution state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners for places the following question before the qualified voters of Washtenaw County on the November 5, 2014 ballot:

Shall the millage rate limitation imposed on all taxable property within the County of Washtenaw, Michigan, be increased by 0.5 mills ($0.50 of each $1,000 of taxable valuation) for a period of four (4) years, 2014 through 2017, inclusive, for purposes of providing a fund for the reconstruction, resurfacing, preservation, and related preparation of roads, streets, paths, other transit infrastructure and existing indebtedness thereof in Washtenaw County; and shall the County levy such increase in millage for such purposes, thereby raising in the first year an estimated $7,152,232? This revenue will be managed by the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners and, as required by law, portions may be subject to capture by tax increment finance authorities in the county.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 50% of gross revenue generated by this levy shall be earmarked for use in that city, township or village which generated such revenue, less any amounts captured by tax increment finance authorities in that municipality.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 10% of the revenue remaining after the initial allocations to cities, villages and townships shall be used for non-motorized transportation throughout the county.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the remaining revenue shall be allocated to projects throughout the county based on use, need, and impact to the traveling public.

Another possibility is for the county board to levy a millage under Act 283. A draft resolution that’s been circulated among commissioners calls for levying a 1 mill tax in December 2014, which would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.”

The resolution also addresses concerns about the potential legal issues related to Act 283. From the draft resolution:

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel is directed to provide an exhaustive formal written opinion, by September 30, 2014, which clearly and convincingly details the exact mechanism under which Act 283 of 1909 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people; and that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners waives any attorney/client privilege concerning this opinion.

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

In addition, the May 8 working session agenda includes the topic of possible expansion of the road commission board.

The May 7 and May 8 meetings both begin at 6:30 p.m. in the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

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

The resolution, if passed, would leave the county road commission as an independent entity. The resolution also states that the county board does not support making the road commission’s board an elected body. [.pdf of board resolution]

The resolution is in line with recommendations of a board subcommittee that was appointed in October of 2013 to look at the future of the road commission. At its final meeting on March 1, 2014, the subcommittee voted to recommend that the road commission remain an independent operation, and not be absorbed into the county government.

That subcommittee vote came over dissent from Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9), who argued that consolidating the road commission into the county would allow for more flexibility and accountability in oversight. Currently, the road commission is overseen by a board with three members appointed by the county board of commissioners to six-year terms. Smith thought that asking voters to approve a countywide road millage – when the revenues aren’t allocated by an elected body – would be a tough sell. It would be especially tough to sell to voters in the city of Ann Arbor, who already pay a millage for street maintenance within the city.

But others on the subcommittee were in line with the strong support from township officials for keeping the road commission independent. Most township boards in the county have passed resolutions supporting the current structure, citing their strong relationships with the road commission staff and board.

The subcommittee did not make any recommendations on whether to expand the road commission from three to five members. The three county commissioners who served on the subcommittee – Conan Smith, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – had agreed that the question of expansion was primarily a political one, and should be taken up by the county board. Subcommittee members indicated that they’d be willing to discuss it further, if directed to do so by the county board.

Regarding the question of whether road commissioners should be elected positions, the subcommittee unanimously passed a resolution recommending not to pursue that option. The sense was that elections would be dominated by urban voters who are heavily Democratic, but who would be electing commissioners to oversee road projects in rural communities.

The three current road commissioners are Doug Fuller, Barbara Fuller, and Bill McFarlane, who was appointed by the county board at its March 19, 2014 meeting. At that time, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) voiced support for expanding the road commission board to five members. That will also be part of the discussion at the April 17 working session.

These issues come in the context of a state law that opened the door to possible consolidation of the road commission into the county. In 2012, the Michigan legislature enacted amendments to Section 46.11 of Public Act 156 of 1851, which allows for county boards of commissioners to transfer the powers of the road commission to the county board. There’s a sunset to that section of the law, however. Unless extended by the legislature, it will expire at the end of 2014.

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

Pat Kelly, former Dexter Township supervisor, talks with county commissioner Conan Smith and finance director Kelly Belknap before the March 19, 2014 county board meeting. The board passed a resolution of appreciation for Pat Kelly during the meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The board also heard from county treasurer Catherine McClary, who reported that foreclosures are decreasing, as are delinquent taxes. Delinquent taxes are a leading economic indicator for both mortgage foreclosures and tax foreclosures, she noted, so the decreases are good news. Commissioners gave initial authorization to the treasurer’s office to borrow up to $30 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions, an annual process.

Commissioners also authorized the county administrator to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. The vote came over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr., who felt the work could be absorbed by existing staff.

The budget was also the focus of an update from lobbyist Kirk Profit and his colleague Gary Owen at Lansing-based Governmental Consultant Services Inc., who talked about how action in the state government might impact Washtenaw County. GCSI is the lobbyist for the county and several other local governments, including the city of Ann Arbor. Their updates included the fact that legislation has been introduced to repeal Act 88, which the county uses to levy taxes for economic development and agriculture. This year, the county has budgeted $973,000 in revenues from an Act 88 levy.

In other action, the board appointed former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane to the county road commission board, to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. The remainder of that six-year term runs through Dec. 31, 2014.

Commissioners supported McFarlane, but also discussed the possibility of changing the process so that interviews with applicants would be held at a public meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who as board chair makes these nominations, described the process of nominating a new road commissioner as a difficult one, and highlighted the need for a five-member road commission. Currently the road commission board consists of three members. It’s an issue that Rabhi plans to bring up at an April 17 working session.

The board also took a step toward allowing employees to get health insurance coverage for the treatment of autism. Commissioners gave initial approval that would authorize adding an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rider to existing active employee and retiree benefits.

And a resolution to oppose a mineral mining operation in Lyndon Township drew criticism from Dan Smith (R-District 2), who objected to the county board weighing in on an issue that’s not within its purview. Other commissioners felt the county had a vested interest in formally voicing an opinion, both because of broader economic and environmental impacts that would affect residents, and because the county parks & recreation commission owns property in the township. Smith’s decision to state “present” – rather than casting a yes or no vote – resulted in brief discussion about board rules.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining

A resolution opposing a mineral mining proposal in Lyndon Township appeared on the March 19 agenda.

The resolution stated that the county board “formally opposes the establishment of the proposed McCoig Materials mining operation in Lyndon Township on the basis of the very serious negative consequences to the surrounding communities.” The company is proposing a sand and gravel mine on 189 acres north of Chelsea on M-52. The rural site is located near several parks and nature areas, including Waterloo State Recreation Area, the Pinckney State Recreation Area, Park Lyndon, the Green Lake Camping area, and the Waterloo-Pinckney Hiking Trail. Over 31,000 acres of protected land is located in that area.

McCoig is asking Lyndon Township for special land use zoning and has submitted an application for a mineral mining operation. Public hearings on the issue have drawn heavy opposition. On its website, the township has noted that its authority is limited:

Michigan State Legislators have greatly reduced township control by passing Act 110 of 2006 (125.3205). Under that law, the township must not “prevent the extraction, by mining, of valuable natural resources from any property unless very serious consequences would result from the extraction of those natural resources. Natural resources are considered valuable for the purposes of this section if a person, by extracting the natural resources, can receive revenue and reasonably expect to operate at a profit.” The township’s authority is limited to “reasonable regulation of hours of operation, blasting hours, noise levels, dust control measures, and traffic that are not preempted by part 632 of the Michigan environmental laws,” 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.63201 to 324.63223.

