The leadership of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, from left: Felicia Brabec (D-District 4 of Pittsfield Township), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7 of Ann Arbor), and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8 of Ann Arbor). Rabhi is board chair. Brabec serves as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and LaBarre chairs the board’s working sessions. (Photos by the writer.)

Those priorities, listed in order of importance, are: (1) ensure a community safety net through health and human services; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for Washtenaw County residents; and (4) reduce environmental impact. [.pdf of budget priorities resolution] [.pdf of budget priorities memo and supporting materials]

The vote on the budget priorities resolution was 6-1, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2), who indicated that his No. 1 priority is long-term fiscal stability, followed by public safety and justice. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting before the vote, and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent. Although it was not part of the four priorities, a resolved clause was added during the meeting, stating that “the long-term fiscal stability of the county [will] continue to be of import throughout the budget development process.”

The resolution was brought forward by Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading the budget process for the board. It also laid out a framework for developing strategies to measure the effectiveness of county investments in these priorities.

Brabec described this approach as “both a policy and a paradigm shift” that can’t happen overnight, but one that’s critical for the county’s future. The board is forming work groups focused on each of the four priorities, as well as on the topic of human resources. These work groups will be meeting to develop as many as five “community impact” goals in each category, in work that’s expected to continue into next year and beyond.

The July 24 meeting also included an update from county administrator Verna McDaniel about the county’s current financial condition and preliminary projections for 2014. At her last presentation, on May 15, 2013, McDaniel told commissioners that the county needed to identify $6.99 million in structural reductions for the 2014 budget. The approach to addressing this $6.99 million target depended on whether the county moved ahead with a major bond proposal to cover obligations to retirees, she said at the time. That bond proposal was put on hold earlier this month.

Now, the projected general fund shortfall is $3.93 million on a roughly $101 million budget. McDaniel indicated that the shortfall will be addressed primarily with operating cost reductions ($3.83 million) as well as $100,000 in cuts to funding of outside agencies, including support for nonprofits. The lower shortfall resulted from revised actuarial data that significantly lowered the contribution that the county is required to make toward its unfunded retiree obligations. Other factors include: (1) a decision not to make a $1 million contribution to the general fund’s fund balance; and (2) $2.4 million in higher-than-previously-anticipated revenue.

McDaniel noted that if the county had chosen to bond, then operational cuts would not be needed, and the fund balance contribution could be made. She also reported that the general fund budget doesn’t factor in serious state and federal cuts to non-general fund programs. “Revenue is needed,” she said. “We need to figure that out.”

Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) both voiced interest in exploring possible new taxes. “I think it’s important that we strongly consider asking the voters of Washtenaw County if they’re willing to support some of the ongoing operations that we have,” said Rabhi, the board’s chair. “We need to pose that question at least to the voters in the form of a millage of some kind.”

Smith cited human services and public safety as areas that might gain voter support for a millage. During public commentary, representatives from SafeHouse Center urged commissioners to continue funding of that nonprofit, as well as for human service organizations in general.

The upcoming budget will be prepared without the major bonding initiative that until earlier this month was anticipated to occur later this year. The bonding was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The original maximum amount for the bonds had been estimated at up to $345 million, but updated actuarial data resulted in a lower estimate of about $295 million. During the July 24 meeting, commissioner Conan Smith said it’s unlikely that bonding could occur this year, although he’s still supportive in general of taking that approach.

McDaniel plans to present the 2014 budget to the board at its Oct. 2 meeting. Commissioners are required to adopt a balanced budget for 2014 by the end of 2013. At its May 1, 2013 meeting, the board had approved development of a four-year budget. However, commissioners have not yet decided whether to follow through by adopting a budget with that four-year horizon. And some commissioners – notably Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – have expressed skepticism about this longer-term approach. For the past few years, budget plans have been developed for a two-year period, though the board must confirm the budget annually.

Budget Priorities

One of the main agenda items at the July 24 meeting was a discussion of priorities that the administration would be asked to use as the staff develops the budget for 2014-2017. [.pdf of budget priorities resolution] [.pdf of budget priorities memo and supporting materials] Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading the budget process for the board, began by saying that this year, the board would focus on community impacts and creating a vision.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4 of Pittsfield Township) is leading the board’s budget process as chair of its ways & means committee.

In 2014, that work would shift to developing strategies and metrics related to the community impacts, she said. The board would ask the administration to report back on a more regular basis to talk about how the budget reflects community impacts and investments in the board’s priority areas. It allows for a fuller and more rigorous look at what’s typically been called the budget reaffirmation, Brabec said. [In the two-year budget cycle that the county currently uses, the board votes to "reaffirm" the second year of the budget, usually with only minor changes.]

Brabec noted that the board had held two budget retreats – on March 7, 2013 and May 16, 2013 – and a July 11, 2013 working session focused on the budget. She said she’s had follow-up conversations with commissioners, and these four budget priorities were her best attempt to synthesize that feedback.

“This is both a policy and a paradigm shift for our county,” Brabec said. It can’t happen overnight, she added, and there will be bumps along the way. But this model is an attempt to create a solid process that will help reach the county’s goals, she said. It also sets forth a model for transparency, responsibility and accountability to the community, Brabec noted. Her hope is that, by working with the administration, the board can achieve the community impacts that will be set as part of this process. The framework will allow the board and administration continuously to assess and adjust its investments, she said, assuring that they’re making choices that align with their priorities and vision. She described it as a strategic, longitudinal and dynamic process.

The four priorities stated in the resolution are:

1. Ensure a community safety net through health and human services;
2. Increase economic opportunity and workforce development;
3. Ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for Washtenaw County residents;
4. Reduce environmental impact.

The resolution on budget priorities also “directs the Administrator to lead a structured and transparent process by which the Board, representatives from throughout the organization, and community partners engage collaboratively to develop a balanced budget proposal that (1) aligns the organization’s programs and services with the Board’s four priorities, and (2) includes a summary set of ‘community outcomes’ that declares benchmarks related to the Board’s priority areas.”

The board has named the framework for this budget decision-making process: “Community Impact Investing.” Part of the framework includes six “decision-making principles” that commissioners are asking staff to use in developing the budget. Those principles are:

1. impacts and outcomes drive investment priorities;
2. services are delivered optimally by the right provider, social and financial returns are calculated and articulated;
3. programs are evidence- and performance-based;
4. mandates that support outcomes and impacts are better funded;
5. the excellence of the County’s internal workforce is foundational;
6. programs and services should be encouraged to achieve the triple bottom line of financial returns on investment, contribution to social equity, and reduction of environmental impact.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wondered when the board would actually discuss dollar amounts for this upcoming budget, especially for funding of organizations like SafeHouse and other human service programs.

Brabec described the priorities as the “big picture,” which will in turn determine allocations in the budget. It’s a huge shift in process, she said. Noting that the priorities are listed in order of importance, Brabec said the board will be able to look at the budget that the administration brings forward and see how the allocations are aligned with the budget priorities.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said it looked like the board was duplicating things they’ve already discussed. Why is the board spending time on this, he asked, when they already have a list of guiding principles that they’ve used for years? Is there anything different here?

By way of background, the “guiding principles” of the county are listed on the county administrator’s website:

1. Ensure long term fiscal stability for the County.
2. Reduce the cost of conducting the County’s business.
3. Enhance customer service.
4. Provide the necessary knowledge, skills and resources to County employees to carry out these principles.
5. Ensure adequate provision of mandated services.
6. Focus on the root causes of problems that affect the quality of life of County citizens by aggressively pursuing prevention strategies.
7. Provide leadership on intragovernmental, intergovernmental and intersectoral cooperation and collaboration aimed at improving services to County citizens.

Saying he didn’t understand the purpose of the proposed budget priorities, Sizemore asked Brabec to explain the difference between the current proposal and the existing principles.

Brabec said that in the past, the board would present its budget priorities, then the administration would develop a budget based on those priorities. The current proposal is an attempt to keep the board involved – not just during the budget development, but continuously as the county makes investments.

Sizemore said that as someone who is elected by residents, he already keeps the budget priorities in mind throughout the year. Although he felt it was duplicating a mechanism the board already had, Sizemore said he had no problem with it if the board is going to follow through on it. But if these priorities are just going to be put on the “back shelf,” he said, there are already plenty of reports like that. Brabec said her hope is that it will be a dynamic process.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) noted that Sizemore had spoken about the classic issue between the board and the administrator, who’s been hired by the board to present a balanced budget. Brabec is trying a different approach, Rabhi said – to involve the board in evaluating and benchmarking the priorities that it’s setting. Some of the priorities are carried over from the previous budget cycle, he noted, but a lot of it is new. The hope is that this process will be more dynamic than in the past, he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) highlighted the working groups that will focus on the budget priorities. This approach hasn’t been taken before, he noted. The working groups will be developing a list of “community impacts” for each priority. LaBarre asked for clarification about the timeline for that work.

