According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the city of Ann Arbor expects to realize at least $500,000 in savings annually compared to continuing to employ its own dispatchers. The cost savings arise from the fact that not all of the city’s current dispatchers would be hired on by the sheriff’s office. Around four city of Ann Arbor dispatchers would not have dispatching jobs under the new arrangement.

The contract is offset by a $12,520 facility use fee paid by the county to the city. The Washtenaw County sheriff’s office is already co-located with Ann Arbor police dispatch, in a facility above the city’s Fire Station #1 on Fifth Avenue just across the street from the municipal center. The sheriff’s office also currently handles dispatching services for  Northfield Township, Michigan State Police, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority and the city of Ypsilanti. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"]

According the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the consolidation of dispatch operations would put the city in the state of Michigan’s Economic Vitality Incentive Plan. The MEVIP has replaced statutory state-shared revenue as the means that the state legislature uses to distribute to local governmental units their portion of the state’s sales tax. The distribution of a portion of the state sales tax to local units is based on the fact that in Michigan, local units have limited ability to generate revenue through taxes.

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

The $42,587 grant would be awarded to the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office by the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. The funds would be used to support the sheriff’s community outreach program, according to a staff memo. Specifically, the grant would fund a part-time community engagement coordinator and two of the program’s five peer outreach workers.

No one spoke during a public hearing at the meeting to get input on how the grant will be used.

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

Left to right: Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane, Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly, and Manchester village president Pat Vailliencourt talk before the Nov. 4 working session of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. They are all members of the county's police services steering committee, which recently made a recommendation related to the cost of delivering police services in the county. (Photos by the writer.)

During Thursday’s working session, Clayton told commissioners it’s important to agree on the cost of delivering police services, before moving on to the question of price – or what the county will charge for that service, presumably a lower amount. He also outlined several policy issues that the board needs to address, including what metrics they’ll use to determine future adjustments in cost and price.

Currently, there are 74 county deputies paid through contracts with local municipalities, including Ypsilanti Township, Ann Arbor Township and Superior Township, among others. The current price is $144,802 per police services unit (PSU) – a term that includes direct costs like salary and fringe benefits, as well as indirect costs and overhead. Current contracts call for a 4% increase next year, bringing the price to $150,594.

The police services steering committee (PSSC), appointed by the board of commissioners, has been studying the cost of delivering this service for well over a year. Its recommendation, delivered by Clayton to the board at Thursday’s working session, is to set the cost per PSU at $176,108. Setting the price will be an issue to tackle next, and is likely to be a more contentious one. Current contracts run through 2011, and negotiations will begin next year for 2012 and beyond.

The idea of agreeing on a cost should help address the price issue, Clayton said, and should help to assure contracting municipalities that the dramatic price escalations of recent years will stabilize. County officials have said those increases were necessary because the price of the contracts has been significantly lower than the true cost of delivering police services.

Several PSSC members attended Thursday’s session, including leaders of Manchester and the townships of Ann Arbor, Dexter and Superior. They spoke to commissioners, in some cases quite poignantly, about the value that these contract deputies provide to the county as a whole – a value that’s not just limited to the municipalities that pay for the deputies, they stressed. The argument is meant to persuade the board to offset the cost of those deputies by charging a lower price. In the past, some commissioners have argued that the county is subsidizing the patrols in a way that’s unfair to residents of cities like Ann Arbor, who also pay for their own police force.

Notably absent from the meeting were representatives from Ypsilanti Township, the largest unit that contracts for deputies and a member of the PSSC. A year ago, voters defeated a millage that would have paid for police services, and township officials cut the number of deputies it uses from 38 to 31. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board OKs Ypsi Twp. Deputy Cuts"] On Nov. 2, however, township voters approved a police services millage, with support from 58% of voters. A similar millage proposal in Augusta Township was voted down the same day. Meanwhile, Ypsilanti Township has been in talks with the city of Ypsilanti about consolidating the two municipalities’ police services – Ypsilanti has its own police force.

Then there’s the lawsuit that the townships of Ypsilanti, Salem and Augusta filed against the county in 2006 over the issue of contract deputy prices – commissioner Jeff Irwin pointed out during Thursday’s meeting that the case is “still lingering.” A judge will be hearing a motion on that case this Wednesday, as the county tries to recoup more than $2 million from two of the three townships.

The board did not take action on Thursday. Comments from commissioners indicate mixed views on the proposed cost model, with some arguing that more indirect or overhead costs should be included. However, nearly all of them praised Clayton for his leadership on this issue, thanking him for bringing civility to the discussion. It’s an indirect commentary on the board’s rocky relationship with Clayton’s predecessor, Dan Minzey, who was aligned with Ypsilanti Township and was defeated by Clayton in 2008.

Sheriff Deputy Contracts: Clayton’s Presentation

Sheriff Jerry Clayton’s report to the board was similar to one he had reviewed the previous day with members of the police services steering committee – one of several PSSC committee meetings that The Chronicle has observed over the past few months.

He began by saying the board should be commended for forming the PSSC and bringing stakeholders to the table. The group includes leaders of the contracting jurisdictions, as well as representatives from the county board and law enforcement. The committee’s recent charge had been to drill down and identify the cost of delivering police services, he said. When that point is settled, they’ll have a foundation from which to move forward on policy issues, as well as setting the price for contract police services.

Clayton’s Presentation: Historical Background

Clayton sketched out a brief timeline of the issue, which dates back several decades and has generally been contentious. Originally, the sheriff would set the cost and negotiate pricing with each jurisdiction, separately. That evolved to a more formal model in 1984, based on a report by Susan Kattelus of Eastern Michigan University. The report suggested a formula for establishing the cost of a contract deputy. It included a set of direct costs – salary, fringe benefits, uniform allowance, overtime, liability insurance and training. In addition, it established a 39% indirect cost rate, plus a charge of 33 cents per mile for vehicles used by contract deputies.

This model was used until 2000, when the current approach was adopted. The current model is based on a study commissioned by the county and conducted by the Northwestern University Traffic Institute. Known as the Northwestern study, it found the amount being charged for these contract deputies was too low, and undervalued the true cost of providing these services. The study outlined three alternative costing models, each setting different indirect cost rates – one as high as 94%. [.pdf of Northwestern study]

The study also included a staffing analysis, looking at how many patrols would be required for covering the county. It identified a minimum number of patrols for the contracting jurisdictions, and an ideal number as well, Clayton said. [.pdf of Northwestern staffing analysis chart]

The study was well-done, Clayton said, but problems arose when policy issues connected to the report weren’t addressed. Many costs weren’t included – the cost of training officers, for example, or costs associated with hiring – which again led to an undervaluing of the true cost of providing these services. It explains why costs escalated over such a relatively short period of time, he said, as the county started trying to adjust for the true cost. It’s also why the issue of cost is an important one to address in a complete way, so similar problems don’t arise in the future, he said.

From the sheriff department’s perspective, Clayton said, it’s important that the county continue its commitment to public safety, while not overburdening the contracting jurisdictions. In an era in which they’re trying to shrink government, not expand it, it makes no sense not to work together. The more they strike a balance, he said, the better for everyone involved.

Clayton’s Presentation: The Work of the PSSC

A subcommittee of the PSSC was formed, and for about 18 months it has been hammering out the issue of what it costs to put a contract deputy on the road. Clayton clarified the difference between cost and price – the PSSC was focused only on cost at this point. The issue of what the county will charge for this service will be dealt with in the future, he said.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton at the October 2010 meeting of the police services steering committee (PSSC), held at the county's Zeeb Road service center.

There was initially a lack of trust about cost issues, Clayton said, and there were a lot of myths about the cost of delivering services as well. “We attempted to debunk some of those myths.”

Terminology was one challenge. They returned to using the phrase “police services unit” (PSU) to indicate that there is more than just the deputy’s salary and benefits that go into the cost – that’s one of the myths. Currently, contracting jurisdictions are paying $144,802 per PSU. Current contracts call for a 4% increase next year, bringing the price to $150,594.

The committee wanted to drill down in terms of cost, Clayton said, particularly in the areas of indirect costs and overhead. One question asked was this: What would it cost you to establish and maintain your own law enforcement agency? What costs would you be responsible for?

Clayton’s Presentation: Recommended Cost Scenario

The committee developed three cost scenarios, Clayton said, and recommended one that set the cost of a police services unit (PSU) at $176,108 in 2012. [.pdf of chart with details of itemized costs Additional backup documentation: cost analysis formulas; overview of fringe benefit rates; overview of cost allocation plan (CAP)]

The cost is based on the current number of contract deputies – 74 – and includes direct, indirect and overhead costs. It was the lowest of the three cost scenarios developed by the committee, but the difference was negligible, as the highest scenario was only about $3,500 more – $179,697.

In the recommended scenario, direct costs per PSU total $135,258 and include salary ($74,302), fringe benefits ($45,278), a uniform allowance $1,764), gun allowance ($764) and fleet costs ($13,151). Indirect costs per PSU total $33,326 and include costs associated with central dispatch, liability insurance, information and technology systems, support services, and capital outlay, among other things.

Overhead costs total $7,524 per PSU in the recommended scenario. Most of that is related to sheriff administrator costs, including patrol supervisors.

Clayton’s Presentation: Policy Questions

Clayton identified four policy questions that he said the board would need to consider:

• What is the length of future contracts? Clayton believed a minimum of four years would be optimal, allowing time for budgeting and providing job stability for employees.
• What’s the process for adding or reducing PSUs? This needs to be clearly articulated, Clayton said, both for the current contracting jurisdictions as well as for those that might consider joining.
• What are the process and metrics related to contract cost increases or decreases? The PSSC believes it has turned over every stone related to cost, Clayton said. But in setting the price, what would trigger an increase or decrease? For example, the contract could include a clause stating that if wages increase by 2%, then the price of a PSU would also increase by 2%.
• What is the overall county commitment to support police services? This will become an easier issue to address, Clayton said, as they attempt to quantify the value of the service that contract deputies provide to the entire county.

Clayton said he’s talked to residents across the county, and they don’t care who responds when they place a 911 call – they don’t care about the color of the uniform. The sheriff’s department provides backup to other municipalities, like Ann Arbor, which has reduced the size of its police force. Just as residents move around the county, crime knows no boundaries, he said. The stronger the county is in public safety, the better the quality of life will be for residents.

The sheriff’s department now has 74 deputies paid for by contracting municipalities, plus 12 deputies paid for out of the county’s general fund. Decreasing either of those numbers would severely limit the sheriff department’s ability to provide public safety countywide, he said.

Clayton concluded by saying he didn’t expect the board to act in haste. The PSSC was presenting this cost recommendation for the board to consider and approve. The board will also need to act on the policy issues they’ve identified, he said, and ultimately make sure that everyone is comfortable with the price of the contracts.

The Township/Village Perspective

Four leaders from local governments that have contracts with the county for sheriff deputy patrols spoke during Thursday’s working session. All of them are members of the police services steering committee (PSSC).

Mike Moran, supervisor of Ann Arbor Township, awaits the start of the Nov. 4 working session of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran began by noting that several years ago, they’d been in the same room talking about the price and cost of deputy patrols, and the discussion had generated a fair amount of heat and distrust. The PSSC had evolved out of those discussions, he said, and has been extremely valuable for all involved. He hoped that commissioners appreciated how much time the committee had spent on this issue – they didn’t feel they could talk about price until they figured out the question of cost. “We went at this in a very dispassionate way and a very collegial way,” he said.

They looked at direct and indirect costs in great detail, and adopted the police services unit (PSU) model, which acknowledges that the cost includes more than just the deputy’s salary and benefits. For example, the committee looked at fleet costs, and considered not only the cost of a vehicle, but also its maintenance costs, equipment installed, fuel and resale value, among other things. These numbers aren’t frivolous, he said. Moran noted that although the committee is recommending one of three different cost scenarios, in reality the scenarios don’t differ much. The main difference is whether the scenario includes a percentage of the cost for the sheriff and undersheriff – the scenario being recommended does not include that cost.

Moran concluded by noting that the contracting jurisdictions put 74 deputies on the road. “We hope you appreciate the effort and sincerity we put into this,” he said.

Bill McFarlane, supervisor for Superior Township, thanked the sheriff and commissioners, and noted that the issue has been a contentious one for many years. It’s likely that they’ll never arrive at a solution that makes everyone happy, he said, but they’ve come up with something that everyone can live with. The contract deputies that are paid for by local municipalities benefit residents in the entire county, McFarlane said. The number of law enforcement officers throughout the county has decreased significantly over the past several years, he said – in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and at the state police post that serves this area. The contracting jurisdictions put boots on the ground, he said.

One example is the recent bank robberies in Ann Arbor – there were more sheriff’s deputies who responded than Ann Arbor police officers, he said, “and that’s ok.” Deputies paid for by Superior Township have helped in Ann Arbor and Pittsfield Township, as well as in areas that don’t have their own police department, he said. These are difficult economic times, and local governments need to work together.

The price that the county charges for these contract deputies should reflect these benefits, McFarlane said. And it would be nice to find a formula for calculating the price that would be stable, so that the issue wouldn’t need to be debated each time the contracts are negotiated. There are other issues that need their attention, he said. The work of the PSSC isn’t complete, and he hopes that the board would allow them to make a price recommendation as well, which would reflect the benefits that contract deputies bring to the entire county.

Pat Vailliencourt, president of the village of Manchester, made a poignant speech to the board. She began by saying that collaboration is essential, and that they all need to work together to make Washtenaw County as safe as possible, everywhere. Every time a contract deputy responds to a 911 call, they help ease the burden on the entire county, she said.

Vailliencourt then passed out photos of a 16-year-old girl, dressed up for homecoming. This is Jessica, she said. One day, soon after getting her driver’s license, Jessica drove an SUV out on one of the county’s gravel roads, going with her friend Hannah to pick up some clothes for a local shelter. The vehicle began to fishtail on the gravel, and Jessica overcorrected. The SUV flipped, trapping Jessica upside-down while strapped in by her seatbelt. There was blood and glass everywhere, Vailliencourt said, and the vehicle was on fire. Hannah found a cell phone and called 911. Then Jessica called her mom, told her what had happened, but said not to worry – they had called 911, and help would be there soon.