The county board’s resolution addresses these issues, stating in its “whereas” clauses that “the noise, dust, air pollution, and additional heavy traffic generated by the operation of the mine and the transportation of the minerals will likely have serious negative consequences for the natural environment and wildlife …” [.pdf of full resolution]

The issue was also raised during the March 11, 2014 meeting of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. WCPARC director Bob Tetens subsequently sent a letter to Lyndon Township supervisor Mark Keezer outlining several concerns with the project. [.pdf of Tetens letter] The letter indicates that WCPARC is willing to purchase the property.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: Public Commentary

A resident of Lyndon Township spoke during public commentary, saying he’s not anti-mining. “But my mama taught me there’s a right place for everything, and in the heart of the largest state recreation area in the lower Peninsula is not the right place.” He strongly encouraged commissioners to pass the resolution and to do everything in their powers to support the citizenry, “who I can tell you is very strongly against this.”

Larry Murphy, a Scio Township resident, told commissioners that he’s a candidate for the county board. [Murphy, a Republican, has filed to run for the Aug. 5 primary in District 1. The seat is currently held by Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz, who is running for re-election.] Murphy said he attended the public meeting earlier in the month about this proposal, which was held by the Lyndon Township planning commission. He said he was shocked that about 500 people attended. It’s really a disaster in terms of the environment and the effect on recreation, Murphy said. It’s also a disaster in terms of transportation, because of the trucks that would be going through downtown Chelsea. He encouraged the board to oppose this project. He wanted people to know that opposition to this is bi-partisan. “This mining company, McCoig, has no support, no friends in Washtenaw County,” Murphy concluded.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: Board Discussion

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) – who represents the county district that includes Lyndon Township – described the situation, noting that the mining would directly affect a county park. Park Lyndon shares a lake with the proposed sand mine, he noted, and the company plans to use water from the lake as part of its mining operation. He pointed to the letter by Bob Tetens, director of the county parks & recreation commission, as giving a good explanation of the objections. Martinez-Kratz also noted that about 700 people had attended two public meetings in the township, overwhelmingly opposed to this proposal. He thought the community would appreciate the county’s opposition.

From left: Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) spoke about process and the county board’s role. “It seems that this board simply can’t mind its own business. Here we are, yet again, sticking our nose in someone else’s business.” This is a matter for Lyndon Township to decide what’s best for them, he said. The planning commission is holding public hearings and getting lots of public comment. The planning commission will review that public comment, as well as the advice from their attorneys, and make a decision. The township board will subsequently weigh in as well. If voters are unhappy about that, they have a right of referendum, Smith noted. Residents can circulate petitions and perhaps overturn whatever decision is made. If a lawsuit occurs, it will be the taxpayers of Lyndon Township who’ll be paying for it, he noted.

It’s not the job of the county board to sort out these issues, Smith said. This isn’t under the county’s control, he added, “and I wish you would stop having things in front of us that are not under our purview.” [In general, Smith has consistently objected to resolutions weighing in on issues – usually at the state level – that are outside the purview of the county board.]

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he appreciated Dan Smith’s position that the township board will be making the decision. But Washtenaw County is a significant landowner in Lyndon Township, he noted, with properties including Park Lyndon and West Lake Preserve. The resolution that the board is considering plainly articulates the impacts on natural resources as being the main driver of the county’s concern, C. Smith said. The township is gathering public opinion, and the county as a landowner has an interest in that land and the possible impacts of the mining facility. “It’s right for us to articulate our concerns,” he said. The resolution doesn’t carry any more weight than other landholders, he said, and he supported it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) asked whether the Lyndon Township board supported or opposed the mining proposal. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) didn’t think the township board had made a determination – that’s why they’re soliciting public comment. Sizemore wondered what the county board’s resolution would do. Rabhi replied that it expresses the board’s opposition to the mining operation.

Sizemore said Dan Smith had a point about it being the township’s business. But Sizemore noted that he served on the county parks & recreation commission, which has a lot of land there, so he’d support the resolution. [Dan Smith and Conan Smith also serve on the parks & recreation commission.]

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) talks with former Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly.

Rabhi thanked Martinez-Kratz for advocating on this issue. Rabhi noted that his own personal interest in it stems from his background in environmental studies. He’s heard from people at the University of Michigan that they also have concerns about this project. Rabhi called Tetens’ letter well-stated, outlining many concerns that people share. It’s a community-wide issue, he said, not just isolated to the township. Lyndon Township is within Washtenaw County, and the county has a duty to take a stance on this – because the environment in the county is a countywide asset to all citizens. “We are doing the right thing by passing this resolution in opposition of the mining operations in Lyndon Township,” Rabhi said. It should be a concern for all of Washtenaw County.

Dan Smith countered that if the state wanted the county board to have control over land use, then the legislature could amend the zoning enabling act. In some states, land use is a county matter, he said. If that were the case, then the question of this mining operation would rightfully be before the county board, and it would make the determination.

The proper response, D. Smith continued, is in Tetens’ letter, where Tetens indicated the willingness of the parks & recreation commission to buy the property. It makes perfect sense for natural areas preservation, he said.

Martinez-Kratz thought the state would want the county board to advocate on issues that are important to the county. This issue is important for economic and environmental reasons, he said. It won’t be resolved quickly, and he thought that township officials would look for guidance from the county as well as from the township residents.

Outcome: The resolution passed. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent, and Dan Smith (R-District 2) stated “present.”

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: The Vote – Coda

Kent Martinez-Kratz asked corporation counsel Curtis Hedger for clarification about how Dan Smith’s vote would be recorded. The board rules state that a commissioner must vote yes or no unless there’s a conflict of interest, but Hedger noted that there’s no mechanism to enforce the rule.

Hedger said he did some research, because Smith had indicated that he would be making the “present” statement. It will be recorded that Smith stated “present,” Hedger said. But because it takes an affirmative vote to approve a resolution, then anything else is considered a “soft no.” Yousef Rabhi recommended making a note next to the vote, indicating that it’s not in keeping with the board rules.

Specifically, the board rules – as adopted unanimously by commissioners at their Jan. 8, 2014 meeting – state:

O.
 VOTING:

Every
 member
 who 
shall 
be 
present, 
including 
the
 Chair,
 when 
a 
motion 
is 
last 
stated 
by 
the
 Chair, 
and 
no 
other, 
shall 
vote 
for 
or 
against 
the
motion 
unless 
the 
member 
has 
a 
conflict 
of
 interest, 
in 
which 
case 
the 
member 
shall
 not 
vote.

1.
 Roll
 Call
 Vote:

Roll
 call
 vote
 shall 
be 
taken
 when 
called 
for 
by 
any
 member 
of 
the 
Board, 
and
 on 
board actions 
to 
adopt 
ordinances, 
resolutions
 and 
the
 appointment 
or 
election 
of 
officers.