Brabec replied that the work groups will be meeting in August and develop up to five community impacts for each budget priority. Those impacts will be delivered to the administrator as the budget is developed.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6 of Ypsilanti).

Peterson brought up the issue of long-term legacy obligations to retirees, and stated that it should be one of the priorities. “It’s not going to go away, and it should be something we should be talking about,” he said. The county made a commitment to employees, and has an obligation to meet it, he said. The board has discussed it for the past few months in terms of a potential bonding to cover those obligations, he noted, and the public should continue to be part of that discussion. He pointed out that the state legislation allowing the county to bond for this purpose doesn’t sunset until the end of 2014. The public should know that the board isn’t hiding this issue, he said.

Peterson added that he wasn’t trying to make it a controversial issue, but “money’s always controversial when you lack it.” He said if the topic became part of the budget document, “I will be quiet for the rest of the night.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked Brabec and Rabhi for their leadership on this budget framework. It’s important to know what your goals are when you’re developing a budget, he said. For a legislative body, the messiest part of doing that is creating the framework. Giving clear, good direction to the administration is the board’s job, he said. It’s essential to know what the board wants to achieve over the long-term with its investments. The document that the board is voting on that night doesn’t make any allocation of funds, Smith noted. However, he said, it builds on the “experiment” that the board has been undertaking to identify goals for the community, and then pursues those goals “very deliberately.”

Smith called Brabec’s proposal a “significant step forward.” The process calls for defining metrics and clearly articulating those metrics for each priority. In the past, the board simply talked about its priorities, he said, and that wasn’t sufficient. He also said he appreciated the “consistent accountability method” that’s being proposed. The board will be checking outcomes, not just funding amounts. Commissioners will be asking if the investments are delivering the change in the community that they really want, Smith observed.

Rabhi in turn thanked Conan Smith for his leadership in identifying the importance of metrics during budget discussions earlier this year. Rabhi also agreed with Peterson about the importance of addressing unfunded liabilities. A lot of other communities have ignored the issue of unfunded liabilities, he said. The fact that the county is evaluating its options is the most fiscally responsible thing to do, Rabhi said. He asked Brabec how that issue could be incorporated into the budget priorities document, perhaps by noting the importance of long-term fiscal responsibility.

Rabhi suggested taking a certain percentage of any increase in revenues above what’s been budgeted, and using that excess to help cover unfunded liabilities – or adding it to the fund balance. In order for that to happen, that goal needs to be built into the budget priorities, he said. Fiscal stability and workforce sustainability are really overlays to the budget priorities, he added – saying you need those things in order achieve the other priorities.

Peterson clarified that he wasn’t necessarily saying that he wanted to continue the conversation about bonding, but it’s more about the obligation to employees. He alluded to Detroit’s bankruptcy, noting that the issue of unfunded obligations are affecting many communities – but it’s especially affecting people who were promised pensions. He’s concerned that if the county borrows money but doesn’t meet its investment goals, the shortfall will be made up on the backs of county employees. The county doesn’t have a strong reserve, he noted. The state constitution is supposed to protect pensions, but the constitution doesn’t mandate that governments have to make payments to cover those pension obligations.

Peterson also expressed concerns about the proposed four-year budget process. He didn’t see how the county could be responsive to possible fluctuations in contributions to WCERS and VEBA, if a four-year budget was in place. Anything can happen in this country, he said, citing specifically the panic after Sept. 11, 2001. If the stock market crashes, the county would have to meet its obligations out of the general fund, he said. Peterson added that he might be the only one to vote against a four-year budget, if the county doesn’t have a plan in place that is fiscally sound. At one point, the retiree obligations were fully funded, but “we got off track,” Peterson said. Time has passed, he said, but now the issue is how to get back on track.

LaBarre echoed Peterson’s comments, saying the county had to meet its retiree obligations – from a moral and reputation perspective. He considered the budget priorities as a guide for the future, with the assumption that the county won’t be bonding. It will be a long, hard process to develop a budget with the current constraints, LaBarre noted. But the intent is to meet the county’s retiree obligations fully, he said, even though that won’t be handled through bonding.

Brabec described the budget framework and priorities document as separate from a discussion about bonding, or about any other strategies the county might pursue to meet its retiree obligations.

Conan Smith (D-District 9 of Ann Arbor).

Conan Smith suggested that one of the measurable objectives for the budget should be that the unfunded liabilities are addressed. He said his personal preference would be to fully fund it. [The allusion was to funding those obligations by borrowing the full amount through bonding, which Smith supports.]

Smith asked Brabec whether a separate budget work group could focus on employee issues. That’s possible, Brabec replied, but she also wanted to make sure that each of the work groups keep in mind the importance of employees.

Smith agreed, but said he still felt there should be a work group that addresses personnel issues. One example he cited is a “blurring” of compensation between supervisors and the employees they supervise. So the compensation of the leadership across the organization should be examined, he said. Smith also mentioned some commissioners want to revisit the “red circle” policy. [That policy authorizes the administrator to increase an employee’s salary above the position's pay range. If an assignment extends past six months, the administrator must provide a report to the board about employees on extended assignment.]

The county has been a place where people crave employment because of the expertise they’re surrounded by, Smith said. “Putting ‘Washtenaw County’ on your resume really meant something out in the world,” he said. It’s important to keep fostering that environment.

Rabhi described the budget as one of the tools to help address the unfunded liabilities, among other issues. He said he respected Peterson’s concerns about a four-year budget, but he felt the unfunded liabilities could be addressed during the budget process – even if the budget is taking a longer-term view. The county could be locking in that commitment to fund those liabilities for a longer period, he said.

Brabec pointed out that long-term fiscal stability is one of the county’s guiding principles. She proposed adding a resolved clause to the resolution that would highlight this point:

Be it further resolved that the long-term fiscal stability of the county continue to be of import throughout the budget development process.

Peterson said he’d be supportive of that.

Outcome: Brabec’s proposed addition was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Discussion continued. Peterson spoke at length about various impacts to county revenues, including cuts in federal and state funding. He didn’t understand how the county could develop a four-year budget with such huge legacy costs, as well as uncertainty related to state and federal grants. In four years, there will be a new president and possibly a new governor, he pointed out. The county also doesn’t know what the actuary will require in terms of contributions to cover unfunded liabilities for retirees. It’s setting the county administrator up to fail, he contended, if her budget projections are off. If her projections are wrong, the only thing that she could do would be to cut from the board’s priority areas, he said.

It might be different if the county were generating revenues that would offset its retiree costs, Peterson said.

Rabhi picked up on that idea, saying that without having “new dollars” on the table, the county will face similar struggles in the future. “I think it’s important that we strongly consider asking the voters of Washtenaw County if they’re willing to support some of the ongoing operations that we have,” he said. “We need to pose that question at least to the voters in the form of a millage of some kind.”

The county can’t rely on state and federal funding that has traditionally supported county-run programs, Rabhi said. Property taxes are constrained by various state laws and constitutional amendments, he noted. The problem of unfunded retiree liabilities was created over time and no single person can be blamed, he added, but it’s important to address it head on. So the voters need to be asked if they’re willing to keep the county’s commitments to employees while keeping the same level of programs and services. He noted that the liabilities are huge and will impact the budget for years to come.

Taxes are a sensitive issue, Rabhi said, but voters need to be asked. Are they content with shrinking county government to the point of maybe only providing the lowest level of mandated services? Given current realities, “we just can’t expect to continue the way we are,” he said, providing the current breadth of services. “I know that’s kind of a doom-and-gloom statement, but I think it’s the reality that we’re facing and it’s the challenge of local government.”

Conan Smith said he fully supported Rabhi’s suggestion to talk about new revenue. Regarding the funding for unfunded liabilities, however, he reminded commissioners of something that their bond counsel, John Axe, had told them: It’s perhaps a riskier proposition politically to fund those liabilities via a voter-approved millage, because that gives the board the unilateral authority to raise taxes if the funds aren’t sufficient to meet those obligations.

Smith also said he’d love to put a human services millage on the ballot, and is eager to have a conversation about that. A millage for police services is another option to discuss, he said.

Smith noted that the bonding scenario had been presented as a “tax neutral” solution. To cover the unfunded liabilities by bonding, the county wouldn’t need to ask for an additional millage, he said, “nor would we have to cut the general fund.” To him, the bonding question is “unresolved.”