The accident happened in a township that didn’t have its own police department, Vailliencourt said, and that didn’t contract with the county for sheriff deputies. But a contract deputy from a neighboring jurisdiction took the call and responded, pulling Jessica to safety. Imagine getting a call like that from your child, Vailliencourt said. “I can imagine that – Jessica is my granddaughter.”

Right now, 70% of Manchester’s budget goes to pay for its contract deputies, Vailliencourt said. As the board deliberates over these issues, she urged them to remember Jessica, and to consider what the entire county gains by having contract deputies. There used to be 90 such deputies – now there are 74, because the price has forced some jurisdictions to cut back, she said. Please don’t make the price so high that they can’t afford to make the county a safer place for everyone to live and play and work and visit, she said.

Pat Kelly, Dexter Township’s supervisor, explained that she’d be brief, because her hoarse voice made it difficult to speak. She thanked the sheriff for bringing a new civility and common sense to the table. The PSSC would like to continue to work on this “sticky wicket,” she said. There’s value for the county in having contract deputies, she said. One benefit is jurisdictional flexibility – the recent bank robbery in Ann Arbor is an example of that, where the sheriff could pull in resources from throughout the county to help respond. She urged the board to allow the PSSC to put a value on that kind of activity, and to accept that there is a value to it, so that they can all move forward.

County Commissioners Weigh In

Jeff Irwin started by saying that he’s watched this issue for several years, and he thanked the sheriff for bringing a more detail-oriented, collaborative style to the discussion. There’s been an earnest, honest effort to dig into the cost of contract deputies, Irwin said, noting that he has attended several PSSC meeting where these issues have been discussed. It’s a complicated relationship, he said. Irwin also praised Clayton for other collaborative projects, such as a unified county SWAT team and dispatch.

However, Irwin noted that defining what to include as overhead is subjective. He felt that by not including certain things like the detective bureau, the cost is lower than it could have been. Clayton responded by saying that there were give-and-take discussions as the PSSC considered what was the county’s responsibility, and how much should be considered as costs for contracting jurisdictions. Another example is the cost of the vehicle fleet, he said – some felt the cost for that shouldn’t be assigned to the contracting agencies, but they understood the need for balance, and it was included.

Irwin returned to the proposed cost recommendation, and noted that the county is responsible for $6.5 million in overhead costs, while the contracting jurisdictions would pay just $556,000 – is that fair? he asked. The board has shown a strong commitment to public safety, but there are always calls to do more, and in some cases, people say that the county isn’t doing enough. He wanted to point out that under the recommended scenario, the county would be paying the vast amount of overhead costs.

Clayton replied that some of the $6.5 million is simply the cost of the sheriff’s department – those costs would still exist, even if there were no contract deputies. There was a great acknowledgment by PSSC members that the county had made a commitment to public safety, he said. When you think about what’s at risk countywide – the billions of dollars in property value – the cost of public safety is like an insurance policy, Clayton added. “I think it’s a pretty good deal.”

Irwin pointed out that in 2010, police services costs totaled $21.5 million. In 2011, the budget calls for about $19 million. What happened to the other $2.5 million, he asked. Clayton said that the $19 million doesn’t reflect certain mandated items, like marine services. Irwin noted that the 12 sheriff deputies paid for out of the county’s general fund are included in that additional $2.5 million too, but they aren’t mandated. Clayton countered that the sheriff is required to respond to calls – they can’t do that without some road patrols.

Irwin said the 12 general fund deputies reflect a commitment to public safety, but he doesn’t feel that they are a mandated service. He added that he’s pretty sure the courts don’t think so either, based on the outcome of the lawsuit filed against the county by three townships, “which is still lingering, I might add.”

[The lawsuit was filed in 2006 by the townships of Augusta, Salem and Ypsilanti over the cost of providing contract deputies. The county has prevailed in the case, which the townships appealed all the way to the state Supreme Court. This summer, Salem Township settled and agreed to pay the county $48,000 of costs in dispute. However, the issue has not yet been resolved over the amounts that Augusta and Ypsilanti townships owe. The county is seeking $2.1 million from Ypsilanti Township, and nearly $96,000 from Augusta Township. Responding to an email query from The Chronicle, Curtis Hedger – the county's attorney – said the county has filed a motion for judgment on the issue, which will be heard by 38th Circuit Court Chief Judge Joseph Costello on Wednesday morning, at the Monroe County Circuit Court.]

Irwin told Clayton that the county pays a tremendous amount for public safety, and he didn’t want that fact to be lost.

During Thursday’s meeting, Mike Moran of Ann Arbor Township responded to Irwin as well, saying that Irwin’s points are valid but don’t relate to the issue that the PSSC is addressing – the cost of putting a deputy on the road, not the county’s overall commitment to public safety. Irwin’s points are valid to raise in the next phase of discussion, Moran said, when they talk about the price that the county should charge for these deputies.

Moran also noted that part of the overhead costs are related to the county’s cost allocation plan (CAP), an amount charged to each department for things like the county attorney and administration. They have nothing to do with the cost of a deputy, he said – those costs would still exist if the contract deputies were totally eliminated. It’s unfair to mix the issues of cost, county contribution and price at this point, he said. All that the PSSC tried to do was to identify the cost of putting a contract deputy on the road.

Irwin said he understood Moran’s point, but he noted that the recommendation does include indirect costs like supervision, that have a relationship to the contract deputies. Irwin argued that the detective bureau does as well – detectives work on cases that originate with the contract deputies, for example. There’s a relationship between the number of contract deputies and the number of detectives needed, he said – but it’s not included in this cost model. That’s why he raised the issue.

Moran responded that they could parse it many different ways – what about the cost of prosecuted cases, for example? He said he was sure they’d have more heated discussions in the future as they address the issue of price, but he didn’t think it was a factor in setting the cost. The detective bureau is part of the criminal justice system, not linked to the contract deputies.

Pat Vailliencourt of Manchester also weighed in, reminding the board that some of the services being discussed are basic countywide services. Residents in the contracting jurisdictions pay county taxes for those services too, she said, in addition to the amount they pay for the contract deputies. Sometimes, it seems like they’ve been double-dipped, she said. They should receive the basic services, just like everyone else.

Leah Gunn spoke next, congratulating Clayton for bringing civility to the conversation. She noted that she chaired the committee that created the PSSC came up with the concept of a police services unit (PSU). She had several concerns about the proposed cost scenario, noting – as Irwin had – that the money the county pays for its 12 general fund deputies should be factored in. She wondered why the county paid for the entire overhead cost of the fleet, cost allocation plan (CAP) and retirement. These are questions that didn’t need to be answered that night, but were ones that cause her concern.

The sheriff patrols are the county’s largest non-mandated service, Gunn said. The courts agree, she said – and the Wayne County sheriff’s department doesn’t have any patrols, for example. Washtenaw County doesn’t want to go that far, but they are facing a budget deficit of over $20 million, Gunn said. There are other non-mandated services that she supports, she added, like Head Start and allocations to human services nonprofits. As a representative of Ann Arbor, she said she’s been concerned for some time about residents paying twice – once for the city police, and again for the sheriff’s department. It’s time for other communities to step up, she said, because it’s a burden on the county’s general fund.

Washtenaw County commissioner Barbara Bergman talks with sheriff Jerry Clayton prior to the start of the county board's Nov. 4 working session.

In his turn, Conan Smith highlighted the high cost of fringe benefits, and said that issue had to be on the table in the next round of labor negotiations. He said he didn’t share his colleague’s concern over the cost of the detective bureau, but suggested that one approach might be to charge some kind of a fee related to that work. He said he felt good about the items that were included in the cost.

Smith asked Clayton to explain why it was a good idea to create four-year contracts. Clayton replied that longer contracts provide more stability for an organization, both for budgeting purposes as well as job security for employees. He said the board and administration talk a lot about valuing the county’s employees – sheriff’s deputies are part of that group, he said. In terms of budgeting, the more he can spread his fixed costs over a greater number of people, the more he’s lowering the cost of doing business.

Smith suggested aligning the contract terms with the county budget cycle. Clayton agreed, adding that there could also be clauses built in to the contract that would allow for adjustments throughout the contract’s term.

Smith also asked about mutual-aid agreements – weren’t those in place between the sheriff’s department and other jurisdictions, like Ann Arbor? Clayton said that they did have formal mutual-aid agreements, as well as informal backup response. If a jurisdiction called for mutual aid, everyone would respond. But in the absence of activating mutual aid, it falls to the sheriff’s department to respond, because they have jurisdictional responsibility, he said. That response is more and more prevalent, he said, because there are fewer officers in other jurisdictions. He said he didn’t want to imply that other police departments aren’t responding, but it’s simply that the sheriff’s department is often in a better position to do so throughout the county.

Smith said that for him, the issue isn’t how many road patrols there are or how many police officers are in Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti, but rather how many total officers are required to protect the entire county. That’s a tougher question, and one they need to delve into next, he said. As they deliberate over the price for contract deputies, the county’s ability to access those contract deputies – lessening the need for the 12 general fund deputies – would be a big incentive for the board in deciding to invest in the contract deputies, he said.

Mark Ouimet, who serves on the PSSC, noted that setting the price for the contract deputies will entail assigning value to them. Setting the length of the contract will be another important decision, especially for jurisdictions that will need to seek voter approval for a millage to pay for the deputies. As they move through this process, they’ll be setting the tone not only of what the value is for these services, but also for the relationship between the contracting and non-contracting jurisdictions, he said.

Kristen Judge noted that it’s been a long journey. She recalled that she and Clayton were both elected for the first time in 2008, and that they had both said during their campaigns that they’d be more objective in dealing with these issues, because they hadn’t lived through the turmoil that the dispute over police services had caused for so many years. Many relationships have been healed over the past two years, she said, and she wanted to maintain that same tone. She urged her colleagues on the board to set aside their feelings and think about the fact that they represent all residents in the county.

Economic development is clearly tied to public safety, she said – if the county has a high crime rate, there won’t be job growth. And referring to Vailliencourt’s story about her granddaughter, Judge said you can’t put a dollar figure on things like that. The bottom line, she said, is that “residents expect us to keep them safe.”

Judge asked Clayton how many boots on the ground would be recommended for a population the size of Washtenaw County, with its 340,000 residents.

That depends on the priorities of the community, Clayton said. For example, what’s the expectation for response time – three minutes, or ten? Is the focus on crime prevention, or simply responding to crime? For example, his department prefers to focus on the metric of per-capita crime, he said, rather than case clearance rates, because it tells them how successful they are at preventing crime.

Judge then spoke of her concerns about the decline in the total number of police officers working in the county over the past five years. In setting the price for contract deputies, at what point is the price too high for municipalities to afford? What would the community look like if no one can pay for these deputies? That’s a scary thought, she said. Clayton agreed.

Judge outlined some of the next steps they needed to take, including setting a formula to calculate how to increase the cost of the contract deputy when others costs escalate, as well as a formula for adjusting the cost when more deputies are hired, or when positions are eliminated. In addressing the issue of value, she noted that contracting jurisdictions don’t charge another jurisdictions when one of their deputies is called away to that jurisdiction, like Ann Arbor. Judge also noted that some municipalities use the jail more than others, yet they’re not required to pay more for it.

Judge recommended bringing a resolution to the next board meeting, on Nov. 17, that would accept the cost recommendation of $176,108 per police services unit (PSU). She suggested identifying 20% or 15% as a value that the county could put on these services. That is, the county would cover 20% or 15% of the cost, in setting the price that contracting jurisdictions would pay. She suggested that the PSSC be asked to recommend a price – and to identify a tipping point, beyond which the municipalities wouldn’t be able to afford a contract deputy.

Barbara Bergman said that the next meeting would be too soon to vote on a cost recommendation – there are too many unanswered questions, she said. Though she represents the county, she also represents her Ann Arbor constituents, Bergman said, who pay taxes for their own police force. Among other things, she wanted a more fulsome discussion around issues like the cost of central dispatch and the detective bureau.

Gunn noted that they also need to look at this issue in the context of the 2012 and 2013 budgets, and that they need to bring the newly elected commissioners into the discussion when they take office in January 2011. There’s plenty of time before they need to vote on this recommendation, she said, and they should take the time to get it right.

Judge suggested that commissioners email their questions to Greg Dill of the sheriff’s department or SiRui Huang of the county’s budget office – they likely already have the answers, she said. As for the budget, voting on a cost recommendation won’t have any impact on the budget, Judge noted – this is just affirming a cost, not a price.

Jessica Ping, who chairs the board’s working sessions, was the last one to ask questions. She wondered whether the Northwestern study had looked at how other counties handle their police services. Clayton said there was a reference to Oakland County, which contributes a greater portion of county resources to pay for contract patrols, thus lowering the price. It’s a philosophical question, he said, about how much of the cost you want to pass on to contracting jurisdictions.

Ping also asked what would happen if one of those jurisdictions decided to pull out of its contract, as Ypsilanti Township had done this year. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board OKs Ypsi Twp. Deputy Cuts"] The county absorbed a lot of the cost for that decision, she noted, and if they move to longer-term contracts, that could be an issue.

Clayton replied that the current contracts call for a six-month notification if the contracting jurisdiction decides to change the number of deputies they use. That six months provides some protection, he said. Clayton said he viewed what happened with Ypsilanti Township as an isolated incident – it was a county board decision to allow the township to reduce the number of deputies without that six-month notification.

Ping concluded the discussion by saying she also felt it was important to have the four new commissioners involved. [They are Rob Turner (R-District 1, replacing Republican Mark Ouimet), Dan Smith (R-District 2, replacing Democrat Ken Schwartz), Alicia Ping (R-District 3, replacing Republican Jessica Ping, her sister), and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11, replacing Democrat Jeff Irwin). Elected on Nov. 2, they'll take office in January, along with the re-elected incumbents.]

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge, Jeff Irwin, Mark Ouimet, Ronnie Peterson, Jessica Ping, Ken Schwartz, Conan Smith.