2.
 Votes 
Required:

Procedural
 and
 other
 questions
 arising 
at
 a
 meeting 
of
 the 
Commissioners,
 except
 for
 those 
decisions
 required
 by 
statute
 or 
by 
these 
rules
(Specifically,
 Rule
 II
 F – Closing
 Debate
 in 
Committees 
and
 Rule
 III 
R – Suspension/
Amendment
 or 
Rescission
 of
 Board
 Rules) 
to 
have 
a 
higher
 majority, 
shall
 be 
decided 
by 
a 
majority 
of 
the 
members 
present.
 A 
majority 
of 
the 
members 
elected 
and 
serving, 
however, shall 
be
 required
 for 
the 
final
 passage 
or 
adoption
 of
 a 
motion,
 resolution 
or
 allowance 
of
 a 
claim.

Ronnie Peterson noted that commissioners are individually elected, and they can choose to vote or not vote. Every commissioner stands by their individual commitments to vote, he said. The resolution passed with majority support, he noted. The board establishes its practices and norms by example, Peterson said. Whatever the board finds acceptable is how it will function, regardless of what the official rules state, he added. “I don’t like that, but we’ve established that in the past.”

Appointments

At the board’s March 19 meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) made nominations to six county committees, commissions and boards. [.pdf of application packet] Nominations are made by the board chair, with confirmation of the appointments made by a vote of the full board.

Appointments: Road Commission Board

Yousef Rabhi nominated former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane to the Washtenaw County road commission board, to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. The remainder of that six-year term runs through Dec. 31, 2014. Unlike most other county-appointed boards, road commissioners receive annual compensation of $10,500.

Superior Township supervisor Ken Schwartz, a former road commissioner.

McFarlane was among 10 applicants for the position. Others who applied included former county commissioner Rob Turner; Mike Henry, chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party; and University Bank CEO Stephen Ranzini.

During the evening’s first opportunity for public commentary, Ken Schwartz – a former county commissioner, former road commissioner and current supervisor of Superior Township – spoke briefly in support of McFarlane’s appointment. He noted that McFarlane was very experienced in local government. McFarlane had served as Superior Township’s supervisor for 22 years and before that worked for the sheriff’s department. “Bill is more than qualified to step in,” Schwartz said. McFarlane has worked with municipal budgets, and understands the difference between primary roads and local roads. He’d be an excellent choice, Schwartz concluded.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he was glad that McFarlane would be back working for the county. He described McFarlane as very bright and “super genial,” and as someone who is trusted by the communities that are impacted by decisions of the road commission.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) described McFarlane as a personal friend, and said there was no question about his integrity. He was pleased that McFarlane was willing to serve, and he supported the nomination.

However, Peterson said he was concerned about following proper procedures, and that the board hadn’t always done that. In the past, they’d gotten rid of a 24-year veteran on the road commission, Peterson said, “through a process that was very questionable.” [Peterson didn't mention any names, but was possibly referring to Steve Puuri, who retired as managing director of the road commission in 2011 after nearly 25 years.]

Following the rules and procedures is the only way that people know that something is being done in a fair, consistent way, he said. Peterson questioned why there hadn’t been public interviews of potential candidates to the road commission board.

Peterson also said he hadn’t yet heard about the recommendations regarding the future of the road commission, which a board subcommittee had undertaken. He wanted to have some discussion about that. If the nomination were anyone else besides McFarlane, Peterson said he might not vote for that person, because he didn’t think the process had been fair, clear or consistent.

Conan Smith responded, saying that candidates for the road commission in the past had been interviewed, but that hadn’t happened for at least seven years. The more recent appointments to the road commission hadn’t been made that way, he noted, and perhaps the board should return to its past practice. He said he knew how rough it was for the board chair to have to make the decision.

C. Smith noted that since the current appointment runs only through the end of 2014, there would be a chance soon to implement an interview process when the county board makes an appointment for the term that begins on Jan. 1, 2015. He thought it would be very valuable for the public to have input.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he supported McFarlane. He disagreed with Peterson and C. Smith, saying that citizens elected the county commissioners so that the commissioners would make decisions. It’s the board’s job to make these appointments, he said, not to set up an advisory committee to make recommendations. He thought the board was letting go of its authority, and letting residents decide “when they don’t know a third of the story.”

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that the road commission would be the topic of an April 17 working session, which he chairs. He suggested continuing discussion of the issue at that time. The working session will also include a report from the subcommittee that is making recommendations on the future of the road commission. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission.”]

Rabhi described the process of nominating a new road commissioner as a difficult one. He appreciated the diversity of backgrounds among the applicants. He said he called all 10 applicants for 15-30 minutes or more, to talk about their interests and qualifications. “It was a very hard and stressful process for me.” McFarlane has the qualifications necessary to fill this vacancy, Rabhi said, and he was happy to put his name forward.

Rabhi said it would be great to find a way to engage all the applicants, who are passionate about roads and road funding. Perhaps there’s a way to do that in an ongoing basis, he said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the county board.

Noting that this might be extremely controversial, Rabhi then said the county needs a five-member road commission. Currently the road commission board consists of three members. “This process highlighted that need” to expand, he said. With five members, the road commission would have more representation from more backgrounds and more parts of the community. That would result in a more productive dialogue than three commissioners can have, Rabhi said, especially given the restrictions of the state’s Open Meetings Act.

It’s an issue that Rabhi plans to bring up at the April 17 working session.

Rabhi said he’d love to hear about how the public interview process has worked in the past, noting that he wasn’t on the board when those kind of interviews occurred. He’d like to review that process, as long as it’s not taking away the decision-making from the board.

In this case, given the vacancy and the need for a full road commission board, a new commissioner needed to be appointed quickly, Rabhi said. He again stressed that he’d spent a lot of time talking to applicants as well as to fellow county commissioners, to get their input. He hoped the board would support McFarlane.

Sizemore wanted to know when the county board could change the pay of the road commissioners. Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said it can’t be done during a road commissioner’s current term. It would have to be done and take effect at the beginning of the new term. Sizemore said that if the road commission board is expanded to five members, perhaps the salary should be reduced to $6,000 each. Hedger pointed out that there would be varying salaries for a period, because the terms for the road commissioners are staggered.

Peterson said he didn’t know where the idea of having a citizens advisory committee had come from, and emphasized that the appointments are made by the board. Whatever process is put in place should also be decided by the board, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously appointed Bill McFarlane to the Washtenaw County road commission.

Later in the meeting, Ronnie Peterson asked whether expanding the road commission to five members would actually mean dissolving the existing road commission and establishing a new one. He asked corporation counsel Curtis Hedger to research that question. He said he wasn’t advocating for it, and joked that he hoped people wouldn’t call him about it.

Yousef Rabhi also suggested that the board might consider designating positions on the road commission board based on specific skills – like community outreach, or technical expertise – so that there’s more diversity of background, especially if the road commission board is expanded to five members. It might even include geographic designations, he said. That might be something else that Hedger could explore.

In general, Rabhi said he wanted to move road commission appointments away from being political and more toward being policy-driven.

Appointments: Other Commissions & Committees

Yousef Rabhi made several other nominations on March 19:

• Accommodations ordinance commission, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).
• Agricultural lands preservation advisory committee, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Erica Bloom (environmental/conservation group/natural resources professional).
• Workforce development board, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2016: John Haberthy (private sector) and Matthew Sandstrom (private sector).