Dan Smith (R-District 2 of Whitmore Lake).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) cited several concerns he had with the budget priorities resolution. His first priority above all else is the short-term and long-term financial stability of the county. It’s troubling to see that the county is contemplating putting $1 million less in its fund balance next year than originally contemplated, he said. A healthy fund balance is a critical part of financial stability. His second priority would be public safety and justice, and there are a lot of mandated and non-mandated services that fall under that category. A distant third priority would be roads, Smith said.

Conan Smith responded, saying he thought that public safety was a priority that was interwoven with the four priorities stated in the resolution. He cited sheriff Jerry Clayton’s focus on a “social justice” approach to public safety, and wondered if Brabec had talked to Clayton about his team’s role in the proposed working groups.

Brabec said she had talked to Clayton about the notion of a social justice campus, but hadn’t discussed it in the context of the budget work groups. She saw public safety as integrated into several of the priorities, primarily the priorities on creating a community safety net and ensuring economic opportunity.

Conan Smith also clarified with Brabec that roads would be part of the third priority – on ensuring mobility and civic infrastructure. He said he supported everything that Dan Smith had identified as priorities, adding that the board needs to ensure that the work groups tackle those subjects. “I think the framework allows for that,” he said.

LaBarre reported that the topic of the next working session, on Aug. 8, would focus on the budget. So commissioners can continue hashing out some of these issues then, he said.

As the discussion came to a close, Peterson again voiced his opposition to a four-year budget, saying he was “totally opposed” to that approach. Rabhi responded, noting that although an original draft of the resolution had mentioned a four-year budget, the most recent version had eliminated references to that. Brabec had made those changes in order to address Peterson’s concerns, Rabhi said.

Brabec added that the resolution is meant to provide a budget framework, regardless of the timeframe. The discussion about whether to develop a four-year budget will be addressed separately, she said. Peterson replied that “in front of all of these witnesses, I’ll take your word and hold you to it.” He indicated he’d vote for the resolution based on that assurance.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the budget priorities resolution on a 6-1 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting prior to the vote.

Financial Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel gave an update on the county’s financial condition, and a look ahead at the upcoming budget. [.pdf of McDaniel's presentation] She had previously given a report to the board on May 15, 2013, when she’d been advocating for a bond proposal. At that time, she had told the board that $6.99 million in structural reductions were needed in 2014, in order to provide a balanced budget for the four-year period of 2014-2017. If the county didn’t bond, she’d said at the time, all of that $6.99 million – including $5.06 million related to covering unfunded retiree obligations – would need to come from operational cost reductions.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

On July 24, she told the board that revenues would be $2.4 million more than previously projected. [That's based on information from the equalization report that was delivered at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting.]

She noted that many of the previous assumptions are unchanged. That includes projecting a 1% increase in property tax revenue each year through 2017, and getting $5.3 million per year in state revenue-sharing.

Her current analysis is that $3.93 million in structural reductions are needed, McDaniel said. In explaining the lower shortfall, she said the original estimated amount of $5.06 million in contributions needed to cover unfunded retiree obligations had turned out to be high, and was now estimated at about $2 million.

To address the $3.93 million shortfall, McDaniel said most of the reductions ($3.83 million ) will come from operational cuts. In addition, she’s proposing cuts of $100,000 to “outside agency” funding, which includes the county’s support of nonprofits. She also expects to eliminate a previously planned $1 million contribution to the general fund’s fund balance in 2014.

However, McDaniel also proposed that any additional revenues above the projected 1% increase in property taxes each year should be allocated to the fund balance as unearmarked reserves. Any surpluses at the end of each year would also be moved into unearmarked reserves, she said. The additions to the fund balance will be incremental, “as opposed to being baked in,” she said, “because baking it in will create an undue burden on the organization.”

McDaniel reminded the board that the county had made $30 million in reductions over two years in 2010 and 2011, and another $17.5 million in cuts during 2012 and 2013. With $3.93 million in proposed cuts next year, “we’re close to the finish line,” she said. “We think we can do this.” She plans to make a formal budget recommendation to the board on Oct. 2.

For the non-general fund portion of the budget, programs and services that are funded with federal and state grants face serious challenges, she said. Those issues were not addressed in her budget presentation, she added, but she wanted the board to keep it in mind. “Revenue is needed – we have to figure that out.”

Financial Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith noted that when the budget had factored in bonding, the structural reductions were originally estimated at $1.83 million. If bonding were to move forward now, he said, there would be no need for operational reductions and the county could make its $1 million contribution to the fund balance. By abandoning the bonding proposal, he added, it is forcing cuts on the organization and reducing the contribution to the fund balance.

Kelly Belknap, Washtenaw County’s finance director.

Smith then asked for an explanation of the relationship between the fund balance and the annual cash flow. Each June for the past couple of years, “we’ve cut it pretty thin,” he said.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, confirmed that the county had “dipped below zero” in the summer, in terms of its ability to meet payroll with cash flow. Each year, the county in May or June enters into a negative cash balance, she said, because property taxes aren’t collected until July. The county’s policy is to borrow internally from its fund balances that are outside of the general fund, she said. When tax revenues are received later in the year, those other fund balances are repaid.

Conan Smith clarified with Belknap and McDaniel that this is considered an acceptable practice, but not a best practice. He said he wasn’t trying to blame anyone, but wanted to make clear that there are “consequences of walking this particular path.” He noted that the other way to address it would be to make even deeper operational cuts to the general fund, which is not something that the administration is proposing.

Ronnie Peterson confirmed that the county was making actuarial-recommended contributions to both WCERS and VEBA. He noted that some employees are in the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan (MERS), a statewide system. McDaniel reported that most employees in the sheriff’s offices are in the MERS plan, though she didn’t have specific figures on hand. She noted that the county also makes required contributions to that system, in addition to WCERS and VEBA.

Peterson wondered if the county could expect large fluctuations in the amount of contributions it would need to make to MERS in the future. That should be part of the board’s discussion, he said. McDaniel replied that the amount fluctuates each year, and it’s been going up. Those figures are included in the budget projections, she said. Peterson wanted to make sure that MERS was included in the discussion about legacy pension costs, saying that it also impacts the budget.

Conan Smith noted that the MERS system is the healthiest fund – saying that it’s about 88% funded. But the challenge is that the county doesn’t control the assumptions for that system in the same way that it can for WCERS and VEBA, he said. So in 2010, there was a $600,000 increase in the contribution that the county was required to make for MERS, for example. He agreed with Peterson that it was important to be aware of the volatility of MERS.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Financial Update: Public Commentary

At the beginning of the July 24 meeting, Doug Smith – wearing a Washtenaw Watchdogs T-shirt – told the board that commissioner Conan Smith has repeatedly stated that the county has made its scheduled contributions to the retirement accounts, and that the county is therefore not responsible for underfunding those accounts. “He’s deceiving you – whether he’s deceiving himself is not clear,” Doug Smith said. In 2000, the WCERS account was overfunded by $4 million. Since then, it has been progressively underfunded until it became underfunded by more than $40 million in 2007. That was before the financial crisis of 2008, he noted, and before the pension plan was re-opened for new members. That means the county board watched the fund lose ground by about $6.5 million each year between 2000 and 2007, Smith said, and nothing was done to investigate or correct the situation. The county didn’t pay its annual contribution to VEBA in full until 2010, even though it was severely underfunded, he said.

From left: Conan Smith (D-District 9 of Ann Arbor) and Dan Smith (R-District 2 of Whitmore Lake).

Smith referred to a New York Times article he’d given to the board, which reported that actuaries have been making unrealistic assumptions about returns on investments for many years. That means pension funds are much more underfunded than industry practices would estimate, he said. For Washtenaw County, actuaries are still using an unrealistic net gain on investments of 7.75%, he said. For the WCERS account, the actual return has been 3.4% since 2000. If the actuary used a more realistic number, the current underfunding would be much higher than $300 million, he argued.

In 2007, the board made a decision “so stupid that it must have been on purpose,” Doug Smith said. Even though the county had eliminated the defined benefit pension plan in 1984 in favor of a defined contribution plan – which by 2007 covered about 80% of county employees – the county in 2007 decided to let all employees buy back into the pension plan. It was a “gift to employees, including Verna McDaniel, at taxpayer expense,” Smith contended. McDaniel is employed by taxpayers, he said, and she is not serving them well. The entire problem with underfunding the retirement plan rests with the board, “and I’m tired of hearing Conan Smith say otherwise,” he concluded.

During the final opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Doug Smith asked for confirmation of his understanding of McDaniel’s presentation: Even if the administration isn’t happy about making budget cuts, the roughly $4 million cut over four years is manageable without the bonding. He also wanted confirmation that the budget was being prepared with the assumption that the county would not be bonding.