Absent: Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton, left, talks with county commissioner Mark Ouimet after the March 18 working session for the board of commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

The additional expenses associated with those new hires would increase the corrections budget by $1.478 million this year and $3.248 million in 2011. County administrator Bob Guenzel told commissioners that there are sufficient funds to cover those costs. However, looking ahead to 2012 and 2013, the administration is projecting a two-year shortfall for the corrections division of nearly $2 million – a possibility that commissioner Jeff Irwin described as “scary.”

Commissioners in general were supportive of the sheriff’s proposal, and of his approach to managing the jail. Clayton had previously outlined for the board several efforts that the department is making to raise revenues and cut costs. On Thursday he made a case that the expanded jail is necessary to achieve the county’s vision: Keeping residents safe, while providing programs and services to address the root causes of incarceration.

Clayton, Guenzel Give Details of Jail Staffing, Budget

County administrator Bob Guenzel began the presentation by saying that he’s probably one of only a few people still in county government who remembered when the jail was originally built, more than 30 years ago. At the time, in 1978, it was state-of-the-art, he said, and cost about $9 million to construct. It was originally designed to house 215 inmates.

Over the years it’s been modified and expanded, but the current statutory rating at 332 beds has been insufficient for many years, Guenzel said, and the jail is chronically overcrowded. He acknowledged that he’s been among several people who’ve pushed for an expansion, describing it as a “difficult community issue.” Some people, including former sheriff Dan Minzey, wanted a much larger facility – Minzey had advocated for as many as 600 beds. Others felt that the existing jail was already too large.

In February 2005, Washtenaw County voters rejected a 0.75 mill public safety millage proposed to pay for a jail expansion and several other projects. On Thursday, Guenzel told commissioners that the county funded the roughly $22 million expansion instead through capital reserves and other sources. [The county issued bonds to help pay for the expansion – its annual bond payments are $1.6 million – $800,000 from the general fund, and $800,000 from capital reserves.]

The project adds 112 beds to the jail, and includes an expanded intake/transfer/release (ITR) area. The facility was designed for the future, Guenzel said, noting that the ITR area has the capacity to handle a jail with up to 500 or 600 beds, if additional expansions are required. “When we open this in June, you’ll be very proud of it,” Guenzel said.

He noted that the next phase will entail moving inmates to the new beds, then renovating the older part of the jail.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton continued the presentation, commending Guenzel and the board for recognizing that a jail expansion was necessary. The jail is a key component in a continuum of services, he said – without it, they’d be hampered in efforts to assess and manage risk, and to provide appropriate programs and services to residents. Dealing with root causes of incarceration is a priority, Clayton said. The new facility will allow his staff to better manage the inmate population and address those root causes.

Clayton described the process of determining how many additional employees are needed, calling it a collaboration between his department and the county administration. They tried to align the department’s staffing needs with the county’s budgetary constraints. “I assure you we have not padded one FTE,” he said.

When arriving at these numbers, they kept in mind the need to run a safe and secure facility, he said, and to manage risk. What the board doesn’t want, Clayton said, is for the county to be faced with a lawsuit because something goes wrong in a jail that’s not adequately secure. Given that, they looked at every position, he said, and challenged whether it was needed.

Corrections commander Rick Kaledas listens to county commissioners discuss the proposed increase in staffing for the Washtenaw County jail expansion.

Clayton then asked corrections commander Rick Kaledas to explain how they’d determined the number of additional staff they’d need at the jail. Kaledas said they looked at the operation as a whole, examining every post – that is, the location where a corrections officer or others are stationed. Each 24/7 post requires 5.2 full-time equivalent employees to staff it, he said.

Using national best practices methodology, the goal of their analysis, he said, was to “get the right amount of people in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing.” As an outcome, they identified the need for 39 additional positions, Kaledas said, including four sergeants, 19 corrections officers and 16 community service officers.

New employees won’t need to be “post-ready” until Aug. 1, Kaledas said, but hiring would begin in April and training would take place in June and July. This year, they plan to add the four sergeants, 15 corrections officers and 11 community service officers. The remainder of the new staff will be joining the division in 2011.

Clayton clarified that the new sergeant positions will be filled by promotions of current corrections officers. He also noted that when fully staffed, they expect to incur lower overtime costs. Other potential savings are expected to come from negotiating down the jail’s contracts for food and medical services, he said.

One-time costs of about $218,000 associated with the hiring process include background checks, physical and psychological evaluations, training and uniforms.

Guenzel picked up the next part of the presentation, going over the budget projections in more detail. Because the hires would be phased in, the projected budget increase in 2010 will be $1.478 million – including $1.23 million for salaries and fringe benefits. In 2011, the budget increases by $3.248 million. [The 2010 total corrections budget is $16.355 million – of that, $9.433 million goes toward salaries and benefits. For 2011, the approved budget is $16.975 million.]

The county proposes paying for the increases each year out of $2.4 million in jail expansion reserves, which Guenzel said includes $1.2 million from reserves set aside annually to pay for jail overcrowding. The other $1.2 million had already been allocated to the correction department’s budget for 2010 and 2011 to cover anticipated operational costs related to the expansion.

Chart showing 2012-13 jail budget increase. (Links to larger image)

But those reserves won’t cover the projected costs in 2012 and 2013, when a two-year $1.88 million shortfall is expected. Guenzel said he realized it would be a budgeting challenge, but that there are opportunities in savings from collective bargaining. In addition, the sheriff is exploring other ways to bring in new revenue, Guenzel said, which will help address the shortfall.

Guenzel told commissioners they’ll be asked to vote on the proposal at their next Ways & Means Committee meeting, on April 7. The sheriff’s department needs to ramp up recruitment in order to hire and train new employees in time for the opening of the jail expansion.

Commissioner Questions, Comments

Leah Gunn led off by saying that she’d recently been on a tour of the new facility and she’d been very impressed by the intake area. She noted that the JPORT program (Justice Project Outreach Team) would be located there, and she was supportive of that.

The county’s jail and corrections operation is a state-mandated service, Gunn pointed out, in contrast to police services, which are not mandated. She said she looked forward to seeing a compromise in that area, and noted that the lawsuit with three townships, related to police services, was still pending. [Gunn was referring to a dispute between the county and the townships of Ypsilanti, Salem and Augusta over the cost they've paid for sheriff deputy patrols. See Chronicle coverage: "Townships Lose Again in Deputy Patrol Case"]

The budget would be a strain, Gunn said, but she planned to support the additional staff request. She asked for clarification of the corrections officers and the community service officers, in terms of training and duties.

Clayton said that corrections officers will have direct contact with inmates, both inside the jail and elsewhere. Qualities for those hires include the ability to solve conflict in a positive way, interpersonal communication, decision-making skills, and an understanding of safety challenges, among other things. The community service officers will be handling intake, he said, so accurate data entry skills will be needed. CSOs will also require the ability to assess inmates to determine what kinds of programs or services they’ll need, and what classification of risk they should be given, which in turn determines how they’ll be housed within the jail.

Barbara Bergman raised concerns about the juvenile population in the criminal justice system, noting that it’s important to look out for juveniles within the corrections campus. She also asked about the number of beds in a cell, wondering how they arrived at four beds per cell.

Clayton said the expansion was designed before he took office in January 2009. He said staff will be stationed inside the jail’s housing units, and that inmates will be assessed, classified and housed according to risk. Those factors help identify potential problems and allow staff to deal with them before there’s a crisis, he said.

Bergman acknowledged that Leah Gunn had taken a lot of guff for the jail expansion, but Bergman reckoned she herself had taken even more – because of that, she joked that they should name the jail the Barbara Levin Bergman Living Memorial Jail, with Gunn’s name in small letters beneath that.

Mark Ouimet picked up that theme, saying they should perhaps sell the naming rights to make up for the shortfall – they could put the Nike swoosh on uniforms, he quipped.

Ouimet then clarified that the hires will be phased in during 2010 and 2011. Jennifer Watson, the county’s budget manager, said the biggest area of uncertainty related to budget projections is in fringe benefits, but that they were conservative in their estimates.

Ouimet asked if the budget was based on the assumption that the jail would be filled at all times. Clayton confirmed this. Ouimet followed up by asking whether the staff size would decrease if the jail population fell. No, Clayton said, they’d staff it the same, unless the jail population were down significantly for an extended period. Bob Guenzel said they’d have to shut down an entire “pod” – the term used for a wing of the jail – in order to see cost savings.

Clayton elaborated on the definition of “full.” Though 112 beds are being added to the current 332, for a total of 444 beds, the operational capacity is about 380 beds, he said – the optimal number of inmates to allow the staff to effectively manage the jail population. Their current average daily population is 350.

Kristin Judge asked for more details regarding efforts to renegotiate contracts for food and medical services. Those are the two largest service providers to the jail, Clayton said, and so they hope to see cost reductions from renegotiated deals. On the other hand, he added, the number of inmates is increasing. It’s likely that the net effect will be flat.

Greg Dill, director of sheriff administrative operations, talks with Verna McDaniel, incoming county administrator, at the March 18 working session for the county board of commissioners.

Greg Dill, director of sheriff administrative operations, is leading negotiations on these deals. He said they’ll be bringing a recommendation to the sheriff for the medical contract on March 22. For food services, Dill is working with the county’s purchasing department, and they might end up issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for that contract.

As she’s stated in the past, Judge reiterated her belief that the county needs to “do things differently” regarding its approach to public safety. Clayton acknowledged that this was a “human services county,” but said that public safety had an impact on quality of life and the economy. There are people who want to do harm, he said, and the county needs a facility to hold them. Despite their best efforts, it’s likely that the jail population will continue to increase, Clayton said. The state continues to turn offenders back into the community, he noted, and people continue to make bad decisions that land them in jail. An adequate, well-run jail is crucial to the community, he said.

Jeff Irwin asked whether the department will see savings from changes in transportation needs, given the facility’s new configuration. The 14A-1 District Court, now located in a former monastery built in the 1950s, will move to a new building attached to the jail. Clayton said they don’t expect to see significant savings, but that through video arraignment and other changes, they’ll be looking for ways to cut costs.

Irwin said the budget projections for 2012 and 2013 were troubling. In the proposed budget, the jail expansion reserves of $2.4 million in 2010 and 2011 will increase to $2.52 million in 2012 and to $2.646 million in 2013, Irwin noted – what accounts for the increase? Guenzel said they projected inflationary increases in arriving at those numbers. If that additional $370,000 or so doesn’t materialize, Irwin said, it’s likely that the two-year shortfall will be over $2 million. Irwin said it had been smart of the sheriff to come before the board recently and talk about how he planned to increase revenues, just prior to requesting additional staff. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Gets Update from Sheriff"]

Irwin then asked when the department expects the state Dept. of Corrections to come in and give a rating of the jail expansion. That will probably happen in late 2010 or early 2011, said corrections commander Rick Kaledas.

Irwin also wanted to know how they’d arrived at the 5.2 number of full-time workers needed to staff one 24/7 post. Clayton explained that they estimated they’d need a total of 8,700 hours to cover each post – 24 hours multiplied by 365 days. Each full-time employee works about 1,700 hours each year, after accounting for vacation time, holidays and sick leave. Dividing 8,700 by 1,700 results in roughly 5.2 positions needed.

Barbara Bergman brought up the lawsuit that the townships of Ypsilanti, Salem and August filed against the county – what was the status of that settlement? What does the county need to do to get that money, she asked, because that would be very useful to apply toward the jail operations budget. [Previously, the county has indicated they'd be seeking roughly $2 million.]

UPDATE: The county is requesting $2,231,326.25, according to Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel. That’s broken down into these categories: 1) damages of $1,845,048; 2) interest of $385,841.95 (calculated from the date of the filing of the counterclaim until the approximate date of the entry of judgment); and 3) taxable costs of $436.30. Judge Costello’s office has requested a hearing on the county’s motion for entry of judgment – the hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 21, 2010.

Guenzel reported that the county had recently filed for entry of judgment – asking 38th Circuit Court Chief Judge Joseph Costello to issue an amount for the townships to pay. Now, they were waiting for the townships to respond, he said. Bergman wondered whether the county would receive that money in her lifetime.

Bergman clarified that inmates ate in their “pods” – the term used for each jail housing unit. She asked whether access to exercise equipment was a privilege to gain or to lose. A little of both, Clayton said. He added that recreation should be available throughout the jail – it’s not possible to effectively manage inmates if they aren’t provided with a way to exercise and stimulate both the body and the mind, he said.

Kristin Judge asked whether the county had enough funds to demolish the old 14A-1 District Court building, after the court moves to its new facility. Guenzel said they don’t have funds identified yet to do that – they don’t anticipate that there will be extra money available from the jail expansion bond proceeds. They’re looking at possibly using other non-general fund reserves or money from the so-called 1/8 mill allocation, which is used for maintenance projects. The court will likely relocate in June, Guenzel said, and the goal would be to demolish the building in late summer or early fall – assuming they can find a funding source that commissioners are comfortable with.

Jessica Ping, who chairs the working session meetings, recalled that at the board’s regular meeting on March 17, lobbyist Kirk Profit mentioned that the state was eliminating reimbursements to county jails that house state prisoners. She wondered whether there were any federal grants available to offset that loss. No, Clayton said, but they were looking at various revenue opportunities.

Commissioners present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Jeff Irwin, Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet, Ronnie Peterson, Jessica Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith

Absent: Wes Prater, Ken Schwartz

The county now plans to ask for a judgment for the amount it believes the townships of Augusta, Salem and Ypsilanti owe to cover previous costs of providing those deputy patrols in 2006. County officials had intended to make that move in September of 2009, when the Supreme Court first decided not to hear the case. At the time, the county was planning to seek payment in the $2 million range.

This week, Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, told The Chronicle that he didn’t want to speculate on the amount the county will be asking for when they file the request with 38th Circuit Court Chief Judge Joseph Costello. The county will be calculating the amount based on the hours of service during most of 2006 – when the sheriff’s department provided patrols to the three townships without a contract – at a rate previously approved by the Court of Appeals, Hedger said.

The Dispute: A Recap

Here’s some background from The Chronicle’s Sept. 14, 2009 report on the legal battle between Washtenaw County’s administration and board of commissioners, and three townships on the eastern side of the county.

The townships filed suit against the county in early 2006 over the amount that the county charged townships for sheriff deputy patrols and the way those charges were calculated. Costello, who heard the case initially, dismissed most of the townships’ claims, which included assertions that the county was arbitrary and capricious in setting rates for deputy patrols.