In addition, five nominations were made to the Act 88 advisory committee, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2014. Three county commissioners – Conan Smith (D-District 9), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – were appointed, along with citizens Todd Clark and Art Serafinski.

Action on appointing the Act 88 advisory committee had been originally considered at the board’s Feb. 19, 2014 meeting. The item was postponed after Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns over the policy governing the committee’s role. The committee had been created at the board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, as part of a broader policy to help the board allocate revenues levied under Act 88 of 1913. No appointments had been made at that time, however. The county levies the tax to fund economic development and agricultural activities, including Ann Arbor SPARK. [.pdf of March 19 staff memo on Act 88]

Outcome: All appointments were approved by the board.

Staff for Budget Work

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a proposal to hire a contract position that would support budget-related work for the county board and administration. The item had been originally considered, but postponed, at the board’s meeting on Feb. 5, 2014. It was subsequently given initial approval on March 5, 2014.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

This process started on Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, when commissioners gave direction to county administrator Verna McDaniel to research and recommend staffing options that would support the board’s community investment priorities. As part of adopting a four-year budget, the board set up a new strategic model to help it determine where the county’s resources should go. The board set goals as well as outcomes that are intended to measure how those goals are being achieved.

The priority areas for investment that were approved by the board in 2013 are: (1) ensure community safety net through health and human services, inclusive of public safety; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for county residents; (4) reduce environmental impact; and (5) ensure internal labor force sustainability and effectiveness.

The dollar amount for this position wasn’t included in the resolution, which stated that “compensation shall not exceed the scope of the Administrator’s authority.” The administrator has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts, and up to $100,000 for any proposed goods, services, new construction or renovation. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] A four-page job description had been included in the Feb. 5 board packet. The person would report to the county administrator in terms of daily operations. [.pdf of job description] [.pdf of scope of services]

The issue was debated at some length during the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) questioned the process for hiring this kind of staff support. On Feb. 5, several commissioners expressed concern about spending money on this position and wanted more details about funding and duties, which led to the postponement. There was no discussion about the item on March 5, when it was given initial approval on a 7-1 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had been absent.

Staff for Budget Work: Board Discussion

On March 19, Ronnie Peterson asked for the item to be pulled out for a separate vote. He said he supported the staff position, but wanted to clarify some things. He joked that the chair, Yousef Rabhi, “took me to the back room, to make sure I did not waver.”

Peterson referred to the following “whereas” clause, highlighting a reference to the board leadership:

WHEREAS, upon approval, the Administrator is directed to work with Board Leadership to contractually engage a qualified professional to assist the BOC to develop strategies and provide oversight for the integration of Board-defined community impacts and outcomes into organizational and departmental programs, policies and budget priorities and;

Peterson said he wasn’t part of the board leadership, and he wanted to know how they perceived the role of this new employee. [The leadership includes board chair Yousef Rabhi; vice chair Alicia Ping; Felicia Brabec, chair of the ways & means committee; and Andy LaBarre, chair of the working sessions.] How would the communication flow from the leadership to the rest of the board? Peterson asked. He noted that the new staff person would be under the supervision of the county administrator, but would report to the board.

Felicia Brabec said that the “whereas” clause relates to hiring the person, and she encouraged all commissioners to be involved in that process. She was open to changing “board leadership” to simply “the board.”

Regarding the flow of information, Brabec said the person would regularly come to board meetings to update commissioners about the work. That way, commissioners would be on the same page when they needed to make decisions for the budget reaffirmation later this year, she said.

Rabhi supported an amendment to strike the phrase “to work with Board Leadership.” But Conan Smith said he thought the board should be involved in the hiring. Peterson agreed, saying the board should be very open about this hiring, and should let other employees know what this person will be doing. The role should be clearly defined, he said. Peterson agreed that the entire board should be involved, not just the leadership.

The proposed amendment changed the “whereas” clause to state [emphasis added]:

WHEREAS, upon approval, the Administrator is directed to work with the Board to contractually engage a qualified professional to assist the BOC to develop strategies and provide oversight for the integration of Board-defined community impacts and outcomes into organizational and departmental programs, policies and budget priorities and;

Outcome on amendment: On a voice vote, commissioners approved the amended “whereas” clause.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wondered whether in the future he should contact county administrator Verna McDaniel, or the new staff person that would be hired. He was skeptical about the need to hire someone new. “We’ve already got 1,300 employees, but you guys feel we need to hire somebody else to do Verna’s job, and Verna’s job is to tell somebody on her staff to get some work done.”

Sizemore also asked why there were no dollar amounts specified in the resolution for this new hire, or a timeframe for this work. Finally, he asked whether the county would also need to hire someone to implement the recommendations made by the new employee. He didn’t support the hire, saying that the county already had staff who could do this work.

Brabec and McDaniel clarified that the contract would likely be between $50,000 to $75,000, and would not exceed the amount that the county administrator is allowed to spend without board approval – a $100,000 limit. In terms of a timeframe, McDaniel said it would likely be a contract at least through 2014. The board would need to decide whether the work would continue beyond that, she said.

Sizemore noted that not long ago, the county was poised to borrow up to $350 million “because we were in such desperate straits,” but now there’s money to hire someone new. He would not support the resolution. [Sizemore was referring to a bond proposal that had been floated in early 2013 to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations. McDaniel had initially said the bond was crucial to the county's financial health, but the proposal was dropped in July of 2013 amid concerns over cost and process, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that was required for this type of bonding.]

Outcome: The resolution on hiring a contract employee for budget work passed on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. Dan Smith was out of the room when the vote was taken, and Alicia Ping was absent.

Autism Coverage

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) brought forward a resolution from the floor, authorizing the county to provide health insurance coverage for the treatment of autism. The resolution would authorize adding an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rider to existing active employee and retiree benefits. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Adding the rider would cost the county an estimated $182,589 this year, according to staff – to be paid to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. To cover that cost, each county department will be charged on a per-employee basis. In addition, the county will pay for claims made by employees for this benefit, with the assumption that most if not all claims would be reimbursed by the state. LaBarre described the amount of claims that the county might be required to pay as a “moving target, but one I think we can meet.” He said the policy is needed for employee recruitment and retention, as well as for the “basic moral argument” that coverage should be provided.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

The board has been discussing this possibility for several months. LaBarre noted that Conan Smith (D-District 9) had brought up the issue last fall, pointing out that the county didn’t provide full mental health parity. That was because of budgetary constraints, LaBarre said.

At its Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, the board received a staff presentation about the possibility of offering such coverage. Colleen Allen, CEO of the Autism Alliance of Michigan, attended that meeting to answer questions and advocate for coverage. The board created a committee to explore the cost to the county for providing employee health insurance coverage for autism. Committee members were LaBarre, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). The committee’s charge was to (1) investigate the cost and sustainability of coverage of autism spectrum disorders; and (2) recommend a policy providing and funding coverage if the state reimbursement fund is exhausted.

The federal Mental Health Parity & Addiction Equity Act of 2008 mandates that any group plan with 50 or more members – like Washtenaw County government – must offer both medical and mental health benefits. Under more recent federal health care reform, there’s been an expansion of benefits, and mental health benefits are considered a mandatory part of basic health care, starting this year. However, autism isn’t included as part of that mental health mandate.

On the state level, in October 2012 a state of Michigan mandate took effect stating that all fully insured plans must provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The county is not a fully insured plan, however. Because the county is self-funded, it was exempt from this state mandate.