Financial Update: Public Commentary – Commissioner Response

Conan Smith acknowledged that Doug Smith was right: “I had missed the shorting of the VEBA in 2006-09. I’d been told differently, and I didn’t validate that information.” He said he’d go back and look at what the rationale was for that decision, but “it almost doesn’t matter. We’ve got to deal with it looking into the future.”

Conan Smith also affirmed that “absolutely the budget is manageable.” There are sufficient general fund revenues to cover the contributions that must be made each year toward unfunded retiree obligations. “The question is always: What are the consequences of doing that?” he said. The county has been making operational cuts ever since he got elected, Smith said, and it would be possible to make more cuts. But “we have cut to the bone already,” he added. Making additional cuts would result in measurable, immediate reductions in services to residents, he said.

As for bonding, it’s almost inevitable that they wouldn’t be able to bond this year, he said, because of the timing needed to move through the bonding process. Given that the board must adopt a balanced budget by Dec. 31, it would be irresponsible of McDaniel not to present a budget on an assumption that no bonding would take place, he said.

Andy LaBarre addressed Doug Smith’s comments that had questioned the motives of commissioners. LaBarre felt those comments were wrong. He said he appreciated the service of Conan Smith, Yousef Rabhi and Verna McDaniel. “I just wanted that said for the record,” LaBarre concluded.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: SafeHouse Center, Human Services Funding

Three representatives of SafeHouse Center – a nonprofit that provides support for people affected by domestic violence or sexual assault – addressed the board at the start of the July 24 meeting. Barbara Niess-May, the nonprofit’s executive director, thanked the board for its support of SafeHouse as well as other safety net services in the community. It makes an enormous difference to people who find themselves struggling and needing an extra hand during a difficult time. She noted that the coordinated funding program is critical, and she encouraged commissioners to keep it a priority. Any loss to that funding would impact the quality of life for many people, including survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Molly Resnik, a co-founder of SafeHouse Center, and SafeHouse board president Rob Oliver addressed the county commissioners during public commentary, advocating for continued support of the nonprofit.

About 10 years ago, SafeHouse took on the task for providing sexual assault services on behalf of the county, Niess-May explained. There was an agreement about how much funding it would take to support that work, she said, but those amounts subsequently have been reduced. Like everyone else, SafeHouse is doing its best to do more with less, she said, but the need has not lessened. SafeHouse serves about 5,000 women, children and men each year, with a staff of 24 and 150 volunteers. SafeHouse is “definitely leveraging every last bit that we can,” she said. SafeHouse serves as a support for law enforcement, and works cooperatively with the county prosecutor’s office, “and in the end, we save lives,” Niess-May said. A loss of funds would mean a drastic reduction of services.

Molly Resnik, one of SafeHouse’s co-founders and a long-time volunteer, said she knew there were a couple of people at the board table who had been there in the early 1970s when organizers started putting together services for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. It’s heartening to see the continuity, she said, but frightening to see that in many ways, “we’ve gone backwards in response to budget cuts.”

Until recently, she had served on the board of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, a partner in the coordinated funding approach. She’s very aware of the importance of prioritizing and of coordinating an approach to meet community needs. The one problem is that some services – like those offered by SafeHouse – “don’t comfortably fit into categories.” It’s been put into the category of emergency housing and homelessness, she noted, but it’s not exactly a fit. As the U.S Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and others have redefined what homelessness means for the purpose of funding, it’s leaving SafeHouse out in the cold. Resnik said that for her, it comes down to saving lives. She has no doubt that there are women and children alive today because SafeHouse was there. She asked the board to remember that SafeHouse stands out, and somehow the community needs to reinvigorate the comprehensive services it offers.

The president of SafeHouse Center’s board, Rob Oliver, noted that the organization is effective despite cuts by the county, federal sequestration and funding cuts from the HUD. That’s why money from the county is so important. SafeHouse has hired a consultant to help with fundraising, so the nonprofit is doing as much as it can to be sustainable, he said. Oliver recalled his own experience with domestic violence years ago, saying that thanks to Resnik, his family had a place to go when they had to flee an abusive stepfather. Now, other families also have a place to turn. He urged commissioners to support SafeHouse and its work.

From left: Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1 of Chelsea) and Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation.

Several commissioners responded, expressing support for human services funding in general and SafeHouse specifically. Conan Smith noted that there are fiscal pressures on all local governments, and some of the cuts are because of economic conditions. But some cuts are because of decisions that the board chooses to make, he said, so having people come and articulate the critical importance of maintaining certain investments is really important. People need to know that even making small cuts to organizations like SafeHouse can have a direct impact on people’s lives, he said.

Ronnie Peterson said SafeHouse had brought its secret weapon by having Molly Resnik speak to the board. Washtenaw County government was part of the birth of SafeHouse, he said, and it’s important to make sure that this kind of safety net service is always a part of the county’s institutional funding. He joked that some people might think his politics have swung to the right because of his friendship with Dan Smith, a Republican commissioner. But Peterson said he’s always been focused on the delivery of services and outcomes. Every community should have a SafeHouse, he said. If the county can make a major long-term commitment to the humane society, Peterson added, then it should make a commitment to SafeHouse too.

Yousef Rabhi said he supported SafeHouse, and he thanked the representatives for advocating on behalf of the nonprofit. The partnership between SafeHouse and the county goes way back, he said, adding that he plans to continue advocating for human services funding in general, and for SafeHouse specifically. Although SafeHouse has a separate line item in the county’s budget, its funding has been decreased significantly over the years, Rabhi said. That decision needs to be reviewed.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge called for an FBI investigation of municipalities in Washtenaw County, including the city of Ann Arbor, because of egregious, long-standing violations of civil and human rights of residents. In particular, he cited budget manipulations and priorities that resulted in the loss of substantial amounts of money between 2008 and today. He contended there’d been investment losses at the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor Public Schools as well as at the University of Michigan.

At his last turn at public commentary, Partridge told commissioners that priority items are being ignored, including plans for affordable housing, ending homelessness, an affordable countywide transportation system, and affordable, accessible education and health care. County residents are suffering, he said, and Washtenaw County is being left behind compared to other areas in the state. Commissioners should be seeking additional revenue sources, and lobbying the state legislature to allow for a progressive income tax, he concluded.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (present during the first part of ways & means committee only), Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Doug Smith, standing, talks with other members of the Washtenaw Watchdogs before the start of the July 10, 2013 county board meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Several of those who spoke are affiliated with the Washtenaw Watchdogs. The group has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve.

The bond initiative, publicly proposed in May, was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The original maximum amount for the bonds had been estimated at up to $345 million. But updated actuarial data resulted in a lower estimate of about $295 million.

However, on July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put bond-related action items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address unanswered questions, including uncertainty about the state approval process. No date has been set to reschedule action, if any, on the proposal.

In addition to the bond proposal hearing, the board held three other public hearings during its July 10 meeting: on two brownfield plans in Ann Arbor – for 544 Detroit St. and Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall) – and for annexing land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter to accommodate the expansion of Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. All items were subsequently approved by commissioners.

The board also gave final approval to a range of infrastructure projects totaling about $5 million for county government facilities – including redeveloping the Platt Road site in Ann Arbor where the old juvenile center was located. An amendment brought forward by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) called for creating a 9-member advisory committee to guide the dispensation of the Platt Road site, which is located in his district. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the authority of such a committee. He was assured that the board retains control over whether to act on the committee’s recommendations. Details of how the advisory committee will be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, will require approval from the board at a later date.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to a modest increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office – bumping up a staff position from part-time to full-time – primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications. Commissioners also made several appointments to various boards and commissions, nominated by Rabhi as board chair. He announced he wasn’t yet ready to make nominations to the county’s historic district commission.

Also pushed back was a final vote on a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. Initial approval for this action came on a 5-4 vote at the board’s June 5, 2013 meeting. But on July 10, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – who had originally brought forward the proposal – asked for postponement until the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, citing communications she’d had with trial court chief judge Donald Shelton. The vote to postpone was 6-2, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

In addition to feedback about the bonding proposal, commissioners heard from leaders of two nonprofits – Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative and Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House – about the need to support human services funding. Uncertainty about the upcoming budget has caused concern among nonprofits that have been historically funded by the county.

Also during public commentary, two members of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Ann Arbor thanked commissioners and staff for quickly restoring domestic partner benefits to nine county employees, following recent court rulings that enabled the county to reinstate such benefits.

Facial hair got a minor mention at the July 10 meeting, when Rabhi told Dan Smith: “Your beard is epic – congratulations on it.” Smith used the opening to mention that he’s growing the beard for his role as Lazar Wolf in the upcoming production of “Fiddler on the Roof.” The show runs from July 19-21 at the Whitmore Lake High School Theater. He received a round of applause from the board. Peterson joked that he was glad for the explanation – Peterson had been prepared to reach out to Smith with the name of his barber.