However, Costello ruled in favor of the townships on their claim that the county had committed a technical violation of the Open Meetings Act. The townships had claimed that the county violated the Open Meetings Act because the public notice announcing an administrative briefing did not indicate that a quorum of the board would be present. The county argued that the act of posting a meeting notice was sufficient to indicate that a quorum would be there.

Costello also rejected the county’s request for payment from the townships for an 11-month period in 2006. During that period, deputy patrols were provided, even though the townships had refused to sign new contracts for those patrols, at higher rates.

The townships appealed, and in February 2009 the state Court of Appeals upheld Costello’s rulings, with two notable exceptions. Regarding the Open Meetings Act, the appeals court indicated that any technical violation of the act was rendered moot. The court made that assessment because the county had later re-enacted decisions that took place during the meeting at which the Open Meetings Act violation occurred.

Further, the Appeals Court sided with the county’s request for payment, and ordered Costello to calculate how much the townships owed the county for deputy services provided during the 11-month period. That amount – plus interest dating back to 2006 – would be in the ballpark of $2 million.

As of September 2009, the county had spent about $1 million in attorney fees since 2006 on the lawsuit, which has been handled primarily by the law firm Dykema Gossett. On Monday, Hedger told The Chronicle that attorney fees for the county have increased only nominally since then.

Negotiating a New Rate for Deputy Patrols

The issue of how much municipalities pay for deputy patrols – also called police services – was temporarily settled in December 2008, when the county board agreed to a one-year contract extension with all townships that pay for the patrols. In 2008, townships paid $136,503 per deputy. In 2009, that amount increased 4% to $141,963.

Townships requested a two-year extension with 2% increases in 2010 and again in 2011. The county board initially approved a shorter period, through 2010, at a 2% increase. Then in July 2009, the board extended the contract through 2011, with a 4% increase that year.

Settling the issue is one of the priorities outlined by the administration and board for 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Reviews Major Initiatives for 2010"]

As part of a much broader presentation about his department’s operations and goals, Sheriff Jerry Clayton briefed commissioners on the topic of contract patrols at their Feb. 17, 2010 meeting. Clayton said his goal was to keep the cost of patrols high enough so that it doesn’t drive the board to eliminate the service because they’re not covering expenses, while being low enough for local municipalities to afford. Clayton said he plans to bring a proposal to the board by the third quarter of this year.

Township officials have argued that the overhead that’s calculated into the charge is too high. For their part, some commissioners believe that municipalities with their own police departments, like Ann Arbor, are being double-taxed – residents pay for the city’s own police services, as well as for the county to help cover the cost of sheriff’s patrols.

The issue of affordability is a significant one. Late last year, Ypsilanti Township was forced to cut the number of patrols that serve that township. A millage put before Ypsilanti Township voters – which would have paid for sheriff patrols – failed in November 2009. As a result, township officials said they didn’t have the funds to pay for all of the 38 deputies that were contracted to cover the township, and they received approval from the county board to change the township’s contract, dropping the number of deputies to 31.

Augusta Township officials chose not to ask voters for a millage to cover deputy patrols, so in January 2010 the three deputy positions that it had funded were shifted to Scio Township, which had requested additional patrols.

Meanwhile, sheriff Jerry Clayton has told county commissioners that he’s working toward a more sustainable approach to the issue of how public safety is provided throughout the county, not just in areas that have contracts for deputy patrols.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton, right, talks with Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff's department, before the Feb. 17 county board of commissioners meeting. Behind them are Gene DeRossett, left, chief administrative officer for the 14-A District Court, and Elmer White, who gave an update on the USS Washtenaw exhibit. (Photo by the writer.)

One of the most significant changes was financial. In 2009, overtime hours dropped 36%, leading to nearly $1 million in savings during the year. The department also raised $1 million in new revenues, exceeding Clayton’s projections.

Beyond that, Clayton presented his broad philosophical approach to managing law enforcement in the county, and discussed some of the challenges he faces in light of the current economy.

Law enforcement also came up in a separate discussion during the board’s Wednesday meeting, as commissioner Wes Prater raised concerns over the county’s internal financial controls. Though he’s been agitating for action on this front for several months, his decision to ask the board to form a review committee was prompted by the recent arrest of a county employee charged with embezzling over $100,000.

Commissioners also spent considerable time on Wednesday debating the process of formally revising their priorities. The effort is aimed at adapting the priorities to reflect the county’s diminishing resources. While commissioners agreed that community input was crucial, there was no clear consensus about what the process for gathering that input should be, or how much time it will take.

Finally, the board got a brief update on the Wireless Washtenaw project, a coda to a report given at their Jan. 20 meeting. The firm that’s handling the project, 20/20 Communications, is partnering with Southfield-based Internet 123 and plans to submit a revised business plan for Wireless Washtenaw within 60 days.

Sheriff’s Update

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton began his presentation by thanking commissioners for their support during his first year in office. He said it was important to continue to communicate and get feedback about the work of his department. “I believe an educated and engaged community is our best partner,” he said.

He outlined four core strategies that guide the department: 1) providing community leadership, 2) building partnerships and collaborations, 3) focusing on service excellence, and 4) providing internal direction and accountability.

Clayton pointed to 10 specific changes he’d like to make during his first four years in office. If he’s re-elected, he said, there will be an additional 10 “points of change.” He didn’t discuss these initiatives in detail, but presented them for commissioners as part of his overview:

1. Implement an operational service delivery program.
2. Create a Sheriff’s Office Youth Engagement Initiative.
3. Establish an early intervention system.
4. Implement a fiscal management system.
5. Create an employee training and professional development program.
6. Implement inmate behavior management and community policing.
7. Implement a comprehensive and objective employee evaluation program.
8. Implement an inmate population management plan.
9. Conduct a service delivery assessment and survey process.
10. Implement a public performance reporting program.

Before coming into office, Clayton said he knew there’d be challenges in his first year, given the types of change he wanted to implement. Changing the organization’s values takes time, he said. There were also challenges he didn’t anticipate, including those related to the budget. In fact, managing the budget was crucial to ease anxiety among commissioners as well as residents, he said. During his first year in office, making the department more efficient without compromising quality was a key focus.

Metrics and assessment are important tools, Clayton said. It was important to assess the current reality, not simply make assumptions.

Collaboration is another goal, building partnerships throughout the county. Clayton cited a recent agreement with Ypsilanti to take on the city’s dispatch operations. His department’s dispatch was able to absorb the four Ypsilanti dispatchers without going over budget, he said, while helping out the financially strapped city. Another example is the inter-agency collaboration among police chiefs countywide, who meet regularly to work on a range of projects. As a result of this effort, they’ve formed one metro SWAT team, Clayton said, replacing the previous four that were operating in different municipalities. He noted that the University of Michigan, because of its unique needs, still maintains its own SWAT team.

They continue to look for other opportunities to partner, Clayton said – with all units of government throughout the county, with the board of commissioners, and with local human services agencies, among others.

Clayton spoke about the need for fiscal responsibility, especially in the historical context of his department. [He was alluding to tensions between the board and the previous sheriff, Dan Minzey, related to chronic budget overruns.] As part of the county’s overall budget reductions in 2009, the sheriff’s department took a $500,000 cut, he said, and worked to reduce the cost of doing business.

It was clear that overtime costs were a tremendous expense, particularly in corrections. They achieved a 36% reduction of overtime hours, Clayton said – from 71,829 hours in 2008 to 45,862 hours in 2009. In dollars, that’s a drop from $2.478 million in 2008 to $1.512 million in 2009.

Some expenses are out of their control, Clayton noted. For example, his department has more people on military leave than any other department in the county. “I’m proud of that,” he said, but it needs to be recognized as having an impact on the budget.

On the revenue side, the department found ways to increase revenues by nearly $1 million, he said – from $13.433 million in 2008 to $14.42 million in 2009. It was important to look for opportunities to increase revenue, but not on the backs of people’s unfortunate circumstances, he said – it’s a balance. One change resulting in increased revenue was to bring back services that were being contracted out to private vendors – now, those are being handled in-house, he said, at a lower cost.

While money is important, he said, it’s not the mission of his department. In 2010 and beyond, a major goal is to reform the county’s social justice system, working with all stakeholders. The current way of managing the county’s offending population really is the definition of insanity, he said – doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes. The county needs to look at a continuum of services, including factors like housing, education and mental health services on one end as preventive measures, to post-incarceration re-entry programs on the other.

Clayton touched on two other issues in his report: the jail expansion, and the cost model for contracted police services.

The jail expansion will add 112 beds to the facility at Hogback Road, which currently has 332 beds. A new intake center is designed to allow the staff to address some behavior issues more effectively, Clayton said. But staffing levels are still being worked out with the county administration – Clayton expects to bring more information to the board at their March 18 working session, with the goal of bringing a proposal on staffing levels for commissioners to vote on in April.

Some local municipalities contract with the sheriff’s department to provide deputy patrols. On that topic, Clayton said his simple goal was keep the cost high enough so that it doesn’t drive the board of commissioners to eliminate the service because they’re not covering their expenses, while being low enough for local municipalities to afford. Clayton said he plans to bring a proposal to the board by the third quarter of this year. [Current contracts with municipalities run through 2011.]

Commissioner Questions for the Sheriff

Commissioners took turns asking questions and responding to Clayton’s presentation. Many of them also praised his performance during his first year in office. This summary of that dialogue is grouped thematically.

Commissioner Questions: Police Services

Several commissioners had comments and questions related to police services. Barbara Bergman asked what criteria Clayton was looking at to determine cost. She said she’d like to see minutes from the police services committee, to get a better idea of the elements involved.

Clayton told Bergman the committee was charged with looking at the existing model for police services, and at the cost of providing that service. The current model includes all direct costs, some indirect, and none of the overhead. In 2009, the department had focused on identifying direct and indirect costs that are part of the current contract. Clayton said they examined every item that’s associated with providing police services to a community, from business supplies to cruisers, from his position to a clerk. For each item, they asked the question: Is this related to police services, and if so, at what percent? Clayton said the goal is to provide a baseline of information, which they can use to then have a philosophical discussion of the issue.

Mark Ouimet asked about how recent staffing changes for police services had affected neighboring jurisdictions. [He was alluding to the decision by Ypsilanti Township to decrease the number of sheriff patrol deputies that work in the township from 38 to 31, while Scio Township added three deputies, for a total of eight. See Chronicle coverage "County Board OKs Ypsi Twp. Deputy Cuts"]

Clayton said he’s been looking at how deputies are being deployed. In addition to deputies who are contracted to work for specific municipalities, there are 12 deputies that serve the entire county, paid out of the county’s general fund budget. His staff has been tracking where those general fund deputies spend their time, Clayton said. They’re also looking at decisions that those deputies make regarding where they spend their discretionary time – that is, time when they’re not responding to a call for service. If they’re not on a service call, Clayton said, he wants the deputies to be in parts of the county where the sheriff’s department traditionally hasn’t spent much time. Clayton says his commitment coming into office was that the general fund deputies shouldn’t just be focused east of US-23.

Ouimet asked whether there was any issue with one jurisdiction needing more support on a routine basis from general fund deputies than in the past. If so, he said, how was the sheriff’s department dealing with that? Clayton said that for the eastern part of the county, which includes Ypsilanti Township, numbers so far this year were tracking consistently with 2009. They still have enough staff to handle calls without needing additional resources, Clayton said, but they’re forced to be reactive, not proactive. They don’t have the resources to address root causes of crime, and that concerns him.

Commissioner Kristin Judge asked whether there will be a new model for police services in 2012. Saying the current system seems to be broken, she said she’d like to see an entirely new approach.

Clayton agreed that there were better ways to handle countywide law enforcement. He pointed to the example of collaboration in Dexter, Dexter Township and Webster Township around public safety services. But the first thing, he added, was to identify what it costs to provide services. It’s important to come as close as possible to agreeing on that before moving forward, he said.

Commissioner Questions: Sheriff’s Department Overtime

Wes Prater asked for more details regarding the reduction in overtime. Clayton said that in the corrections unit, they looked at staffing levels for each shift, post by post, and tried to determine what was essential. Through that process, they identified three posts that they felt were non-essential, Clayton said, and which had historically been staffed with overtime hours. They eliminated those posts on a trial basis to determine if they’d made the correct assessment, and decided that they had.

Another example is in transport between the jail and courts. They adjusted their staffing levels to better mirror the demands of the courts, Clayton said, and were able to reduce overtime as a result.

Kristin Judge asked how Clayton manages the staffing when some of his personnel go on military leave. Are temporary workers hired? Clayton said that it’s typically managed with overtime, and adjusting staff deployment. Judge clarified that having overtime is a structural aspect of the department’s budget, and asked whether Clayton felt he’d gotten it under control as much as he could. Clayton said his department would continue to challenge their assumptions and make adjustments whenever possible.

Commissioner Questions: Continuum of Sheriff’s Services/Sanctions

Though Sheriff Clayton’s presentation was labeled an “annual report,” Barbara Bergman said she’d like to hear updates from him more regularly. She noted the community will be facing state funding cuts to mental health and substance abuse services, which will affect law enforcement as well. The county’s engagement center, operated by the Washtenaw County Health Organization to handle mental health and substance abuse emergencies, is used as a resource by sheriff’s deputies, Bergman said, but she’d like to see other law enforcement agencies take advantage of it too. Clayton said he felt other agencies would be receptive to using the center, when appropriate.

Jeff Irwin praised Clayton for his professionalism and hands-on approach and for his emphasis on gathering data and metrics to use as a basis for decision-making. He raised the question of recidivism, noting that 70% of people released from jail in the county are returned there within two years. What can the community do, he asked, to make an impact on changing that?

Clayton said it was important to accurately assess the risk of people coming through the criminal justice system, to determine who is really a serious threat to the community. For those who aren’t, there need to be alternatives, such as tethering and work release programs. These need to be programs in which the courts have confidence, he said.