The costs of treatment are estimated to be about $60,000 a year to cover a child with autism. The state of Michigan has made coverage a priority, and has started setting aside funds to reimburse organizations that provide coverage. In fiscal year 2012-13, $15 million was made available, with an additional $11 million in fiscal 2013-14. Of that, only about $500,000 has been expended on reimbursements. The program is handled by the Michigan Dept. of Insurance and Financial Services.

The state program provides for reimbursement of up to $50,000 per year per child between the ages of 0 to 6, up to $40,000 per year from ages 7-12, and up to $30,000 per year for ages 13-18.

County staff have estimated that offering the coverage would result in up to a 5% increase in medical expenses, or up to $1 million annually. This year, medical expenses are budgeted at about $20 million. The county is expected to be fully reimbursed by the state of Michigan for the amounts that are allowed under the autism program.

The resolution given initial approval on March 19 included two resolved clauses:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the implementation of the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ADS) rider to existing active and retiree as soon as feasibly possible through Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, providing mental health and physical health parity.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Washtenaw County commits to a review of claims paid and/or reimbursed on an annual basis as our individual experience is not yet known. Such review would occur prior to the annual review process with Blue Cross/Blue Shield to determine if such benefit (rider) would be continued in the next year of benefits.

Autism Coverage: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked the committee and staff for their work. He asked Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, what percentage of costs the county could be expected to bear for this coverage.

Heidt described the annual payment to Blue Cross Blue Shield – of about $182,000 – as a kind of “permission slip” that would allow the county to offer the coverage. That amount will be pre-funded from the county’s medical fund reserves, and it will then be charged out to each county department based on the number of employees in each department – both general fund employees and non-general fund employees.

Employees that take advantage of the coverage would pay if there’s a deductible on their current insurance plan, or if there’s co-insurance, Heidt explained. The majority of employees pay 10% as co-insurance. She reminded the board that the administration is still negotiating with unions that represent about 300 employees at the sheriff’s office, so the benefits for those employees are different at this point.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The remainder of the claim would be paid by the county, with the expectation that the county would be reimbursed from the state, based on the age of the child that’s receiving treatment. The annual state reimbursement levels are $50,000 through age 6, $40,000 from ages 7-12, and $30,000 from ages 13-18.

Rabhi noted that Lansing is “a very dynamic place,” and he wondered what the impact would be if the state reimbursement program is eliminated. Heidt replied that currently about $25 million is available in the state reimbursement fund. The committee recommends that the county review the benefits and claims annually, to determine if the coverage would continue to be offered in the following year, Heidt said.

Rabhi noted that once the county offers a benefit, it’s hard to take that benefit away. If for some unforeseen reason there’s suddenly no money available from the state, he said, the county would need to evaluate if it’s a benefit that they can continue to pay for. But it’s hard to see the county removing that benefit, he said. Heidt stressed the importance of annually evaluating the county’s expenses, because at this point it’s unclear how many employees will take advantage of the coverage.

Rabhi supported offering coverage, but wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t a guarantee every year. He was concerned about what might happen if state funding disappeared, and what impact that would have on employees as well as on the county budget. He also noted that a lot of the county’s departments that get funding primarily from non-general fund sources are short on cash. What kind of burden will this coverage place on those departments? Heidt replied that of the $182,000 total, about $102,000 of that will be charged to non-general fund departments, based on the number of employees in each of those departments.

But this year, that $182,000 total would be pro-rated based on when the coverage begins, she noted – so that total amount will likely be only about $75,000 this year, since the coverage won’t be started until well into the year.

Rabhi said he wanted to be clear that the families who access this benefit aren’t a burden – that’s not what he meant. He was simply trying to understand the dollars that the county will be spending.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the $182,589 payment to Blue Cross Blue Shield, noting that it effectively doubles the cost of providing the coverage. He wondered what BCBS was doing with that money. Heidt replied that BCBS is charging that amount in anticipation of the claims that might be made. Based on whatever the county’s actual experience is with autism claims, that annual payment to BCBS might be less in the following year, she said. Smith asked what the dollars are used for within the insurance company. County administrator Verna McDaniel said that the basic understanding is that the money goes into an insurance pool, but beyond that, it’s not clear how it is allocated.

Smith said the issue of autism coverage didn’t arise because there’s state funding available for reimbursement. It came up because of the desire for mental health parity, and because many commissioners thought the county already provided autism coverage and were surprised when that wasn’t the case. Every other mental health issue is covered. Heidt noted that autism is the only mental health issue that doesn’t have coverage mandated by the state. Smith wondered how it’s possible that this relatively minor coverage is costing the equivalent of $15 per employee per month to add to the county’s health care costs. Heidt said it’s probably because there are so many unknowns.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Smith asked how the cost of the autism rider compares to other riders that the county has with BCBS. Heidt said it’s been a long time since the county added a new rider, so she didn’t have those costs broken out. Smith replied that he “loved the Blues” and has been covered by that entity his entire life. But he wanted some sort of explanation about how BCBS calculates the autism rider. Heidt said she’d talk to the county’s BCBS agent to get more information.

LaBarre agreed with Rabhi about the county needing to go into this with “our eyes wide open.” The county can leverage state funds now, but it’s not a given in the future. LaBarre noted that some commissioners wonder why this isn’t being done as part of the budget reaffirmation later this year. It’s not without risk in terms of cost, he said, but the merits of doing it as soon as possible make it worth supporting.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he hoped the county never takes back the benefits offered to employees. They should figure out how to finance this benefit, regardless of state aid. It’s about making a commitment to employees who have made previous sacrifices, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he was happy to move this item forward for an initial vote. But because of the budgetary impacts it has, and the fact that the county is barely three months into a four-year budget, he hoped that it would come back to the board for final approval not on April 2 but rather as part of the board’s budget reaffirmation process later in the year. At that time, they’d have a better handle on the county’s finances for the year and how the county could fund this benefit, he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) thanked the staff for working on this issue, saying it was important to “right this wrong.” She agreed that it was important to figure out how to pay for the benefit if the state fund is eliminated, but it’s important to move this forward so that families who need this benefit can access it.

Brabec noted that Heidt is working on how families can get coverage for older children, from ages 18-26, who aren’t eligible for reimbursement from the state.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to offering autism coverage.

2013 Year-End Financial Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the year-end financial update by telling commissioners that “I think you’ll be pleased.” [.pdf of financial update]

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, delivered the report. She noted that the audit is still in progress so these are preliminary results. It’s unlikely that anything will change drastically, she added.

From left: Washtenaw County finance director Kelly Belknap and finance analyst Tina Gavalier.

The county had a projected general fund revenue surplus of $2.356 million for the year. Surpluses in several areas contributed to that result, including intergovernmental revenue ($1.3 million, primarily due to payments in state revenue-sharing), fees and service revenue from the county clerk/register of deeds office ($591,000), and the sheriff’s office ($495,000).

On the expenditure side, the county spent $1.564 million less than budgeted. The bulk of that comes from $1.338 million in personnel savings from attrition, position vacancies, and planned reductions. Over $1 million of that was in the sheriff’s office, Gavalier reported, where there are 25 vacancies.