Bond Proposal & Budget

Though a controversial bond proposal had been pulled from the agenda the previous week, on July 10 commissioners held the scheduled public hearing for that proposal . The original bonding proposal of potentially up to $345 million was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The board had set the public hearing at its meeting on June 5, 2013, and had also intended to take initial votes on July 10 on several items related to the bonding.

However, on Wednesday, July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put the bond-related items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address questions and concerns that had been raised by commissioners and the public, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that’s required for this type of bonding. [See Chronicle coverage: "County to Push Back Vote on Bond Proposal."]

Some commissioners have also asked whether alternatives to a bonding approach might also be viable, but the administration has not provided other options, other than a list of major cuts to programs and services. The original plan put forward by the administration was to bond for up to $345 million, although officials believed the amount would be lower than that, pending an updated actuarial report.

The printed agenda for the July 10 meeting still included the bond-related items, though the items had been removed from the agenda before the meeting. The printed agenda listed the proposed bonding amount at $295.115 million. That’s the figure that Rabhi reported in a phone interview with The Chronicle on July 3.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle on July 16, McDaniel said the $295 million figure was based on updated preliminary estimates for unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL) totaling $272.999 million for both WCERS and VEBA. Interest and fees on that amount for bonding is being recalculated, she reported, but it will likely be a week or two before the new calculations are completed.

After the July 10 board meeting, the county administration released an updated “experience study” from Buck Consultants, the actuarial firm used by the county. An experience study is the basis for the final actuarial report, which has not yet been completed. [.pdf of 2013 experience study report] A preliminary report on this study was presented at a special joint session of the WCERS and VEBA boards on June 25. The 7-member WCERS board includes county commissioners Dan Smith and Conan Smith, county administrator Verna McDaniel and county finance director Kelly Belknap. Conan Smith also sits on the 5-member VEBA board, which is chaired by county accounting manager Pete Collinson.

Buck Consultants had recommended adopting a 10-year amortization schedule for the county’s unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL), in order to cover those liabilities as quickly as possible. The county administration had originally expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward the WCERS and VEBA obligations in 2014, if bonding did not occur. That amount was based on the 10-year amortization schedule.

At the June 25 special meeting, however, the WCERS and VEBA boards voted to adopt a longer, graduated amortization schedule for the UAAL of 27 years (WCERS) and 26 years (VEBA), with the amortization schedule decreasing annually by a two-year period. This change will lower the UAAL contributions county will need to make to cover its obligations each year.

In an email to The Chronicle on July 16, McDaniel indicated that revised estimates for the 2014-17 budget will be reported at the county board’s July 24 ways & means committee meeting. She estimated the amount for 2014 is now expected to be about $26 million, instead of $30 million.

The final actuarial report by Buck Consultants is expected to be delivered to the WCERS and VEBA boards later this week. Those boards have set a joint meeting for Tuesday, July 30 to review the material. The meeting starts at 10:30 a.m. in the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

Bond Proposal & Budget: Public Commentary & Public Hearing

The first public hearing on the bond proposal had been held on June 5. That public hearing drew four people who all expressed caution about the possible action, as some attendees suggested a millage or additional budget cuts to cover the retiree obligations – instead of bonding.

On July 10, more than a half dozen people spoke at the public hearing as well as during two opportunities for public commentary. Many of the speakers were affiliated with a group called the Washtenaw Watchdogs, which has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve. In addition to the speakers, several other members of the Washtenaw Watchdogs – many of them wearing the group’s T-shirt – attended the meeting.

The back of a T-shirt for the Washtenaw Watchdogs.

Doug Smith, one of the group’s organizers, spoke at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as at the bond proposal’s public hearing. He told commissioners that he’d watched presentations at the board’s last working session on June 6, and noted that the projections all assume that the bonds could be sold at a 4% interest rate, while the market returns would be about 6 or 6.5%. The proposal ignores the millions of dollars it would cost to initiate an intermediate trust and to sell the bonds, he said, as well as the cost of managing the trust. The bonds would be taxable, and could be recalled early, Smith said – which is good for the county, but makes the bonds less attractive to investors. Current rates for taxable municipal bonds are rising, and will likely to continue to increase, he noted.

Smith suggested looking at the county’s current pension trusts to gauge possible investment returns, and the cost of managing those investments. The WCERS trust has earned an average 8.2% since it was formed in 1981, he noted, but most of the higher returns were in the 1980s and 1990s, when inflation and interest rates were much higher than now. The country was also going through a tech revolution at the time, he said, and it’s unlikely the markets will see another period like that. Since 2000, the net gains for the WCERS trust have been 2%. The VEBA trust has an average 3.5% net gain since it was formed in 1997, and since 2000 the net gain is 2.4%. The trusts are paying more than $1 million in expenses to financial managers that are underperforming, he said.

Smith also pointed to the actuarial risk – what if retirees live longer than expected? If the county ends up needing to pay more to retirees while it also repays the bonds, that’s a money crunch. “But all of you will be long-gone from the board by then,” he said. It’s also possible that the bonds will be sold at up to 5.5% interest, and that the return on investments from those funds will be lower, he noted – that’s not an unrealistic scenario.

He then described two scenarios for possible outcomes of the bond’s investment trust. If the county borrows $300 million and invests it in the stock market, in one scenario the investment return might be 10% ($30 million) in the first year. But if the required contribution that year to the retirement trust is $29 million, and the investment expenses are $1 million, you end the year with the same $300 million. Smith described a second scenario in which the county loses 10% ($30 million) in the first year, but still has to make the $29 million contribution to the retirement trust and the $1 million in expenses. So the county ends the year with only $240 million. All future years would reflect that initial loss, he said.

In 2008, the WCERS fund lost 33% on its equity investments, Smith noted. Though there might not be a worse year in the future, he said, it’s likely there will be another financial meltdown of some sort in the next 25 years. Bond counsel John Axe and the Eastern Michigan University professor who made a presentation at a board working session earlier this year made rosy projections, he said. But those projections don’t consider that funds must be paid out every year to the WCERS and VEBA trusts, Smith said. The payouts make the timing of losses important, and the county might never recover from early losses.

Smith also pointed out that most experts feel the market is currently overvalued. And because there’s an inverse relationship between the bond market and stock market, the county might be putting taxpayer money into the stock market at just the wrong time, he said. What will happen if the intermediate trust runs out of money before the bonds are paid off? The county would have to pay off the bonds as well as contribute to the retirement trusts. “That’s going to be a much worse cash flow problem than you’re now facing.” He asked commissioners not to approve the bonding proposal, or at the very least to let the voters decide.

If the board votes to move ahead with the bonding, Smith said, he and others are prepared to gather the required signatures to put the proposal on the ballot as a voter referendum. They need only 15,000 signatures, he noted, and they already have about 25 volunteers to circulate petitions. The Washtenaw Watchdogs will have a booth at the Ann Arbor art fairs on Liberty Street near Division, and they’ll be going to other events and canvassing neighborhoods as well. He also encouraged potential volunteers to visit the group’s website.

Ray Williams asked how many commissioners would mortgage their house to play the stock market. That’s what the county is planning with this bond proposal, he said. “If you are not prepared to do the same with your own money, why is it a good idea for the taxpayers of Washtenaw County to do the same thing?” He didn’t want Washtenaw County to be like other counties that had made risky investments and that were now bankrupt. It’s hard to believe the county can’t find ways to eliminate its deficit without bonding, he said. The decision will affect citizens for the next 25 years, Williams said, and it should be put on the ballot so that taxpayers can decide. If the board votes to bond, Williams said he’d do everything he could to help collect the 15,000 signatures needed to force a ballot referendum.

Thomas Partridge also spoke at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as during the public hearing. He expressed concern over the proposed bonding, and urged the board not to do it. The county’s ability to bond should instead be used to build affordable housing and to provide other services for this area’s most vulnerable residents. He criticized the fact that most of the county’s revenues come from property taxes, which he characterized as a 19th century concept that gives property owners more influence in the political process. He accused Democratic commissioners of supporting a totalitarian state administration that aims to limit the role of government, even though there are homeless people outside the door of the county administration building, he said.

Judy Bloss began by saying she didn’t pretend to understand the complexities for the bonding proposal. She could understand the desire to have her children take care of her, but she had questions about the county’s bond counsel, John Axe, having his daughter profiting from that deal. [Axe & Ecklund provides a 15% discount on its fees if the county also hires Municipal Financial Consultants Inc. (MFCI) as the financial consultant on the bonding deal. Although it wasn't disclosed at public meetings about the proposal, MFCI president Meredith Shanle is Axe’s daughter.]