But equally important, Clayton said, was the need to address root causes. Some folks are bad, he said, but a lot of people in jail have other issues – a lack of education, substance abuse or mental health problems. It’s a community issue, Clayton argued, and both ends of the spectrum need to be addressed: human services as well as public safety. Law enforcement officers can be an important partner, he said, working with human service agencies to help people in the community who might otherwise end up in jail. Irwin noted that the program known as JPORT (Justice Project Outreach Team) was an excellent example of that kind of collaboration.

Irwin then brought up the issue of race, noting that two-thirds of the jail population is African-American, while the overall population in the county is less than 20%. He told Clayton he was hoping to hear some “big ideas” about how to address this problem.

Clayton said that, again, it was a challenge for the entire criminal justice system – that kind of disparity was seen throughout the continuum. You start addressing it by having frank conversations, some that make people uncomfortable, he said. They’re uncomfortable for fear of saying the wrong thing and being accused of racism. Is it because African-Americans are more prone to crime? Clayton said he’d argue no. Are socio-economic factors at play? That’s part of it, he said. There are some very tough questions that need to be asked, Clayton said, and it’s a conversation they all need to have at some point.

Conan Smith asked how Clayton was defining success – the rate of recidivism might not be as important, for example, as the actual number of recidivists.

There are ways to lower the recidivism rate, Clayton noted, but that might not achieve the outcomes they want. And the sheriff’s department isn’t the lone player in addressing the problem – that’s why they have to take a systems approach.

In general, Clayton said, it’s challenging to measure police services beyond the traditional metrics of calls for service, response times and types of crime. One thing he’d like to do is to take surveys of residents about their perceptions of safety, and get feedback on the department’s services. It’s just one of many avenues to assess their performance, he said.

Ken Schwartz asked how many inmates are residents of Washtenaw County, and how many live outside the county. He understood on a humanistic level why it was important to provide a continuum of services, but he felt more comfortable investing in residents than out-of-towners. Clayton said he believed most inmates were from this county.

Wes Prater said they hadn’t really mentioned one of the major causes of recidivism – a lack of decent-paying jobs. They need a program to help folks find employment, he said, then the county would see less recidivism.

Commissioner Questions: Central Dispatch

Leah Gunn asked how the new central dispatch operation was proceeding. Clayton reported that there’s been a slight delay in the move to co-locate the county’s dispatch with the city of Ann Arbor, because of a vendor’s delay in installing some equipment. They’re also negotiating a small fee, he said, that the city wants to charge the county, which he said would be offset by revenue from taking over Ypsilanti’s dispatch. The attorneys for Ann Arbor and county are working up a memorandum of understanding, he said. Long-term, Clayton said they’ll see cost savings from this move, which is also laying the foundation for more partnering with the dispatch operations from other jurisdictions.

Internal Financial Controls

Later that evening, during the board meeting, commissioner Wes Prater asked that a motion be added to the agenda to establish a new committee that would review the county’s internal financial control policies. The committee he proposed, of not more than five commissioners, would review all internal financial control policies and report back to the board and administration with findings and recommendations.

Other commissioners seemed surprised by the proposal.

Leah Gunn opposed the move, saying it was her strong belief that overseeing internal financial controls was the responsibility of the county administrator, who also serves as controller. Their audits are always clean, and win awards, she added. [For 18 consecutive years, the county has received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association.] “Frankly, I don’t see any reason for doing this,” Gunn said.

Conan Smith said he had no objection to such a committee, though he agreed that the county administrator had responsibility for internal controls. He said they’ve talked about the need for more review and it seemed reasonable, given their push for more transparency, coupled with the current budget challenges. He said he’d like to hear from county administrator Bob Guenzel as to what kind of controls are currently in place, and what changes might be needed.

Prater said he believes the county has a systemic problem regarding internal controls. He pointed to the arrest earlier this month of a county employee working in community mental health – part of the Washtenaw County Health Organization – who was charged with embezzling more than $100,000 over the past 16 years. In light of those allegations, he said, they needed to act urgently to protect the dollars of their constituents. He noted that the auditors don’t conduct an audit of internal financial controls, and that the board needs to act to prevent something similar from happening in the future.

Barbara Bergman countered that no amount of review would have uncovered the embezzlement, which she called a “great scam.” Describing Prater’s motion as vague, she also questioned how the proposed committee would conduct its review, and what kind of reports they would make back to the board.

Mark Ouimet, a former banker, clarified with Prater that the term “review” in the motion did not carry the formal meaning of an audit review. He noted that the auditors for the county, Rehmann Robson, do a test on the county’s receivables and payables, but don’t audit internal financial controls. Regarding the embezzlement, Ouimet said he assumed that a forensic accountant had been asked to piece together what had happened, and that the forensic report would reveal any weaknesses in the system that could be changed to prevent future problems.

Ouimet also said they needed to clarify the committee’s role – if the board moves ahead with this approach, they need to be clear about what they want the committee to do.

Jeff Irwin had similar concerns about the committee’s scope. While he didn’t think forming such a committee did any harm, Irwin noted that commissioners already had opportunities to meet with the auditors and raise any questions they might have. He suggested that his colleagues on the board go through the previous years’ management letters from the auditors and see if there are any threads that warrant concern, and to sit down with the county’s financial staff to ascertain how they do their jobs and whether there’s sufficient oversight. He said he hadn’t found internal controls lacking, and he wondered why Prater didn’t pursue these issues himself, without forming a committee.

Prater responded by saying that all last year, he had requested that the county’s financial staff make their budget reports conform with the federal Uniform Budget Act. “It was like pulling chicken’s teeth to finally get it done,” he said. This year, he said, he decided to bring the issue directly to the board. If an employee could get away with embezzling money for so long, he said, then something is wrong with the process. Prater also criticized the administration for not providing any information about the situation. ["Communication within Uniform Budget Act format" is one of the outcomes listed in a set of initiatives that the administration provided to the board earlier this year – .pdf file of those initiatives.]

Ken Schwartz said it seemed that anyone sitting on the committee would need knowledge of financial issues that he wasn’t sure everyone had. He moved to table the motion until the March 3 meeting, asking Prater to return with more details about what exactly the committee would be expected to do. [.pdf file of most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, for 2008.]

Outcome: The motion to table the proposal to establish a committee to look at internal financial controls passed, with dissent from Prater.

The topic came up again at the county board of commissioner’s Thursday evening working session. Guenzel reminded the board that Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, had briefed commissioners in a closed executive session last year, before the situation was made public. He has asked Heidt and Judy Kramer, the county’s risk management coordinator, to make a written report about the incident, how it occurred and what steps are being taken in its wake.

Guenzel also suggested scheduling a working session to bring in Mark Kettner of Rehmann Robson and county accounting manager Peter Collinson, to review with commissioners the existing internal controls.

Setting Board Priorities

After passing a two-year budget late last year for 2010-2011, commissioners have said that 2010 will be a planning year. They took another step in that direction on Wednesday, with a proposal for a timeline to evaluate and revise priorities for the county. [See the  county's website page with current priorities]

The proposal led to a lengthy discussion about how best to seek input from the community, with some commissioners raising concerns that the initial goal of setting priorities by early May – just before the departure of county administrator Bob Guenzel, who is retiring on May 14 – was too ambitious.

Ken Schwartz began the discussion by passing out a proposed outline for the process of setting priorities. It had been developed by a committee chaired by Schwartz, and including Conan Smith and Kristin Judge. Their hope, Schwartz said, was to marry the ideal and the practical as the board sets priorities that reflect the new economic reality. The loss of revenues and services is a “nasty fact of life today in Michigan,” he said

As they move ahead to solicit commissioner and community input, Schwartz said they also need to include the input of a planning group that’s working with the administration on several major initiatives. [.pdf file of those initiatives] The advisory group includes Guenzel, incoming county administrator Verna McDaniel, several county department heads, water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin (who’s representing the other elected county officials), and Conan Smith (representing the board of commissioners).

Schwartz characterized the timeline as a work in progress, and said he hoped that commissioners could set aside their personal ideologies and be open, flexible, and charitable to each another as they go through this process.

The draft timeline was presented as follows:

• Step 1: Commisioner Input. Create and distribute interest/priorities survey to commissioners. Conduct interviews individually or in small groups with commissioners who choose not do complete a written survey. Desired outcomes are to identify individual priorities and interests, as well as consensus on high-level issues. Target date: Feb. 22 to March 8, 2010.
• Step 2: Community Input. Hold community focus groups in established forums at commissioners’ discretion. Conduct survey on county’s website. Send press release to local media. The desired outcome is to get feedback on specific questions related to board priorities. Target date: March 8 to April 1, 2010.
• Step 3: Data Analysis. Synthesize data from commissioner/community input. Create a leadership alignment document. Have that document reviewed by the administration’s planning group. Target date: April 1-16, 2010.
• Step 4: Board Planning Session. Identify new board priorities. Find consensus on high-level community outcomes. Identify key initiatives associated with those outcomes. Identify 3-5 “true values” to direct and influence the culture and decisions of the organization. To be undertaken at an April 22, 2010 working session.
• Step 5: Board Action. Board adopts priorities by May 5, 2010.

Commissioner Discussion on Priorities

Out of the gate, Ronnie Peterson said he didn’t see how they’d accomplish these goals by May. Employees also need to be a part of the process, he said. Peterson also wanted to make sure the board had a healthy discussion about priorities and the budget with county administrator Bob Guenzel before he retired in mid-May.

Schwartz acknowledged that the timeline was compressed, but said he didn’t anticipate a radical change from the board’s current priorities. Verna McDaniel, the current deputy administrator who’ll be replacing Guenzel, added that they weren’t starting from scratch.

Barbara Bergman cautioned that it was a delicate matter to tell the community how their input would be used. She didn’t want to tell them it would have meaning if it didn’t. She also wanted the board to sign off on any survey that might be used.

Wes Prater also had concerns about how to solicit community input. The county has roughly 325,000 residents, he said, and the district he represented was very different from the districts represented by Bergman and Leah Gunn. [Gunn and Bergman represent two of the four Ann Arbor districts. Prater's district covers the more rural townships of York and Augusta, as well as the city of Milan and parts of Ypsilanti Township.]

Specifically, Prater said many of his constituents don’t know about the county’s website, so it wouldn’t be sufficient to do only an online survey. And the last time they did focus groups – related to law enforcement issues – it was a “real donnybrook,” Prater said, with the same people showing up at each one. Even if surveys are mailed, he said the response rate wouldn’t be high. That meant doing phone surveys, which would take a lot of time and effort to get a meaningful sample.

Jessica Ping noted that many people now don’t have landlines and can only be reached by cell phone – a traditional phone survey wouldn’t likely reach that younger demographic. She also said that many people in her district – which includes six rural townships in southwest Washtenaw – don’t have Internet access, making the online survey difficult. One option, she suggested, is to ask local municipalities to include a written survey when they send out the next tax bill.

Mark Ouimet suggested getting input through other elected officials at the local level, as well as from community groups like chambers of commerce, schools and other organizations. The bigger question for him, he said, is that after they get this input, what will they do with it?

Gunn warned that doing a survey would be expensive, and wondered what kind of budget they had for it. Staff time would also be a factor, she said.

Conan Smith pointed out that this was a representative form of government – each commissioner is responsible for guiding the county in the best way they know how. The process of understanding their district’s priorities might differ, he said. Ultimately, some commissioners might decide they don’t need to go through a process of formal feedback, which Smith said was totally acceptable.

Both Peterson and Gunn raised the issue of the state’s budget, and how the financial crisis in Lansing would negatively impact the county. Saying “brace yourself,” Peterson cautioned that although the board talked about 2010 as a planning year, he felt they’d be dealing with additional budget cuts because of the state, since many county departments receive significant state funding to provide services. Gunn described the state legislature as in “absolute gridlock.” “The whole thing in Lansing is a terrible mess,” she said, and the county will be called upon to provide the final safety net when state services get cut.

Judge went back to the question of the survey, saying she wanted to get a sense of whether the board wanted to move ahead with it. She didn’t want to spend staff time or her own time developing something that wasn’t going to be used. She made a formal motion directing the board to take a survey of residents, but the motion died for lack of a second.

Jeff Irwin said he didn’t support the motion at this point because it felt like they were flying by the seat of their pants. There wasn’t any dispute over the importance of fulsome public input, he said, but it wasn’t clear how best to do that, and at what cost.

Judge again asked the board for direction regarding the survey, saying they needed to give guidance on whether they wanted to pursue it. Smith recommended that he, Judge and Schwartz meet and revise the proposed process, based on the feedback they’d heard. Schwartz noted that the timeline wasn’t set in stone: “I was just trying to avoid the election season, when things get crazy.”

Outcome: Peterson moved that the proposal be sent back to committee for revision – the motion was unanimously supported.

Wireless Washtenaw

At the board’s Jan. 20 meeting, James McFarlane, who manages the county’s information technology unit, briefed commissioners on Wireless Washtenaw, an effort to bring wireless Internet service to the entire county. He returned on Wednesday to answer a question they’d posed: What would happen if the county pulled the plug on this project?

The county has a contract with 20/20 Communications of Ann Arbor to provide the service, but the business has struggled to get financing since the deal was signed in 2006. At this point, limited service is provided in Ann Arbor, Saline and Manchester, as well as Scio and Sylvan townships. In January, McFarlane told commissioners that about 1,000 residents use the free service, and there are 540 paid subscribers.

If the county pulled out of the project, 20/20 would remove its equipment from a water tower in Manchester and from several nodes in Ann Arbor, McFarlane said, and users in those areas wouldn’t receive service.

McFarlane reported that 20/20 has recently partnered with a Southfield firm, Internet 123, and hopes to submit to the county a revised business plan for Wireless Washtenaw within the next 60 days. Also, 20/20 is still awaiting word on whether it will be awarded $4.2 million in stimulus funds that the business has applied for. McFarlane said the new partnership with Internet 123 would provide the resources to move forward on the project even without the federal funding.

Commissioner Jessica Ping said it seemed to make sense to wait until the county sees the new business plan before making a decision on the fate of Wireless Washtenaw. McFarlane agreed, adding that the decision regarding federal stimulus funds would also be a reason to wait.

Public Commentary

Two people spoke during public commentary on Wednesday.