The total year-end surplus for the general fund was $3.92 million. Total revenues were $105.797 million, with total expenses of $101.876 million.

Looking ahead, Gavalier noted that there are several areas to monitor, including child care fund expenditures that are rising due to caseload and placements. [The child care fund is a joint effort between state and county governments to fund programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth in Michigan. Fifty percent of the fund comes from state dollars.]

Other issues to watch that could have a financial impact include fringe benefit projections and trends, personal property tax reform, the possible legislative repeal of Act 88, and state revenue-sharing/county incentive program payments. Regarding Act 88, Gavalier noted that the county has budgeted $973,000 in revenues from an Act 88 levy in 2014, to fund economic development and agricultural-related programs. “So if that’s repealed, there are some decisions that will need to be made,” she said.

Gavalier outlined the next steps for budget-related action that involves the board. The 2014 equalization report will be presented in April, along with a year‐end audit and financial statement. Quarterly budget updates for 2014 will occur in May, August and November. And this fall, the board will make a budget affirmation, with possible amendments to the remaining years of the four-year budget that was adopted in late 2013, for the period from 2014 through 2017.

McDaniel told the board that the county was recently notified that it’s receiving a national Alliance for Innovation award for its four-year budget. [Former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel previously served on the board of that group, which is based in Phoenix.]

2013 Year-End Financial Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked Tina Gavalier for more details about the intergovernmental revenue line item. She replied that the surplus of about $1.3 million comes from combining federal, state and local government revenues going into the general fund. Most of that came from a $1.495 million surplus in state revenue-sharing. The county received $9,602,028 in state-revenue sharing in 2013, compared to the budgeted amount of $7,665,098. The $1.495 million surplus in state-revenue sharing was offset by a $238,046 shortfall in local government revenue.

The $1.495 million in state revenue-sharing reflects the first two payments for 2014 that were actually made in October and December of 2013. There will be six payments in total for 2014, including those two, she said, but the payments that were made in 2013 had to be recorded in that year. She described it as a “one-time windfall.”

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, pointed out that the state and county are on different fiscal years. The state’s fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The county uses a calendar year as its fiscal year. That difference resulted in the timing of the payments, she explained, and the way in which they are accounted for in the county’s budget.

Gavalier also noted that the state Dept. of Treasury issued a guidance letter (No. 2013-1) stating that revenue-sharing is no longer based on statewide sales tax revenue, but instead will be a state appropriation.

C. Smith asked that the upcoming steps in the budget schedule reflect a supplemental budget update in the May-June timeframe, to reflect the updated revenue projections that will be coming in the equalization report. The board would be looking to adjust the budget at that time, based on any revenue shortfall or surplus. When Gavalier replied that it would be part of the budget update in August, Smith stressed that it should happen earlier – in May or June.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Delinquent Tax Borrowing

In an annual action to help the cash flow of local governments in Washtenaw County, the county board was asked to give initial authorization to county treasurer Catherine McClary to borrow up to $30 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions. [.pdf of delinquent tax resolution]

Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary.

The estimated amount of delinquent taxes is lower than in recent years, possibly reflecting a recovering economy. Last year, the board authorized borrowing up to $40 million, and the treasurer’s office ended up actually borrowing much less.

After March 1, taxing jurisdictions – including cities, townships, schools systems and libraries, among others – turn their delinquent taxes over to the county, and are reimbursed for that amount. The county treasurer then assumes responsibility for collecting these delinquent taxes. This is a standard procedure that’s conducted annually at this time of year. The borrowed funds are used for cash flow purposes, to fund operations for the first half of the year.

Under the state’s General Property Tax Act, the county treasurer is required to collect delinquent taxes. Section 87 of the act allows the county to set up a revolving fund – which was done several decades ago – so that the county can borrow the estimated amount of delinquent taxes, then pay in advance to all the taxing jurisdictions the amount that they would have collected if there had been no delinquent payments.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) thanked McClary for making this happen, saying this was very helpful to the townships and other municipalities that can get all their taxes upfront and then settle up after properties are foreclosed.

McClary noted that foreclosures are going down, “which is very, very good news.” It also appears that there will be a slight drop in delinquent taxes, she said. Delinquent taxes are a leading economic indicator for both mortgage foreclosures and tax foreclosures, so that’s also good news, McClary said. There’s also been a definitive drop in forfeitures, which is the step immediately preceding a foreclosure.

Last year, the county had authorized the treasurer’s office to borrow up to $40 million, but there ended up being only $21 million in delinquent taxes, McClary said. And only $16 million was borrowed, because there was a small reserve in the county’s tax revolving fund – about $4 million. So a small amount of self-funding is possible, she said, which saves the county money. Approximately 4% of what the treasurer’s office borrows represents either interest or fees. “So any time we can reduce the amount of delinquent tax borrowing, we’re doing a favor for the taxpayers,” McClary said.

She noted that the $4 million in the tax revolving fund is the result of a county board decision. Commissioners could decide to put that money into a capital projects fund or the county’s general fund, she said, but they’ve chosen to keep it as reserves. That helps the county when credit rating agencies make their evaluations, she said. It would help more if there were more money in those reserves, she added.

McClary noted that the county board recently approved a new way to pay off debt incurred from bonding, typically for public works projects in local municipalities. [At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the board authorized the change to allow local units of government to repay bonds early via the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund. The intent is to reduce interest rate payments while posing no financial risk to the county. At the same meeting, the board approved restructuring debt held by Bridgewater Township, which owed $585,000 on $1.095 million in bonds issued in 2004 to fund a sewer system.]

The treasurer’s office agreed to loan Bridgewater Township money to pay off the bonds, with the township repaying the treasurer’s office at a lower interest rate than it was paying for the bond debt, which was averaging 4.1%. The interest rate that is being used to repay the treasurer’s office is slightly above the average weighted yield that the county was getting on its portfolio, McClary reported, “so it’s a very good deal for the county coffers as well.”

McClary also told the board that she’s been working with Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner. That office has a lot of small bond issues for drain projects, in the range of $200,000 to $400,000. Depending on the size of the issue, they might be spending as much as half of any issue on fees and interest. If the $4 million in the delinquent tax revolving fund could be raised, she said, the county would gain more stability from the credit rating agencies and would be in a position to do more internal loans. She said she hasn’t yet made a formal proposal about that, but that’s where she’s headed.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the authorization, with a final vote expected on April 2.

Treasurer’s Report

County treasurer Catherine McClary gave a report on investments in 2013. [.pdf of 2013 treasurer's report] [.pdf of 2012 treasurer's report]

Investment earnings were $637,866 for the year. That compares with $755,681 in 2012. Fees and interest on delinquent taxes totaled $3.72 million in 2013, compared to $5.046 million in 2012. Fees for dog licenses were $62,718 last year, up from $59,748 in 2012. And income from tax searches was $23,052 compared to $31,760 in 2012.

Chart showing three-year historical comparison of Washtenaw County investments.

Total cash and investments reported as of December 2013 was $145.226 million, down from $156.081 million at the end of 2012. The 2012 figure included $4.67 million in funds related to the county accommodations tax, which at that time was administered by the treasurer’s office. In October 2012, the board approved an ordinance change that shifted control over administering and enforcing Washtenaw County’s accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director.