During her second turn at public commentary, Bloss told commissioners that she’s experiencing some unfunded liabilities in her own life, related to medical expenses. However, she’s not planning to borrow money from her home equity line of credit to pay those bills and to invest in the stock market, hoping to realize a profit. It’s not the job of county government to borrow money and invest it to make a profit, she said. Bloss noted that about 70% of the county budget funds mandated expenses, but the rest is discretionary. She suggested as a starting point to cut taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, which she accused of killing babies. She didn’t want blood on her hands.

A man from Webster Township told commissioners that they were elected to spend the money that the county collects from him and other taxpayers. But now, the board is looking to borrow money on behalf of the taxpayers. In the past, the county has borrowed for things like the jail and civic improvements, he said. It’s a noble reason to pay for retiree pension and health care, but the county would be borrowing against the fiscal well-being of its residents. It’s disrespectful if commissioners don’t put it on the ballot for voters to decide, he said. The July 4th celebration was initially based on the issue of rebelling against taxation without representation, he noted. And even though the bond proposal isn’t direct taxation, he concluded, it’s still a burden on the community.

Les Heddle referred to the information about the bonding proposal that’s posted on the county’s website. Many pertinent questions are still unanswered, he said, including the fact that the county is using data that’s 18 months old. It’s hard to believe that there isn’t a way to get more current data, he said. He believed current data would show a much lower level of unfunded liabilities. He also didn’t understand how the board had been ready to vote on this proposal when the staff hadn’t provided all of the necessary information regarding the state requirements. Who’s doing the due diligence? he wondered. It’s an egregious error and lack of judgment by the staff. He said he was trying not to get angry, because he had a lot of friends on the board. He indicated that if this had happened in the private sector, it would not be acceptable. “There should be some accounting for that, all the way up and down the line,” he said.

Heddle said that in his business, if he doesn’t live up to his clients’ expectations, they can take their money elsewhere. [Heddle is a financial advisor with Edward Jones in Ypsilanti.] He again questioned why the county administration wasn’t able to provide a proposal based on more up-to-date information. The board needs to get an answer from the administration about why they’re using data that’s so old. It might give some insight into why the county is in its current situation, Heddle said. He also criticized the county’s bond proposal website for not being updated regularly.

From left: County financial analyst Tina Gavalier and finance director Kelly Belknap.

During the public hearing, Heddle addressed several issues related to the list of answers to Frequently Asked Questions on the county’s bonding website. For example, one of the FAQs asked what will happen to the proceeds if the intermediate trust outperforms the bond payments, he noted, but it doesn’t ask what happens if the trust underperforms. Heddle said it’s difficult to find useful, up-to-date information, or anything that indicates what will happen if the bonding doesn’t work as planned.

Stephen Ranzini suggested an alternative to the current bonding proposal, which he called misguided. He indicated that although interest rates are low, the stock market is overvalued and that will result in future substandard performance. The short-term benefit from the “financial engineering” that the bond deal promises will turn into future losses. He told commissioners that in 1988 when he was 23 years old, Bank One lent him $3.2 million to buy a tiny bank that’s today is known as University Bank. The loan for this leveraged buyout was made because “I’d figured out something the sellers didn’t know – that the bank’s pension fund was overfunded.” After buying the bank, he terminated and defeased the bank’s pension plan by buying an annuity from a triple-A-rated life insurance firm. The extra funds from that deal – about $800,000 – were used to fund an employee stock ownership plan, he said, which purchased common stock in the bank holding company and paid down the loan to Bank One.

In a similar way, Ranzini said, the county could defease its retirement plan by buying an annuity from a top-rated insurance firm. It would require taking on debt, he noted, but this approach would lock in today’s low interest rates and eliminate future investment risk. Because insurance companies are “hungry” for these types of long-term annuities, he added, it would likely cost less than the bond proposal. The downside is that the county would lose control over its pension fund dollars, but it’s no great loss if the county doesn’t intend to use those funds for local economic development, Ranzini argued: “In fact, it prevents possible future mischief.” He recommended this same approach to all local units of government.

Wes Prater, a former county commissioner from York Township, noted that the county’s No. 1 guiding principle – as posted on the county administrator’s website – is to ensure long-term fiscal stability. He believes in that principle, and there’s a lot of work to be done. Since 2007, the county’s long-term liabilities have increased over $15 million each year, he said. Some of those liabilities don’t show up on the balance sheet, he noted. At the end of 2012, the county had net assets of $230 million, Prater said, compared to $446 million in long-term liabilities, including between $250 million to $300 million for pension and retiree health care. The board needs to look at what has happened in the past, Prater said, and at how the county has arrived at its current situation. He said he was willing to step forward and work on a committee to research how to address these issues.

Prater also wondered when the updated actuarial report and the independent financial analysis of the bond proposal would be completed. How do citizens get the information they need to make informed decisions? he asked. Prater also wanted to know how the intermediate trust fund would work. There are several issues that need to be cleared up, he concluded.

Bond Proposal & Budget: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson said he appreciated the delay in voting on the bond proposal. He noted that advocates for human services programs are interested in the impact on their funding if the county doesn’t bond. [Two leaders of nonprofits that the county funds – Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative and Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House – spoke during public commentary, urging continued support of human services.] He assured these groups that he will advocate for them. Peterson asked for the board chair or administrator to explain what will happen next regarding the bond proposal. He vowed that the county would honor its obligations to retirees, regardless of whether the board decides to bond.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi responded, first by describing the public outreach that had been done related to the bond proposal, including public hearings, coffee hours, a press conference and public forum. None of that had been required, he said, but the board believes in engaging citizens in these decisions. The delay is due in part because of a recognition that more questions need to be answered, he said. Several commissioners had raised concerns that need to be addressed, he added, and the state still is figuring out the process for this kind of bonding.

Two months ago, Rabhi said, when the bonding proposal was first publicly floated, it wasn’t known how long the state approval process would take. So it’s not necessarily the case that the staff was remiss in getting information, he said, it’s just a new process. “I don’t want anybody to blame anybody.”

The fact that residents showed up that night to address the board is a testament to the fact that this has been an open process, Rabhi said. The public has been engaged and has asked questions.

Moving forward, he said, the county must have a balanced budget for 2014 by the end of this year, independent of any decision to bond. The board has held discussions at its meetings and retreats about the budget, he noted, but now it’s time to really focus on priorities and engage the community on that. The board will be moving into an intensive process now, delving into the budget and providing guidance to the administration, he said. Rabhi said he feels optimistic about the process, and that the county is emerging from the recession and looking at better times ahead.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith asked for clarification about the process by which the board will explore other alternatives to the bonding proposal. He said he wasn’t asking about specific alternatives at this point, but wanted to know how various alternatives would be discussed and vetted by the board.

From left: County commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Andy Brush, the county’s IT manager.

Rabhi replied that any alternatives would be brought forward as part of the budgeting process. Felicia Brabec will be leading the budget process for the board, he said, including a discussion at the board’s July 11 working session. Dan Smith noted that until now, the board has generally discussed the budget and the bonding proposal separately, although he observed that obviously the topics are intertwined. Now, he said, it seems those discussions will be brought more closely together than previously.

Peterson asked whether the discussion would revolve around a four-year budget. When Brabec noted that the board had authorized the administration to move forward in developing a four-year budget plan, Peterson pointed out that he had voted against that action. [The board had taken that vote at its May 1, 2013 meeting, over dissent from Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr.] Peterson said he would vote against a four-year budget if it’s presented. Multi-year budgets sometimes result in problems getting pushed back, he said, or in borrowing a lot of money to deal with the county’s obligations.

Andy LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, noted that the following night there would be a discussion of budget priorities, and he implored everyone to attend. Peterson reported that he had a previous commitment and would not be present.

LaBarre also responded to a remark made by Doug Smith during public commentary. LaBarre noted that the EMU economics professor mentioned by Smith was Jens Stephan, who LaBarre said gave up about 4.5 hours of time to talk with commissioners at the June 6 working session. Stephan wasn’t advocating for any particular approach, LaBarre stressed, and was simply showing commissioners a tool they could use in making their decisions. “I want to make sure that’s on record, that he did us a public service,” LaBarre said.

Rabhi also provided a phone number that residents can call to give input on the bonding proposal via voicemail: (734) 222-6666. He also requested that the staff update the website with answers to the questions that had been raised during public commentary and the public hearing.

Peterson wanted to know that if the county changes its plan for the bonding proposal, would the board hold another public hearing? Rabhi replied that none of the public hearings were required by law. But if commissioners feel the need for more public participation, they can certainly schedule more public hearings, he said. Peterson felt it would be respectful to citizens to hold another public hearing, if the proposal changes in any way.