Thomas Partridge began by objecting to the requirement that speakers give their address before addressing the board, saying that it posed a risk in this age of Internet attacks. He called on the board to send a letter to President Barack Obama, urging him to renew his pledge to the platform on which he campaigned – a progressive platform based on Midwestern values. As Obama comes to Ann Arbor to deliver the University of Michigan commencement address on May 1, Partridge said he hopes the president will keep in mind his predecessors John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Partridge noted that when Johnson delivered a commencement  address at UM in 1964, he laid out his plans for the Great Society programs that later were a hallmark of his administration.

Elmer White gave an update on fundraising efforts to build a museum-quality display for artifacts of the USS Washtenaw, the most decorated warship of the Vietnam War. He said he was happy to report that over the past weekend they’d met their financial goals. “I thought it was going to be difficult, but people came to us.” He thanked commissioners for their support. The display will be installed in the lobby of the county building at 200 N. Main St.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Jeff Irwin, Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet, Ronnie Peterson, Jessica Ping, Wes Prater, Ken Schwartz, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith

Next board meeting: The next regular meeting is Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

Several issues remain unclear, however, including what the township will do regarding sheriff patrols in 2011, and how its decrease in patrols starting Jan. 1, 2010 will affect the rest of the county. Commissioner Kristin Judge said the situation demonstrates that the system of policing in Washtenaw County is broken.

And echoing an idea floated at Saturday’s Ann Arbor city council retreat, commissioner Barbara Bergman said that perhaps it’s time for the city of Ann Arbor to consider contracting its police services with the sheriff’s department, too.

Background: Voters Reject Millage

A police services millage was on the Nov. 3, 2009 ballot for Ypsilanti Township voters, but was rejected by a narrow margin, with 51.42% of votes cast against it. The four-year, 2 mill tax would have raised an estimated $3.23 million annually for the township.

The millage was put on the ballot to raise additional funds to pay for the 38 sheriff deputies that currently work in the township. Like several other municipalities in the county, Ypsilanti Township doesn’t have its own police force. Instead, the township contracts with the sheriff’s department, which provides deputies dedicated specifically to Ypsilanti Township.

The November millage proposal was the second one for Ypsilanti Township this year related to police services. In May, Ypsilanti Township voters approved a four-year, 3.5 mill tax for police services, which was estimated to raise $5,475,627 annually. But faced with a dramatic drop in property values – Ypsilanti Township’s housing market is one of the hardest hit in the county, and its manufacturing base is in decline – revenues from property taxes were lower than expected, and are likely to drop even further. Township officials said they needed the additional 2 mill in order to pay for the 38 sheriff deputies.

Soon after the November millage proposal failed, township supervisor Brenda Stumbo sent a letter to sheriff Jerry Clayton and county administrator Bob Guenzel, requesting that the county amend its contract with the township and reduce the number of deputies by 10, from 38 to 28.

The resolution that was presented to the board of commissioners – following several days of negotiations between county and township officials – called for a reduction of seven deputies. [.PDF file of resolution and cover memo. See previous Chronicle coverage from the Nov. 16, 2009 meeting of the county's police services steering committee and of the Dec. 2, 2009 board of commissioners meeting.]

The resolution passed during the Dec. 2 Ways & Means Committee meeting, on which all commissioners serve. Commissioner Jeff Irwin cast the only dissenting vote. At the board meeting immediately following Ways & Means, some commissioners expressed a desire to discuss the issue with others in their districts before taking a final vote, so they voted to continue the board meeting on Monday, with the sole agenda item being the Ypsilanti Township resolution.

Commissioner Deliberations: “A Lose/Lose Proposition”

At Monday’s board meeting, commissioner Jeff Irwin reiterated his objections to amending the contract with Ypsilanti Township, saying his reasons were the same as the ones he’d stated at last Wednesday’s meeting. From Chronicle coverage:

Jeff Irwin said he’d have no issue amending the contract if the county weren’t coming out financially behind. As it stands, a reduction of seven deputies means the county will lose $1.013 million in anticipated revenue from Ypsilanti Township. Expenditures from the change will only decrease by $639,852, however – leaving the county with a projected shortfall of $373,762. Irwin said there’s no mention of the supervisory position within the sheriff’s department that oversees these deputies – that job will not be eliminated, and the county is absorbing the cost, along with other overhead.

On Monday, Irwin said that for a township with more than 50,000 residents, it isn’t clear whether 38 contract deputies are sufficient – looking at where the county’s general fund deputies spend their time, he said, it was difficult to support a reduction in contract deputies. [There are 12 sheriff deputies paid for out of the county's general fund. These general fund deputies are deployed throughout the county, as needed. From January through August of 2009, general fund deputies spent more time in Augusta Township than anywhere else, followed by Ypsilanti Township.]

On top of that concern, Irwin said, was the fact that the county will be losing money from this reduction in service, and that other parts of the county will be negatively affected.

Commissioner Leah Gunn said she’d reluctantly support the resolution. She reminded her colleagues that providing sheriff deputy patrols was the county’s biggest service not mandated by the state. And in addition to paying for general fund deputies, she said, the county is subsidizing the cost of the contract deputies out of its general fund. [The difference between what municipalities pay for a sheriff deputy patrol and what the county says it costs has been in dispute for years, resulting in a still-unresolved lawsuit that the townships of Ypsilanti, Augusta and Salem filed against the county.]

What’s more, Gunn noted, Ann Arbor, Saline, Chelsea, Ypsilanti, Milan, Pittsfield Township and Northfield Township all have their own police departments, though residents in those areas also pay county taxes which support the sheriff’s department. “Somewhere, something needs to be fixed,” she said. Noting that the lawsuit had resulted in nearly $1 million in legal fees for the county, Gunn said she felt that if the board didn’t pass this resolution, Ypsilanti Township would simply stop paying for the patrols, and the county would be forced to sue.

Commissioner Jessica Ping said she’d heard that Ypsilanti Township was planning to bring back the millage proposal in May of 2010. Rolland Sizemore Jr., the board’s chair and a commissioner whose district includes a portion of Ypsilanti Township, clarified that township officials were planning to put it on the August 2010 ballot. They didn’t want to incur the cost of holding an election in May, he said. But even assuming that the millage passes in August, Sizemore noted that those tax revenues wouldn’t be collected until the end of 2010.

Commissioner Barbara Bergman said that the township still hadn’t paid the county the $2 million it was ordered to pay by the Court of Appeals, which ruled against the townships in their lawsuit. [The townships appealed that ruling to the state Supreme Court. In September 2009, the Supreme Court denied a request to hear the appeal, but later that month the townships filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its decision. That request is still pending.] “I wonder if they ever plan to pay for anything?” Bergman said.

Commissioners Mark Ouimet and Ken Schwartz, who represent districts on the western and northeastern sides of Washtenaw County, respectively, both said they’d support the resolution. Both reported that officials they’d talked to in their districts were concerned about the impact that a reduction in Ypsilanti Township patrols would have on the rest of the county.

Schwartz asked if Ypsilanti Township had already signed a contract for 2011 – he pointed out that the resolution indicated they had. Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said he didn’t think the township had signed it, and suggested amending the resolution to reflect a deal only through 2010. Guenzel said that township officials indicated they weren’t sure if they could sign the 2011 contract, given their financial situation. The 2011 contract calls for a 4% increase in the cost of the deputy patrols.

Commissioner Kristin Judge described the system of policing in Washtenaw County as “broken.” The Ypsilanti Township request highlights some big questions that the entire county needs to address as a community, she said, including who should provide police services and how they should be paid for. Later in the meeting, she urged Sizemore to form working groups so that they could tackle the issue.

Bergman, who represents one of the county’s Ann Arbor districts, said that in light of the city’s budget crisis, perhaps Ann Arbor officials should examine their paradigm of policing and consider contracting with the sheriff’s department, too. She said she had nothing but respect for police chief Barnett Jones and his staff, but perhaps they could be absorbed into the sheriff’s department. [The idea of the city contracting with the sheriff's department for police services was floated at the Dec. 5 city council budget retreat, but seemed to garner little if any interest from councilmembers.]

Commissioner Conan Smith said that with Ypsilanti Township’s current police services millage – 3.5 mills, raising roughly $5.4 million annually – there seemed to be enough money to pay for all 38 deputies, which cost about $145,000 each, per year. However, he said he understood that the township faced a drop in property tax revenues, as did the rest of the county. [In particular, General Motors is closing its massive Willow Run transmission plant in Ypsilanti Township, with a complete shutdown expected by the end of 2010. GM is the township's biggest taxpayer.]

Saying he agreed with Irwin’s concerns, Smith said that given the drop in property tax values, he felt it was reasonable for Ypsilanti Township to request a commensurate drop in the number of its contract deputies.

Irwin said he was glad that Smith had brought up the township’s existing police services millage. He wondered why township officials, faced with the November millage defeat, immediately lept to the conclusion that they needed to cut deputies, without exploring other options – such as using some revenue from the township’s general fund. He noted that the county was forced to pay millions of dollars out of its general fund to pay for the county’s public safety needs – why couldn’t the township do the same? He said he was frustrated that Ypsilanti Township is cutting back on police services, which will only exacerbate the decline in property values. “It seems like a lose/lose proposition,” he said.

Smith agreed that it seemed like a rash approach and the wrong decision from a budgetary standpoint. The benefits of proactive policing are clear – it’s less costly and has greater social impact, he said. With cuts to the contract deputies, Ypsilanti Township’s capacity to do proactive work will be diminished, as it will be for the rest of the county. However, he added, township officials had the right to prioritize their spending. And the county has a moral obligation to provide public safety. He praised the sheriff for working to absorb the financial shortfall that would result from the contract change, and said that this solution was better than ending up in court, which wouldn’t be good for anyone in the county.

Schwartz said the county was lucky that the sheriff had vacant positions that could be offered to the seven deputies that Ypsilanti Township would be cutting, but that it was a one-time solution. If Ypsilanti Township or any other contracting community wants to do something similar, they might not be so lucky, he said. Schwartz noted that when he served on the Superior Township board, they had to dip into their general fund to pay for police services until they could pass a millage for that. He wondered if that would be an option for Ypsilanti Township.

Ouimet returned to a point he’d made at the Dec. 2 board meeting – the county needs a policy to deal with municipalities that want to change their contracts, regardless of whether they are increasing or decreasing the number of contract deputies. It’s a much broader issue than just this situation with Ypsilanti Township, he said.

County staff and sheriff Jerry Clayton are working on a policy to address this situation, Sizemore said.

Clayton attended Monday’s meeting, but did not address the board. Commissioners passed the resolution to amend Ypsilanti Township’s contract for sheriff deputies – reducing it from 38 to 31 – with only Irwin voting against it.

A detail from a letter sent to Sheriff Jerry Clayton and Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel from Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo, about the township's need to reduce its number of contract deputies.

At what’s likely to be their final meeting of the year on Dec. 2, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners faces a heavy agenda – including items that generated some animated discussion at the board’s pre-meeting briefing on Nov. 24.

The agenda includes a final vote on the 2010-2011 budget, approval of two collective bargaining agreements, a presentation detailing how county funds are being awarded to local human services nonprofits, and a proposal by the sheriff to amend a police services contract with Scio Township.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton attended Tuesday’s administrative briefing for commissioners – held one day earlier than usual, due to the Thanksgiving holiday. He was there to answer questions about the Scio Township proposal, but the focus of commissioners’ questions related instead to the situation in Ypsilanti Township. Earlier this month, voters there rejected a public safety millage that would have paid for 10 of the 38 sheriff deputies that police the township, under contract with the county. Township officials have asked the county to amend the contract, reducing its number of deputies to 28.

“It’s a complicated issue,” Clayton told commissioners.

Public Safety in Ypsilanti Township, Washtenaw

During Tuesday’s briefing, county administrator Bob Guenzel gave commissioners an update on how staff are responding to a Nov. 19 letter from Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo. In the letter, Stumbo requests a reduction in the number of contract deputies from 38 to 28, effective Jan. 1, 2010.

Guenzel said that Clayton, Greg Dill, director of administrative services for the Washtenaw Sheriff’s Department, and Verna McDaniel, Washtenaw County deputy administrator, would be meeting during the day on Monday (Nov. 30) to discuss the situation. They’d then be meeting Monday night with Ypsilanti Township officials. If the county doesn’t act, Guenzel said, the current contract specifying 38 deputies would stay in effect.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, told commissioners that there are two options: 1) if all parties reach an agreement, then the contract can be amended, or 2) if there’s no agreement and the township doesn’t pay for the full 38 contract deputies, the township would be in breach of the contract.

Commissioner Barbara Bergman, who represents District 8 in Ann Arbor, said she’d talked with a township supervisor from the western part of the county – whom she didn’t name – saying that the supervisor is very upset about the situation. “I think you’re going to hear some stirring,” she said. One point of contention: That the county has spent nearly $1 million defending itself from a lawsuit brought by the townships of Ypsilanti, Salem and Augusta over the cost and pricing of its contract deputies. Bergman said she wouldn’t vote to amend the contract, and that she wanted Guenzel to ask the township if they can pay for the deputies out of their reserves until another millage can be put on the ballot next year.

Some commissioners mentioned the impact that a reduction in deputies dedicated to Ypsilanti Township would have on the rest of the county. [See related Chronicle coverage from the county’s Nov. 16 Police Services Steering Committee meeting.] The fear is that the 12 so-called “general fund deputies” – who are deployed throughout the county, and paid for out of the county’s general fund budget – will now be called on to respond to emergencies in Ypsilanti Township, located in eastern Washtenaw, leaving other parts of the county vulnerable.

Commissioner Mark Ouimet, representing District 1 in western Washtenaw, put it this way: “It’s important for us to understand what we’re getting into when they do drop down” to 28 deputies. Bergman said that if Ypsilanti Township got coverage from the county’s 12 general fund deputies, township residents might not have an incentive to vote for additional taxes to pay for their own contract deputies.

Board chair Rolland Sizemore Jr., whose district includes the eastern portion of Ypsilanti Township, pointed to the ongoing lawsuit between the county and three townships. He said that commissioners had been told by their legal counsel not to discuss the lawsuit, and he wondered if they were stepping into a hornet’s nest by getting involved in amending the contract. He asked Hedger whether the county had heard from the state Supreme Court about the status of the lawsuit.