McClary noted that the average weighted yield of the county’s investments was 0.476% in 2013, compared to the three-month Treasury benchmark of 0.07%.

McClary highlighted three other items during her remarks to the board. The social workers in her office – who work with residents with delinquent taxes – have been certified by the state Dept. of Human Services to do intakes for residents in a range of programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. Her office is also participating in the Step Forward Michigan program, which uses federal mortgage prevention funds to also prevent tax foreclosure. It’s the only state in the country to do that, she said.

Finally, McClary reported that property assessments are increasing. She told commissioners that she had prepared a brochure for residents about how to appeal their assessments.

Resolution of Appreciation for Pat Kelly

The March 19 agenda included a resolution of appreciation for former Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly. [.pdf of resolution]

Pat Kelly, former Dexter Township supervisor.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District8) began by wishing Kelly a happy birthday.

Rabhi noted that Kelly had stepped down from her role as Dexter Township supervisor, after serving in that role for 12 years. He said he had served on many boards and committees with her, and knows that she’s someone who cares about all residents of Washtenaw County. He read aloud the resolution, which highlighted Kelly’s work on the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, the Washtenaw County Transit Master Plan, Washtenaw County Police Services Steering Committee, and several other public entities.

The resolution also noted that Kelly “led Dexter Township’s response to a devastating tornado in 2012 and worked tirelessly and diligently to establish communication channels with affected residents, safely coordinate volunteer efforts to aid in the massive clean-up, and, with significant and important assistance from the County and Road Commission, supported and led township efforts to remove debris and fallen trees from private property at little or no cost to residents…”

Kelly was visibly emotional when she responded, saying she was touched by the recognition. Almost two years ago, she said, she’d stood at the same podium and thanked commissioners for helping her community after the 2012 tornado. “It’s been a good partnership,” she said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) praised Kelly’s negotiating skills in representing her township as well as the entire county. When he first was elected, Smith said, the tension between the county and townships over police service contracts, provided through the sheriff’s office, seemed insurmountable. “It seemed like we were going to be at war for a generation,” he said. At one of his most frustrating moments during his first term, Smith recalled, Kelly called him and “very gently explained the interests that your colleagues in the townships had and concerns in a way that just opened my eyes to the possibility of a real partnership.” The county could not have reached a resolution without Kelly’s leadership on that issue, he said. “You’ve been a calming force in huge turmoil, and a passionate deliverer of messages without creating conflict in that process.”

Smith said he knew the county would find some way to keep her deeply engaged with policy work and community leadership.

Outcome: The board unanimously passed a resolution of appreciation for Pat Kelly.

Report from Lansing Lobbyist

Lobbyist Kirk Profit and his colleague Gary Owen at Lansing-based Governmental Consultant Services Inc. gave a presentation to the board about action in the state government that might impact Washtenaw County. GCSI is the lobbyist for the county and several other local governments, including the city of Ann Arbor.

The state budget is actually in good shape, Profit said, with about $52 billion in expenditures and a surplus of about $970 million. He commended the state legislators who represent districts in Washtenaw County, saying that they represent the local interests very well, even though they’re in the minority, as Democrats. He said it was great to have the state Senate majority leader representing part of Washtenaw County as well. [Sen. Randy Richardville, a Republican, represents District 17, which includes six southern and central townships in the county, and the city of Saline.]

Kirk Profit, a paid state lobbyist for Washtenaw County, and commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Revenue sharing is moving in the right direction, Profit said. This year the county will get about $5.5 million, and he expected the county would get about $6.9 million in 2015. The state doesn’t have a good track record in terms of the county’s ability to count on state revenue-sharing, he said. It’s good to understand that going forward.

He noted that the personal property tax referendum will be on the ballot in August of 2014. [The tax is being phased out starting in 2014 through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for Aug. 5, 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources.]

Eliminating the PPT removes about $576 million statewide, which primarily are revenues that fund local municipalities. The voter referendum would authorize a use tax to be collected by a new Michigan Metropolitan Areas Metropolitan Authority, which would distribute the funding by statute.

Profit noted that TIF (tax increment finance) capture is “hot” in Lansing right now. State Rep. Eileen Kowall has drafted legislation that addresses several issues related to TIF, including the ability to opt out, resetting the base for TIF capture, and sunset clauses. “It’s going to receive a lot of attention and a lot of dialogue,” Profit said, but it wasn’t clear whether it will pass.

While noting that the state budget is in great shape, Profit said there are also some areas that have holes, including health care funding, education and roads. Some legislators would prefer to give the entire surplus back to taxpayers as refunds, he noted. Profit said he wasn’t sure how these issues will be resolved, but the legislature will be addressing these matters over the next 60-90 days.

The legislature recently approved about $215 million in supplemental funding for roads, which will bring about $1 million to Washtenaw County, Profit said. The city of Ann Arbor will get about $450,000. Other cities and villages will get much less, he said. Profit praised Gov. Rick Snyder, saying that Snyder is “right there on roads” and had demanded that the legislature produce funding for roads.

The southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), which includes Washtenaw County, received close to $2 million for operating expenses to fund it until an anticipated millage vote in 2016, Profit said.

Profit told the board that Act 88 is under some attack, with legislation introduced that would repeal it. [The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 0.5 mills under Act 88 without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax was enacted in 1913, which predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county currently levies 0.07 mills under Act 88.]

Profit said that GCSI’s Gary Owen was working aggressively to make sure legislators understand the significance of Act 88 funding for Washtenaw County. Profit said the target of the repeal legislation is Gratiot County.

The state’s supplemental budget included $750,000 for indigent defense, and Profit credited Washtenaw County public defender Lloyd Powell for successfully advocating for that funding.

Collective bargaining continues to draw a lot of attention in Lansing, Profit said. He also noted that GCSI is working with judge Donald Shelton and Dan Dwyer, court administrator of the Washtenaw Trial Court, on implementing e-filing statewide.

Breastfeeding in public is another issue that GCSI is following, Profit said. He noted that state Sen. Rebekah Warren introduced legislation that was passed in the Senate to guarantee a woman’s right to breastfeed in public places.

Profit also mentioned interest at the state level regarding the Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act. Pending legislation “would dramatically limit your ability recoup costs that you might incur for FOIA responses, and also perhaps to dramatically limit your ability to have certain protected conversations from open meetings requirements.” Profit said GCSI would work closely with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger on that.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Profit highlighted an increase in state arts funding from $2 million to $10 million, which translates into about $590,000 coming to Washtenaw County for a variety of arts organizations.

Gary Owen of GCSI said he’d been working with Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, regarding action at the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) that will affect the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane cleanup in Washtenaw County. The MDEQ is updating its cleanup standards, and Mike Gebhard has been participating in that process and is on the MDEQ’s toxicity committee. Gebhard is a former environmental analyst/hydrogeologist with Washtenaw County who now works for the county’s information technology department.

The MDEQ will make a recommendation to the state’s Office of Regulatory Reinvention in July, which will include the new standards, Owen said, but those recommendations will be known before then. “It will most likely be a drastic difference than what it is today, but the process will determine that,” he said.

Regarding the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund, Owen cited the county’s success in getting grants in the past few years. He credited Bob Tetens, director of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, with that success, which Owen said is probably unparalleled across the state. Owen cited several grants, including $300,000 for the Rutherford Pool in Ypsilanti, $300,000 for the Ann Arbor skatepark, and over $1 million for the acquisition of 54 acres near Domino’s Farms.