It’s unclear what actions might be taken next regarding the bonding proposal. The administration has previously stated that the bonding proposal was crucial to developing a four-year budget from 2014-2017. The administration has set a goal of identifying $6.99 million in structural reductions for the overall 2014 general fund budget, based on the assumption that the bonding would take place. Without the bonding, the county had expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward these obligations in 2014, with additional amounts varying in subsequent years. That amount will likely be lower – estimated by McDaniel at around $26 million – based on updated actuarial information and recent decisions by the WCERS and VEBA boards.

Commissioners had previously voted to hold an extra meeting this month, on July 24. That meeting will be held as planned, but instead of bonding, the main topic will be a discussion of budget priorities.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Brownfield Plans

Two brownfield plans – for projects located in Ann Arbor – were on the agenda for both initial and final votes of approval, following public hearings on each plan. The projects are at Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall) and 544 Detroit St. The Ann Arbor city council had signed off on the plans at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

Both plans had been recommended for approval by the county’s brownfield development authority at its June 6, 2013 meeting.

Brownfield Plans: 544 Detroit St.

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors.

According to a staff memo, up to $698,773 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund over an estimated 25-year period. The county’s annual millage revenues on that site are estimated to increase from about $277 now to $6,150 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of 544 Detroit St. brownfield plan]

At a July 9 working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission, city planning manager Wendy Rampson had reported that the site was more contaminated than the developers originally thought. Although it was clear that the site was contaminated, she said, “I don’t know that they knew how much it would cost to remediate it.”

At the county board’s July 10 public hearing on this project, two people spoke. Thomas Partridge criticized the board for not providing sufficient information about items on the agenda. He called on the owners of these sites to explain how the sites became contaminated, and asked that the current developers explain why the site can’t be developed without governmental assistance. That assistance could better be spent on other programs for the public benefit, like Head Start and affordable housing, he said.

Bret Stuntz spoke briefly on behalf of the developer – 544 Detroit Street LLC – saying he was there to answer any questions. Stuntz is a project manager at AKT Peerless Environmental & Energy Services.

Brownfield Plans: Packard Square

For Packard Square – the former Georgetown Mall site at 2502-2568 Packard St. – approval related to an amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board also approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development. That grant was later awarded to the project. The project entails building more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

Equipment at the Packard Square site. Buildings at the former Georgetown Mall have been demolished.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add two eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing: underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012. According to a staff memo, TIF-eligible activities total $3,582,222. Over the 14-year period of the plan, up to $5,840,557 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund. This amount is unchanged from when the plan was initially adopted.

County millage revenues from the property are estimated to increase from about $8,701 annually to $64,138 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of Packard Square brownfield plan amendment]

The developer of this project is The Harbor Companies of Bloomfield Hills, via Harbor Georgetown LLC.

Ann Arbor city planning manager Wendy Rampson had updated planning commissioners about the status of Packard Square at the commission’s July 9 working session. The good news was that the buildings have been demolished and the contaminated soil has been removed, she reported. But heavy rains had compromised a retaining wall on the northwest side of the site, adjacent to the neighboring property, and the wall had to be shored up. Rampson also reported that EQ – the company that was doing the remediation work under contract with the developer – had “demobilized” from the site because they hadn’t been paid. She indicated that the financing situation was tenuous. “We’ll see – it’s still early,” she told planning commissioners. “But it’s possible that this may be where the project ends.” [Representatives of the development told The Chronicle at the county board's July 10 meeting that the project was moving ahead.]

Two people spoke at the county board’s July 10 public hearing for Packard Square. Thomas Partridge said he was concerned about the practice of local governments applying for federal or state funds simply because those funds are available. In this case, public funds are being used to remove toxic substances and contaminated soil from these sites, so the need for those funds should be substantiated at a public meeting, he said. Partridge was concerned about the possibility of contaminated soil being spread around the neighborhood. Developers should be able to finance these projects without public assistance, he concluded.

John Byl introduced himself – he works for the law firm Warner Norcross & Judd, which is working on the Packard Square project. He thanked Nathan Voght and other county staff for their work, and thanked the board for considering the brownfield plan amendment. The maximum amount is unchanged, he noted, but a couple of categories are being added to the list of things that can qualify for TIF. Byl thanked the Ann Arbor city council and county brownfield authority board for approving the plan. He noted that Bruce Measom, representing the developer, was on hand to also answer any questions that commissioners might have.

During a break at the July 10 meeting, Byl and Measom told The Chronicle that the project was moving ahead.

Brownfield Plans: Board Discussion

The public hearings reported above were held at the board meeting, which takes place after the meeting of the ways & means committee, on which all board members serve. But the brownfield items were first considered at the ways & means committee for an initial vote, prior to the public hearings.

As the board reached the brownfield agenda items at its ways & means committee meeting, Thomas Partridge spoke up from the audience, saying he wanted to comment. Felicia Brabec, who chairs the ways & means meetings, told him that it wasn’t an appropriate time to address the board, but that there would be a public hearing on these items at the regular board meeting that night.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Their exchange prompted commissioner Ronnie Peterson to raise some procedural concerns about the approval process. He felt the public hearing should be held prior to the initial vote at the board’s ways & means committee meeting. So he thought that Partridge’s interruption had been appropriate.

When Brabec told Peterson that the public hearing would happen at the board meeting, he protested, saying “I’ve been around this track a few years” and he found it out of the norm. “This is backwards,” he said, and disrespectful to the public. He apologized to Partridge. The board was being asked to take action without knowing how the public feels, he said. [For agenda items that require public hearings, those hearings are generally held at the regular board meeting, just prior to a final vote on the item. There is typically not a public hearing before the board takes its initial vote at the ways & means meeting.]

Peterson objected to taking the final vote on the same night as the initial vote, even though it was the summer schedule. [Typically, an initial vote is taken at the ways & means committee, followed by a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. For most of the year, the ways & means committee and regular board meetings are held every two weeks, in back-to-back sessions on the same night. During the summer, those meetings are usually held only once a month.]

Andy LaBarre clarified with the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, that there would be an additional public commentary time at the start of the board meeting, as well as the public hearing – two additional opportunities for input. Hedger said that under law, since the public hearing comes before the final vote, there is adequate opportunity for public input. In a perfect world, he added, it would be better to hold the public hearing on a different day, and then take an initial vote at ways & means on one date, and a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. But an accelerated approach has been taken in the past, he noted, especially during the summer months when agenda items often receive an initial and final vote on the same night.

Peterson responded, saying “Expediency sometimes gets you in a lot of trouble.” He wanted to take the time to be cautious. He said he’d be voting no on this item because he didn’t feel there had been adequate public input, adding that it’s no reflection on the projects. He called his record “99 and a half percent voting pro-business.”

Conan Smith said he wanted to clarify the history of this process. A brownfield plan goes through the county’s brownfield authority, and any plan for property in Ann Arbor also goes to the city of Ann Arbor. There are public commentary opportunities at both the county brownfield authority board and at the city council. Then there’s public commentary at the county board’s ways &  means committee meeting before the initial vote, followed by another general public commentary time at the start of the board meeting, and a public hearing on the brownfield plan itself. [Partridge had spoken at the ways & means general public commentary prior to this discussion, but did not talk about the brownfield plan at that point.]

Smith argued that the public hearing can’t be scheduled before the regular board meeting, because the item hasn’t been properly brought before the board until then. [After consulting with Hedger later in the meeting, Smith retracted this statement. When an item is on the ways & means committee agenda, it is considered to be before the board. The ways & means committee is a "committee of the whole," meaning that all board members serve on it.]

There’s been abundant opportunity for public participation, Smith said. He also pointed out that action on the Packard Square plan is an amendment to change the scope of the project, but it doesn’t change the brownfield investment. He characterized it as a “ministerial” change. There has already been a robust public process for that Packard Square plan, Smith said.

Yousef Rabhi noted that he serves on the county’s brownfield development authority board. He praised the 544 Detroit St. project, saying it would be a great addition to the neighborhood and will clean up a contaminated site.

The Packard Square project is in his district, Rabhi said, and he asked Nathan Voght – an economic development specialist with the county – to give an update. Voght described how the board had authorized applying for a $1 million state grant two years ago, which had been received last year. The part of the project covered by the grant started in late May of 2013, and included demolishing the buildings and cleaning up contaminated soil. That’s been done, he said, and there will be a slight period of “demobilization” as the developer puts in place all of the financing and development plans.

Peterson clarified that he had no problems with the plans or the staff, calling the projects “outstanding.” He felt the board needed to follow proper procedures, and suggested that the summer schedule should be reconsidered.