“We have heard zero,” Hedger said. He added that any litigation about amending the contract would probably be handled in a separate lawsuit, “if it comes to that” – a remark that elicited groans from several commissioners.

The townships had appealed the case to the state Supreme Court, which in September of 2009 denied a request to hear the appeal. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "State Supreme Court Ruling Favors County"] However, later that month the townships filed a motion for reconsideration – basically, asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to not hear the case.

Clayton urged commissioners to separate the discussion of the lawsuit from the issue of the current contract amendment being proposed by Ypsilanti Township. He said he was focused on two things: 1) public safety for the entire county, and 2) maintaining his staff. He’s trying to figure out how his department can absorb the 10 deputy positions from Ypsilanti Township – if a millage there eventually passes and they need those deputies back, the department needs to be ready. It’s much more difficult to hire and train new deputies, he said.

Clayton also told commissioners that his department would deploy the 12 general fund deputies wherever they were needed, “and I guarantee they’ll end up in Ypsilanti Township.” He also expects that having fewer deputies dedicated to Ypsilanti Township will impact the number of overtime hours served by deputies in the rest of the department. [After Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti Township has the second largest population of any municipality in the county – an estimated 53,000 people – but does not have its own police force.]

In general, he cautioned that commissioners shouldn’t get bogged down in thinking that the only solutions were modifying the existing contract or a lawsuit. There might be other ways that would be cost neutral or have only a minimal financial impact, he said.

Commissioner Ken Schwartz said he respected Clayton’s authority to deploy deputies as he saw fit. However, the board of commissioners has the authority to withdraw funding for the general fund deputies, he added.

Bergman challenged Clayton’s contention that there might be a cost-neutral way to handle the situation. She said that if he found ways to cut costs or add revenues, that extra money shouldn’t necessarily be used to pay for the 10 deputies from Ypsilanti Township. What if she wanted that money for children’s services or some other need, she asked.

Clayton said that if his department was given a budget and was able to find efficiencies, why wouldn’t that money be available for other public safety needs?

Ouimet agreed, saying that’s how it’s handled in other units as well. Turning to the upcoming talks with Ypsilanti Township, Ouimet said it’s important for Guenzel to know that the board supports him in the discussions, in concert with the sheriff, so that they’re speaking in one voice.

Other Agenda Items: Scio Township Police Services

Scio Township hopes to amend its contract with the county and increase the total number of contract deputies it pays for to eight – three more than it currently has. Because township voters approved a pubic safety millage in 2008 to pay for fire services, that freed up dollars in its general fund for additional contract deputies.

According to a cover memo accompanying a resolution that commissioners are being asked to approve, three deputies that have previously been deployed elsewhere will be available for work in Scio Township. Willow Run Community Schools eliminated a contract deputy because of budget cuts, and Augusta Township is eliminating its contract deputy position in January of 2010. Additionally, a state grant now funding three road patrol deputies will be reduced, and will provide funds for only two deputies in 2010. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "Sheriff Suggests Way to Add Deputies in Scio"]

The changes are expected to be cost neutral. The cover memo includes an additional rationale for the move:

With the Michigan State Police reducing the number of State Officers assigned to Washtenaw County and the recent failure of the Ypsilanti Township police services millage, the burden of law enforcement on all contracting local jurisdictions and the Washtenaw County general fund patrol have greatly increased. The ramifications go even broader to the Prosecuting Attorney, the Public Defender and the Courts. Expanding the Scio Township police services contract will help mitigate some of concerns of our citizens.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grant

The county is receiving a $766,900 three-year grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. County staff is proposing that the funds be used for five projects: 1) retrofitting county facilities, 2) supporting a revolving loan fund, 3) creating a solar energy demonstration project, 4) starting a Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, and 5) developing energy policies for the county. The funds have been earmarked for the county, but county staff still need to submit an application by Dec. 18 outlining how they plan to use the money. Commissioners are expected to vote on the proposal at their Dec. 2 meeting.

The board had received background about the grant at their Nov. 19 working session, which included a presentation by Tony VanDerworp, head of the county’s strategic planning department, and Brett Lenart, a planning services supervisor. Lenart told commissioners that in addition to county funding, Ypsilanti Township received a similar grant for $484,400 and Ann Arbor had been awarded $1,243,400 – for a total of nearly $2.5 million coming into this area. It’s part of a $2.8 billion national program aimed at spurring economic development, helping local governments reduce energy use and dependency on fossil fuels, and creating energy programs that last beyond the grant-funded period, Lenart said.

For the county’s portion, here’s a breakdown of the proposed allocation:

• $242,500 to retrofit county facilities. Specific projects include installing LED lighting at 4125 Washtenaw (the juvenile detention building) and 705 N. Zeeb (the county’s western service center), as well as in the lower level of the 101 E. Huron parking structure. Also, five solar hot water systems will be installed at five locations: 101 E. Huron, 2201 Hogback, 4125 Washtenaw, 220 N. Main and 22 Center. Insulation would also be added to the building at 2140 Ellsworth, the Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) building. Over 10 years, the retrofits are estimated to save $400,000 in energy costs, Lenart said.
• $275,000 to seed a revolving loan fund. “This is a great opportunity to take this capital and infuse it into the community at large,” Lenart told commissioners at their Nov. 19 working session. The loans would be available for residential, commercial and institutional building retrofits. The fund would be operated in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti Township, the Ecology Center and Recycle Ann Arbor. Lenart said that proposed state legislation would allow the loans to be secured through property special assessments. [Chronicle coverage of the special assessment program: "Special District Might Fund Energy Program"]
• $115,000 for a solar energy demo project. The project would install a 12 kWH solar photovoltaic system on a county facility, yet to be identified. It would be used as a tool to educate the public about solar energy systems, Lenart said.
• $57,710 for staff to develop county energy policies. This amount is part of a total $70,000 from the grant that has already been calculated into the budget of the new county department of economic development and energy, to be led by VanDerworp.
• $76,690 to help create a Southeast Michigan Energy Office. The office would be funded by the county as well as others in the region, with the goal of creating a regional network and infrastructure for energy-related projects, Lenart said.

It was this last item that commissioners discussed at some length during their Nov. 24 administrative briefing. Barbara Bergman pointed out that the fiduciary for this grant is the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, a Ferndale-based nonprofit led by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith had discussed that fact during the Nov. 19 working session – he did not attend the Nov. 24 briefing.

The alliance would also oversee the new energy office. Bergman asked what fee the alliance would be getting for its work, and whether Smith’s salary would be increased because of the grant. Commissioner Mark Ouimet said that even if his salary isn’t increased, the county should also know if any of Smith’s salary will be paid for out of the grant.

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked if this represented a conflict of interest for Smith. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, said that Smith had already come to him to discuss the conflict-of-interest issue, and was not planning to take part in the discussion or vote on the grant.

Commissoner Wes Prater said that given that the alliance was the fiduciary, would the contractors hired to do the retrofits have to conform with the county’s Construction Unity Board, known as CUB? Hedger said that at the least, they’d have to comply with the Davis Bacon Act, which requires that public works projects pay prevailing wages.

Sizemore asked whether they should postpone the vote, due to all of the unanswered questions that commissioners had. Guenzel said he believed that staff could have answers ready in time for the Dec. 2 meeting.

2010/2011 Budget

Toward the end of the briefing, Rolland Sizemore Jr., the board’s chair, asked if everyone was happy with the budget. When no one immediately responded, county administrator Bob Guenzel said “Yes!” – eliciting laughter from commissioners. Guenzel had hoped that the board would approve the 2010/2011 budget at its Nov. 18 meeting, despite some last-minute changes. Commissioners approved the budget during their Nov. 18 Ways & Means Committee meeting, but not during the regular board meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Budget Moves Toward Final Vote"]

A major piece of the budget discussions over the past year – focused on eliminating a projected two-year, $30 million deficit – included talks with the 17 bargaining units representing about 80% of the county’s 1,350 employees. Many units, representing the majority of union workers, have already ratified concessions, which the board also has approved. At their Dec. 2 meeting, the board will be asked to approve new collective bargaining agreements with two additional units: AFSCME Local 3052, and non-union workers at the sheriff’s department.

Guenzel said the AFSCME agreement will be similar to deals struck with the five other AFSCME units earlier this year. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "AFSCME union concessions help, but other issues remain"] A few other units are still negotiating with the county, including local units of the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM), the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM), and the Teamsters.

Also related to the budget, commissioner Barbara Bergman asked when the board would learn how the Office of Community Development, a joint city/county department, would allocate funding for local human services agencies. The OCD is responsible for awarding grants funded by the city and county to local nonprofits. Deputy county administrator Verna McDaniel said that OCD director Mary Jo Callan would be making a report at the Dec. 2 meeting – the OCD staff had just finished making those decisions.

County commissoner Mark Ouimet, right, talks with Washtenaw County Sheriff’s commander Dieter Heren after Monday's meeting of the county's police services steering committee. During the meeting, Ouimet was added to the membership of a finance subcommittee, which will be looking at the cost of sheriff deputy contracts with local municipalities. (Photo by the writer.)

As reported in The Chronicle’s preview of the upcoming Nov. 18 Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners meeting, the agenda includes an item to be presented by Sheriff Jerry Clayton, listed on the agenda as a “Recommendation of Policy for Adding Contract Deputies.”

At last week’s administrative briefing, few details were available about Clayton’s presentation. So when county administrator Bob Guenzel mentioned to commissioners that Clayton would be discussing the item at the county’s Police Services Steering Committee meeting, held on Monday, The Chronicle made a point to attend.

The issue of contract deputies has been contentious – one that resulted in a years-long legal battle between the county and three townships. The dispute has centered on how much municipalities have to pay to contract with the sheriff’s department for deputy patrols, and what the true cost of providing those patrols is –  a price versus cost issue. A policy change could be significant, if it addressed these issues.

At Monday’s meeting of the police services steering committee, which includes several township supervisors, public safety officials and four county commissioners, Clayton made it clear that any recommendation for broader policy change is a work in progress.

Clayton said that his presentation at Wednesday’s board of commissioners meeting will be informational only, related to adding contract deputies in Scio Township. He then plans to bring a formal resolution on that issue to the board of commissioners at their Dec. 2 meeting.

More broadly, he asked the police services steering committee to continue working on a recommendation for the cost and price of contract deputies. He hopes the recommendation would also propose a process for adding contract deputies, when a municipality makes that request. Changing the way that process is managed would be a policy issue that requires approval by commissioners.

Separately, the committee discussed a defeated millage proposal in Ypsilanti Township, which could mean the loss of nearly a quarter of their current deputy patrols. “It will have an impact on everyone in the county,” said Bill McFarlane, Superior Township’s supervisor.

But first, a look at the immediate needs of Scio Township.

Public Safety in Scio Township

In 2006, Scio Township voters defeated a public safety millage proposal that would have levied up to 1.945 mills for police and fire services. Following that defeat, the township’s board of trustees formed a 15-member citizens committee to study Scio’s public safety needs and to look at ways to finance those services. Without a millage, police and fire services were paid for out of the township’s general fund.

The committee recommended a scaled-back millage proposal, focused only on fire safety. In November of 2008, voters approved a 0.9-mill tax for that purpose. The millage freed up general fund dollars previously used to pay for fire services, and township leaders hoped to redirect those dollars to pay for additional deputy patrols.

Since then, Scio Township has requested three additional deputies, adding to the five sheriff’s deputies that are already contracted with the township. However, there’s not been a clear mechanism for doing that.

At Monday’s meeting, sheriff Jerry Clayton said that a several funding changes have led him to come up with a proposal to handle the request from Scio for three more deputies – which he’ll be making to the board of commissioners. The first of those funding changes is that a state grant now funding three road patrol deputies will be reduced, and will provide funds for only two deputies in 2010.   Also, Willow Run public schools – which is grappling with a budget deficit – is cutting funds for a deputy who works in the schools. And finally, Augusta Township officials chose not to put a millage on the ballot that would have funded one contract deputy, so that funding source will be eliminated as of January 2010. That means there are a total of three deputy positions in the sheriff’s department that will be losing their funding sources, Clayton said.

Those three deputy positions, Clayton said, could be reallocated to Scio Township, which now has the general fund dollars freed up though the fire services millage to pay for them.  The change would be cost-neutral for the county, and would save the jobs of the deputies. That’s the proposal he’ll be making to the board of commissioners, he said – first as a presentation on Wednesday to get their feedback, then as a formal proposal on Dec. 2.

After hearing Clayton’s proposal at Monday’s meeting, Pat Kelly, supervisor of Dexter Township, asked, “Why would anybody not be in favor of this?”

“Jeff’s not here,” quipped county commissioner Wes Prater, referring to his colleague Jeff Irwin, who has been vocal about the need for the price that townships pay for contract deputies to reflect the actual cost of employing them.

Broader Policy Issues

The county’s 2010 budget – which commissioners have not yet approved, but will consider at their Nov. 18 meeting – includes funding for 81 contract deputies. Townships and other municipalities that contract with the sheriff’s department for these patrols will pay about $144,000 per deputy. That’s up 2% from the 2009 rate. In 2011, another 4% increase is scheduled.

But what if more deputy patrols are requested, beyond the current 81 covered in the 2010/2011 budget? Or what happens if a township that’s contracted for a certain number of deputies doesn’t have the money to fund them, as is the case with Ypsilanti Township? As long as there’s a steady state, with an equal supply and demand, there’s not an issue – but that’s not always the case, sheriff Jerry Clayton said.

The situation with Scio Township works, Clayton said, because Scio has funding to absorb three deputy positions that will be available because of cuts elsewhere. However, he said, the county needs to develop a system to manage the addition or subtraction of deputies as needed. That might include second-tier pricing, higher than the current price of a contract deputy, he said.

The police services steering committee had previously charged a financial subcommittee with evaluating the cost of deputy patrols. That group includes county commissioner Kristin Judge; Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran; Saline police chief Paul Bunten; Ypsilanti Township’s police services administrator Mike Radzik; and a representative from the county’s budget office. They had submitted a recommendation to the full committee several weeks ago.