Regarding the possible repeal of Act 88, Owen said GCSI is working to make sure that Washtenaw County’s interests are addressed.

Report from Lansing Lobbyist: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said the comments regarding Act 88 are “misplaced.” It’s not about what the money is spent on in Washtenaw County, he said. “It’s about how the money is collected, and what the law says that money can be spent on.” In his opinion, Smith said, the Washtenaw County board hasn’t done its proper due diligence, “despite my repeated requests.”

Regarding roads, D. Smith noted that legislation has been introduced to repeal the sunset clause on the ability of a county board of commissioners to absorb the duties and responsibilities of a road commission. He asked for a prognosis of that bill. Kirk Profit replied that the outcome is hard to read. GCSI will continue to watch it, but Profit didn’t think legislators had made up their mind yet.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

D. Smith noted that a subcommittee of the board had recently finished a process regarding what the county would do, but the recommendation hadn’t yet been brought forward to the full board. A working session on that is scheduled for April 17. But Smith’s take on the bill is that it would provide the board with a lot of tools, while forcing the board to dramatically alter things right now. It would be productive to have a longer time to discuss how to best manage this critical transportation infrastructure, he said, noting that it’s not something that can quickly be decided. People are very resistant to change, Smith said, and need more time to work on it. He hoped the legislature would repeal the sunset clause.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) agreed with Dan Smith on the road commission issue. Removing the sunset wouldn’t mean that the county would get rid of the road commission, he said. Statewide, not many counties have taken advantage of the current ability to do that. But he hoped that option would be made available for a longer period.

Regarding Act 88, C. Smith said he had a different perspective from Dan Smith. But he thought they might agree on the fact that Act 88 is just one response that the county has to a “broken municipal finance system.” The state took millions of dollars of state revenue-sharing away from the county over the past several years. If that hadn’t happened, he said, perhaps the county wouldn’t be scraping to find other revenue sources.

C. Smith said he understood why some people want to repeal Act 88, but they should be beating the bigger drum of fixing the system. Lots of cities are on the cusp of financial insolvency, he noted, so he’d advocate not to mess with Act 88 until this bigger problem is fixed.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) echoed C. Smith’s sentiments on Act 88. The county needs tools to address the needs of citizens, Rabhi said, “and right now the state is just tying our hands.” Personal property tax repeal is another example, he said. Rabhi said that Act 88 funding works and benefits the community, and he didn’t think legislators understood that.

Urban County Plan Public Hearing

The March 19 meeting included a public hearing to give input for the Washtenaw Urban County 2014-15 action plan. The hearing was set to solicit feedback about proposed projects and programs that the county intends to implement with federal funding – through community development block grant (CDBG), HOME and emergency shelter grant programs – from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [.pdf of action plan]

Computer screen: Notes being taken by Brett Lenart of the county’s office of community & economic development during a public hearing on the Urban County action plan.

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

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

One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke during the public hearing. He said the Urban County organization is isolated, like many county organizations. Meetings are held at locations outside of Ann Arbor and aren’t televised on the Community Television Network, he said. The body should be very prominent, Partridge said, because it gets funding for affordable housing. But that funding is under attack, he noted, and more financing from the private sector is needed. Homelessness can’t be eliminated without more attention to this issue.

Thompson Block Brownfield Public Hearing

The board agenda included a resolution to set a public hearing for input on the brownfield development plan of the Thompson Block redevelopment in Ypsilanti. The street addresses for the block are 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St. The hearing will be held at the county boardroom in downtown Ann Arbor, 220 N. Main, during the April 2 meeting, which begins at 6:30 p.m. [.pdf of staff memo]

Outcome: Commissioners voted to set the public hearing, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Communications & Commentary

During the March 19 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Regional Transit Authority

Jim Casha spoke about the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA). He lives in Canada, and noted that Ann Arbor reminds him of Canada – “except for the roads.”

He’d attended the recent Michigan senate transportation committee hearings in Lansing, and listened to the RTA board chair, Paul Hillegonds, ask for more money for that organization. He also attended the transportation appropriations committee meeting and heard Amtrak’s presentation about service between Chicago and Detroit, through Ann Arbor.

From left: Jim Casha and county commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Casha said he’s still confused about why the RTA board isn’t making a fight for the 163-acre state fairgrounds. He’d just attended the RTA board meeting, and he thought that RTA board members are confused as well. One of the big supporters of the state legislation that created the RTA, state Sen. John Pappageorge, is a “military guy,” Casha said. “He understands that it’s always cheaper to hold what you have than to retake what you’ve lost – and there’s no reason to give up the fairgrounds.” Even if the fairgrounds turns out not to be a great property to own, though Casha said he thought it was, there’s no reason to give it up now. “We should retain it and evaluate it,” he said.

The situation is rather perilous, Casha said. He reported that Hillegonds had been surprised by the lack of knowledge that state legislators had regarding the RTA. Casha found that the same thing was true with the state fairgrounds. They pass legislation in Lansing, but then don’t keep up with its impact, he said.

Casha asked commissioners to talk with the state legislators and with Washtenaw County’s representatives on the RTA board to keep people informed about what’s happening. [The two RTA representatives from Washtenaw County, who were appointed by the county board, are Liz Gerber and Alma Wheeler Smith, the mother of county commissioner Conan Smith.] Legislators are making some serious mistakes that could seriously impact the ability to have a regional transportation system, Casha said.

Later in the meeting Casha spoke again. At the recent transportation appropriations committee meeting, the RTA presented documentation showing that state legislation allows for the RTA to generate revenue from the sale, exchange, mortgage, lease or other disposition of property acquired by the authority, he said. So his question was: Why doesn’t the RTA take advantage of it? One reason is that the RTA has been misled by people in the governor’s office, Casha contended. There was misinformation, he said, and the state fairgrounds was transferred to private individuals. “It’s definitely not a done deal yet,” Casha said. There are ways out of any legal contract, he added.

Casha noted that the Michigan Land Bank has a new director, “and maybe she has a different opinion of what the land bank’s done so far with this land.” The state owes it to the people in the four-county RTA district to look after their interests in this matter.

Communications & Commentary: Roads in Manchester

Allison Tucker of Manchester, who had spoken to the board at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting about the GED (general education diploma), began by reporting that the Washtenaw Community College’s adult transitions program recently secured $3,000 in funding. It reinstated her faith that one person can make a difference. But she was there that night to talk about the condition of roads in Manchester. She had hoped to address commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3), whose district includes Manchester, but noted that Ping was absent. There are a lot of potholes, and many of them are deep, Tucker said. The situation could kill someone, she said. For smaller communities, it’s difficult to have funding for plowing and salting the roads, she noted. Tucker hoped that the county could help, so that someone like her who travels to class wouldn’t face that problem.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge addressed the board during both opportunities for public commentary. He urged commissioners to come up with a fundamentally sustainable agenda for county government, with top priorities of eliminating homelessness, funding affordable housing and countywide public transportation, and supporting human rights. He said Washtenaw County has a programmed way of doing business that leaves out a substantial number of residents in making decisions about these issues.

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

Absent: Alicia Ping

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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