At Monday’s meeting, Clayton said that instead of taking that recommendation to the board of commissioners, he wanted the subcommittee to reconvene and broaden their scope. The formula they’d devised for coming up with a price included all direct costs associated a deputy, a portion of the indirect costs and none of the overhead costs. Clayton wanted the subcommittee to go back and look at other issues –like the cost of maintaining a fleet of vehicles – and work that into their recommendation.

Additionally, he wants the subcommittee to tackle the issue of how to manage the addition or subtraction of deputy patrols, and make a recommendation about that process, including the second-tier pricing issue. He said he expects they’ll have a “spirited discussion.”

Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly said she felt comfortable with that, since Moran would be on the subcommittee representing the interests of townships who currently contract with the sheriff’s department. “Don’t miss that meeting, Mike!” she joked.

The subcommittee will bring back a recommendation to the police services steering committee, which will then forward it to the board of commissioners. The board will have final approval over any changes in pricing and policy.

Ypsilanti Township’s Millage Defeat

Bill McFarlane, Superior Township supervisor, said he was sorry that the public safety millage in Ypsilanti Township had been defeated on Nov. 3. “It will have an impact on everyone in the county,” he said.

McFarlane asked how it would affect the number of contract deputies in Ypsilanti Township. Brenda Stumbo, the township’s supervisor, reported that Ypsilanti Township expected to lose 10 of its 38 deputies as of Jan. 1,  because the township didn’t have the funds to pay for those positions without revenue from the millage.

The impact will be felt throughout the county, McFarlane said, because the 12 so-called “general fund deputies” – positions that are not being paid for by a specific municipality, and who are deployed throughout the county – will now be called on to respond to emergencies in Ypsilanti Township.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton said that he and Saline police chief Paul Bunten had discussed the overall decline in the number of law enforcement officers countywide, looking at all the various police departments, while total calls for service are increasing. In particular, the situation in Ypsilanti Township “concerns us greatly,” Clayton said.

He added that he was an optimist, and wasn’t willing to give up those 10 deputies yet – there might be some other options, he said.

Talking with The Chronicle after Monday’s meeting, Clayton clarified just what those options might be. He reported that the sheriff’s department will be coming in under budget for 2009 – the exact figures will be released later this year, he said – and those extra dollars might be used to offset the cost of the patrols in Ypsilanti Township. The department was able to generate new revenue this year by taking back its civil processing services, which were previously outsourced, Clayton said. Those services include handling foreclosures and serving court papers.

There might be other ways to generate new revenue next year too, Clayton said. That could possibly allow the department to  absorb some of those Ypsilanti Township positions on an interim basis, allowing the township to put a public safety millage on the ballot again in 2010. If it passes, then they’d have veteran officers on board ready to return as contract deputies for the township in 2011. He noted that one of the issues related to the cost of contract deputies is the question of who pays for training, especially for new officers.

In general, Clayton said his two priorities are maintaining public safety for all county residents, and preserving jobs for his staff.

Release forms for a video of Thursday's panel are collected from panelists by Shannon Riffe of the Ann Arbor District Library, far left. Standing left to right are county commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman, Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton, and Christine Negendank, of the county's Community Support and Treatment Services. Not in this photo, but also on the panel, was Washtenaw County prosecutor Brian Mackie. (Photo by the writer.)

During Thursday night’s panel discussion on the Washtenaw County jail, one message from sheriff Jerry Clayton was this: It’s his job to administer the jail, but it’s the whole county’s jail – it’s our jail.

Clayton was joined on the panel by Washtenaw County prosecutor Brian Mackie, Washtenaw County commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman, and Christine Negendank, a psychiatrist with the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services department. The event was hosted by the League of Women Voters at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.

The format allowed some time for audience members to have their written questions put to the panelists. Among those questions were concerns about translation services at the jail for non-English speaking inmates and possible racial profiling of Latinos in the immigrant population.

Questions posed by the League of Women Voters provided panelists a chance to give somewhat of a tutorial on how the government’s system of punishment works – Brian Mackie was asked to start with an explanation of the difference between jail and prison.

Jail Versus Prison

One key difference between jail and prison, explained Mackie, is that jails in Michigan are county-operated, whereas prisons are state-operated facilities. So the Washtenaw County jail is a place where (i) suspects are detained short-term after arrest but before they’re arraigned, (ii) defendants are held who haven’t been released on bond – who are accused of either felonies or misdemeanors, and (iii) people convicted of either felonies or misdemeanors serve their sentences.

Washtenaw County prosecutor Brian Mackie (Photo by the writer.)

After a suspect is arrested, Mackie said, it’s always possible to get arraignment and charging completed within 24-hours because there’s a judge and a prosecutor on duty every day of the year.

The maximum sentence to a county jail in Michigan, clarified Mackie, is one year. That’s important to bear in mind, he said, when comparing prison commitment rates across different states. Pennsylvania, for example, allows jail sentences for up to five years – so lower statistics for Pennsylvania prisons could reflect higher numbers in jails.

In Michigan, 49% of convicted felons are sentenced to time in local jails, Mackie reported, while the national average is 30% – that reflects an unfunded mandate from the state to deal with convicted felons at the community level, he contended.

The 332-bed Washtenaw County jail is the smallest jail per capita in Michigan, Mackie said. [The new jail expansion would increase the number of beds by 112 to 444.] In recent years, the prison commitment rate in Washtenaw County had crept up from the second lowest in the state at around 16% to where it’s now around the state average in the low 20s, Mackie said. Asked whether he thought there was a connection between the jail capacity and that increase in prison commitment rate, Mackie said he had trouble not seeing the correlation.

How the Jail Works

Even though the jail expansion would add 112 beds – provided that funding for its operation can be found to bring it online in October or November of 2010 – Sheriff Clayton cautioned: “We will never have enough jail beds if we do not change the way we engage people in society.”

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton. (Photo by the writer.)

While the jail is ultimately his responsibility, Clayton said, it’s administered directly by a commander, three lieutenants, eight sergeants, and 84 corrections officers.

He also heaped praise on the number of volunteers who came into the jail to support various programs like classes in literacy and anger management.

The physical surroundings of the jail, Clayton said, are not what maintains safety. That is, it’s not the walls, the bars, and the windows that manage the inmates. Rather, it’s human engagement of inmates that should manage their behavior.

To engage inmates effectively, Clayton said, it’s important to know who they are: What risks do they pose and what needs do they have? Who are the people at the jail? Clayton gave a quick statistical snapshot.

In 2008, Clayton reported, 7,901 people came in and out of the Washtenaw County jail. In round numbers:

Male:   88%
Female: 11%

Misdemeanor: 56%
Felony:      43%

Mental Illness:  27%
Substance Abuse: 75%
Unemployed:      63%
Homeless:        14-17%
No h.s. diploma: 36%

-
Assessing risks and needs of the inmates on intake was the first of six points ticked off by Clayton as the jail’s mission. The others: (ii) assign appropriate housing, putting like groups together, (iii) meet basic needs – the need to feel safe, have shelter, food, and a connection with others, (iv) define expectations – the belief that inmates will conform to the rules and be productive, (v) engage inmates through human interaction, and (vi) keep inmates productively occupied.

Medical Services

While Christine Negendank focused her remarks primarily on the mental health side of medical services, a question from the audience also drew out the fact that the jail provides other medical services as well – a dentist as well as an OB/GYN for pregnant inmates. Commissioner Bergman pointed out that Medicaid does not cover medical treatment while incarcerated. The total cost to the county per year for inmate medical care runs about $1 million.

Christine Negendank, a psychiatrist with the county's Community Support and Treatment Services department. (Photo by the writer.)

Negandank described the Community Support and Treatment Services jail diversion program, which aims to provide alternatives to incarceration for those with mental illness. She also described JPORT (Justice Project Outreach Team), which works both inside and outside the jail after release to provide mental health services.

Negandank said that it’s possible for her to see an inmate in jail, know they’re getting out of jail, and tell them: “I’ll see you in two weeks at my office downtown.” She stressed that securing funding for mental health medications was a challenge, but that providing mental health services was more than just dispensing medications.

The challenge of supporting inmates released from jail again drew out the difference between jail and prison: There’s a longer planning time for eventual reintegration into society from prison – facilitated by organizations like the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI). Given the shorter length of time spent at jail facilities, there’s less time to anticipate and plan for time after release.

One of the audience questions addressed the issue of the time of day inmates were released. Clayton clarified that yes, inmates were released at midnight – because if a release date was Nov. 12, say, then holding them until 6 a.m. on Nov. 12 would mean an extra six hours of incarceration to which they had not been sentenced.

Another audience question drew out Mackie’s view that the work of Dawn Farm (which has the in-jail substance abuse services contract) and other social-justice nonprofits like Community Action Network and Peace Neighborhood Center was crucial to reducing the burden on the criminal justice system.

Funding the Jail and Its Expansion

Barbara Levin Bergman drew the question from the League about how the jail was funded. She began saying that she was one of 11 county commissioners who allocated money to the justice system, of which the jail was a part.

Washtenaw County commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman. (Photo by the writer.)

She stressed that those allocations, whether they were to the prosecutor’s office or to the jail, were made as part of a budget management process that included communication between the board of commissioners and the departments to which they allocated money.

One of the audience questions specifically addressed the jail expansion of 112 beds: How would that be funded? Bergman, in her remarks made earlier in the evening, had said that she was one of the people who had voted to build the expansion, which broke ground in December 2008.

Even when the construction is completed, it’s not clear if the county will open the new facility. From The Chronicle’s previous coverage in May: “Targeted Cuts for Washtenaw County Budget“:

[County administrator Bob Guezel] also laid out a wide range of possible cuts, including selling county-owned facilities – he noted that the Zeeb Road building was only half occupied, for example – and even the possibility of not opening the jail expansion when it’s completed in 2010. That expansion, which would provide an additional 112 beds, would cost at least $1 million extra per year to staff. He said that though governments in general are good at finding one-time solutions, “what we need going forward is primarily structural savings.”

What the sheriff’s department budget will look like in the county’s budget also probably won’t be clear even after the county votes on the final budget for 2010/2011, which might come at the board’s next meeting. From The Chronicle’s coverage “County Board Set for First Budget Vote“:

One unresolved issue is the final budget for the sheriff’s department. At last week’s administrative briefing, Guenzel told commissioners that he and sheriff Jerry Clayton were still negotiating, and that they wouldn’t likely reach an agreement in time for the final budget approval. Guenzel plans to come to the board at a later date with a budget amendment that would address the results of their negotiations.

Though they were expected to make an initial vote at their Nov. 4 meeting on the final 2010/2011 budget, commissioners removed that item from their agenda. The next chance to vote on the budget – likely still without the sheriff’s department portion – will be Nov. 18.

At the League of Women Voters panel on Thursday, Clayton said that the question of whether there’d be enough money to open the jail expansion was still to be answered. The numbers were still under discussion, he said. But he emphasized that “I am sound on those numbers. We won’t bring numbers that are fluff.” Saying that while he didn’t mean to be flippant about it, the situation could be compared  to the old Fram air filter commercial where the mechanic compares the cost of the air filter to the cost of engine replacement: “You can pay me now … or pay me later.”

Bergman described the discussion on providing funding to staff the new jail expansion as “tension among friends.”

Clayton stressed that the sheriff’s department was trying to do its part by becoming more efficient and raising revenues. That prompted Bergman to remark that the “frosting on the cake” to revenue generation was that his deputies were writing tickets in Ann Arbor. An audience question asked about billing inmates for the services they used, but Clayton seemed skeptical that it was an avenue worth pursuing aggressively – in light of the 63% unemployment rate among inmates.

Clayton described the jail expansion as a part of a “social justice campus” where there could be some level of supervision while inmates work at outside jobs but return for the night. They’d get supervision and support, plus treatment for substance abuse if needed, when they returned to campus each night.

In his remarks, Mackie also emphasized that it was important to distinguish between the tiny number of people who are “just purely evil” and those who needed some supervision that might not entail full-time incarceration. As an example, he gave a repeat drunk-driving offender, who might be treated in a cheaper, more humane way at something like a “probation residential center” than at a jail.

Clayton contrasted the feel of the jail expansion as fundamentally different from the old part of the jail. It was not constructed to be in any way luxurious, he said, but it did not communicate the expectation that inmates would act out. Rather, it communicated the idea that they were expected to behave appropriately.

Audience Questions: Immigrant Population

In addition to some of the audience questions already described, two related specifically to the immigrant population in Washtenaw County.  What kind of support is there for non-English speaking inmates?

After the panel concluded, Laura Sanders of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights pressed sheriff Jerry Clayton for some answers on treatment of the local immigrant population. (Photo by the writer.)

Clayton allowed that this was an area he’d noticed upon taking office a little under a year ago, saying that service for non-English speakers was “not where it should be.” As an example, he cited an orientation videotape that is shown to inmates – it’s in English only. The jail does employ translator services for inmates who don’t speak English.

A second question related to possible racial profiling of Latinos during traffic stops. The way Washtenaw County deals with racial profiling was actually a strength of the county, Mackie said. He pointed out that Clayton was a nationally-recognized expert on addressing racial profiling. ["Practitioners Guide For Addressing Racial Profiling" was co-authored by Clayton. Prior to his election, Clayton also ran a consulting firm specializing in dealing with racial profiling.]

Clayton said that in their training, they stressed that a traffic stop must be based purely on a suspect’s behavior, not anything else. In thinking about their own actions, officers should be able to answer the question: Why did you do this? Clayton said it was a dual education challenge: (i) educate officers about how to treat suspects, and (ii) educate citizens about why officers do what they do.

The author of the question about racial profiling had a somewhat more pointed question in mind. [Questions were written out and read by the League of Women Voters]. The question had come from Laura Sanders of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

According to Sanders, a new requirement that a Social Security number be produced in order to obtain/renew a Michigan driver’s license has led to the following kind of scenario: (i) an immigrant cannot renew their license, (ii) when pulled over at a traffic stop, they can’t produce a current license, (iii) instead of receiving a ticket for driving on an expired license, they’re arrested and taken to the jail, (iv) immigration services are contacted and (v) deportation proceedings begin.

Sanders contends that if a driver were not a Latino, they’d simply be given a ticket, not arrested and taken to jail – that’s racial profiling, she says.