Regarding 544 Detroit St., Dan Smith said he has nothing against the project. But he noted that the board continues to approve various TIF programs – for brownfields, downtown development authorities (DDAs) or local development finance authorities (LDFAs) – without a plan for the outcomes of those investments. “We pretty much rubber stamp these programs. We don’t really have any criteria to evaluate them against,” Dan Smith said, adding that anyone who votes against any particular project would be perceived as being against that specific project or community. He said he wanted to raise that concern again.

Outcome: To protest the process, Ronnie Peterson cast the sole vote against both brownfield plans on the initial vote at the ways & means committee meeting, but joined all other commissioners in supporting the plans in the final vote at the board meeting.

Strategic Plan for County Facilities

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a range of infrastructure projects totaling about $5 million for county government facilities – including redeveloping the Platt Road site where the old juvenile center was located. Commissioners had given initial approval to the overall proposal – called the “strategic space plan” – at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

In addition to the Platt Road site, other projects in the plan include:

• At 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor, consolidate the land records from the building’s lower level to the 1st floor, and remodel the lower level to accommodate administrative offices.
• At 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor, repurpose space in the garden level, including redesigning conference room space.
• At 110 N. Fourth in Ann Arbor (known as the Annex), relocate the Office of Community and Economic Development, Office of Infrastructure Management, and the Public Defender’s office to other leased and county-owned space.
• At the county’s service center near Washtenaw and Hogback, redesign the Learning Resource Center (LRC) as a full conference center, providing county-owned space for large and small meetings. Also, make parking improvements, including adding 110 new spaces, rebuilding the lot between the LRC and the courthouse, and resurfacing the entry drive off of Hogback.
• At a location to be determined, develop a specialty vehicle storage facility for the sheriff’s office and other departments.

According to Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, no general fund dollars will be used for the projects, which are estimated to cost about $5 million. Funding will come from several sources: (1) $1 million from the 1/8th mill fund balance; (2) $650,000 from the facilities operations & maintenance fund balance; (3) $650,000 from the Office of Community & Economic Development reserves; (4) $500,000 from the tech plan fund balance; and (5) $2.2 million from the county’s capital reserves. Dill had briefed commissioners on the plan at a March 20, 2013 working session.

In addition to the projects listed above, other changes will be made to accommodate the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) unit, which provides contract services to the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). The WCHO will pay for that facilities work, including moving the entire Adult MI program staff to the Annex at 110 N. Fourth; repurposing vacated space at 2140 Ellsworth for Youth and Family Services; and relocating all “service delivery” units to the 1st floor of the Towner II building at 555 Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Strategic Plan for County Facilities: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre proposed a two-part amendment. One part directed staff to use the county’s existing vendor pool for work on these projects, whenever feasible.

The amendment also called for the creation of a 9-member community advisory committee to guide the dispensation of the Platt Road site, which is located in LaBarre’s district. The space plan proposes demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee will be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, will need to be worked out and will require approval from the board at a later date.

LaBarre said that his amendment was intended to address some of the issues that had been raised when commissioners discussed this item on June 5.

Regarding the advisory committee, Ronnie Peterson said the proposal was a “total surprise” to him, and it seemed to be giving control over a $1 million property to an entity other than the county board. There are procedures for dealing with the dispensation of county property, he said, and he wondered what authority the committee would have.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger clarified that the committee is advisory only. It has to report back to the board, he added, and the board can either accept the committee’s recommendations or not. “Ultimately, it’s still up to the board as to what they want to do, collectively, with the Platt Road site,” Hedger said. The intent of the committee is to have citizen input.

Peterson indicated that the board has dealt with other controversial proposals, like the jail expansion, without this kind of committee. He said he wasn’t against the advisory committee or citizen input, but he was concerned about setting a precedent. Peterson wondered if they could postpone action until there were more details about how the process would work. Hedger replied that a more detailed resolution would be required at a future meeting to appoint the members and approve the committee’s charge.

At the request of LaBarre, Hedger drafted a revised version of that portion of the amendment to address Peterson’s concerns:

Be it further resolved that the board of commissioners create a nine-member Platt Road community advisory committee to review and develop a recommendation for the disposition of the county’s Platt Road site. The composition and charge of the advisory committee will be determined by the board of commissioners at a later date, provided however that the board of commissioners shall have the authority to ultimately determine the disposition of the Platt Road site.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi clarified that he would be nominating people to the committee, who would then be confirmed by the full board. Alicia Ping felt the process should follow the board’s normal process for other boards and commissions, with people submitting applications for the positions. Rabhi indicated that as an ad hoc committee – not a standing committee – the process would be different, but that applications can be solicited if commissioners wanted to handle it that way. Ping encouraged that approach.

Regarding the vendor pool portion of the amendment, Ping asked for more background about why this direction was necessary. Dill replied that any of the county’s capital projects use the vendor pool to help augment outside professional services that are hired. The pool allows the county to be more efficient and cost effective, he said, in terms of keeping up with a project’s timeline. Every company that’s part of the vendor pool has already gone through the county’s procurement process, he noted, and has been vetted by the purchasing department.

Ping wondered if the county had a sufficient number of companies in the vendor pool to match all of the needs for upcoming capital projects. No, Dill replied. But using the vendor pool would allow projects to use some companies that have already gone through the RFP (request for proposals) process, rather than issuing RFPs for every aspect of a project.

Ping clarified that for larger projects, the work goes out for a competitive bid. Dill said that when a project goes over a certain dollar amount, the county moves away from using the vendor pool and uses a competitive bidding process. The strategic space plan encompasses several smaller projects, he added.

Conan Smith noted that the amendment is worded in such a way that could lead to a very large piece of work being handled by a firm in the vendor pool, rather than going out for a competitive bid. He proposed amending LaBarre’s amendment to designate using the vendor pool for projects under $100,000. His suggestion was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the strategic space plan, as amended.

County Courts Budget

A proposal to postpone the final vote on a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system was on the July 10 agenda.

The board had voted last month 5-4 to give initial approval to the notice – at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The proposal had been brought forward by commissioner Alicia Ping. The move caught some commissioners by surprise, though for several weeks during budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Ping had noted that her goal wasn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. Giving  notice to terminate the agreement would have provided the board the option to end the agreement.

No court officials had attended the June 5 meeting, because the proposal had not been on the published agenda. However, Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, subsequently spoke with several commissioners, including Ping, about their intent. The courts have historically been in favor of a lump-sum approach – rather than the line-item budget provided by most other units of county government.

The courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047. [.pdf of 2013 budget pages with trial court-related amounts highlighted]

County Courts Budget: Board Discussion

Ping reported that she and Dan Smith had met with Shelton, who had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget from 2008. [.pdf of trial court budget document] She said Shelton had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. Shelton had wanted to make clear to the public that the courts submit a line item budget to the county board, she said. However, Ping noted, “they can submit to us whatever they want, and then they can do with it whatever they want, according to current law.”

She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund, which is expected in October. If the board decides to move forward with terminating the memorandum of understanding, it would still give the courts enough time to prepare for the next budget year (2015).

Outcome: On a 6-2 vote, commissioners postponed the item until the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting. Dissenting were Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Dextech Property Annexation

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to the annexation of land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter. They had taken an initial vote at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

According to the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, the annexation of township property into a village is one of the few instances that requires county board approval. Generally, annexation is handled by the individual municipalities where the annexation occurs.

A letter to the county from Dexter village manager Donna Dettling stated that the annexation request – for a 16.66-acre property – was made by the property owner, Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. The land is adjacent to the Dexter Business & Research Park, where Dextech hopes to expand. The company is Dexter’s largest employer.

On May 13, 2013, the Dexter village council unanimously passed a resolution in support of the annexation. The resolution indicates that although the Scio Township board did not take formal action about the request, there was generally support for the action. [.pdf of communications from Dexter regarding the annexation]

Dextech Property Annexation: Public Hearing

Four people spoke at a public hearing on the annexation. Thomas Partridge said the proposal reflected 19th century politics, and he urged all the townships, villages and cities in Washtenaw County to combine resources into one metropolitan authority under one government, with shared tax revenue and shared purpose. He indicated that such an approach would provide resources for health care, transportation, education, food and other needs.

Dexter village president Shawn Keough thanked commissioners for putting it on their agenda in a timely fashion. He called Dexter Fastener Technologies a wonderful business in the community. As the largest business in the Dexter area, the firm provides a lot of taxpayer dollars to the village, Scio Township and the county, he said. He asked for the board’s support.

Wes Prater said he’s a member of the state boundary commission. The village of Dexter has been working steadily for about two years trying to become a city, he said. There was some difficulty in getting everything done, he added, but the communities worked together, and the outcome will be good overall. He joked that he and Keough “have had our differences, but it’s all worked out.”

A representative of Dextech told commissioners that the firm needs to expand to meet the needs of its customers, which are primarily in the automotive industry. He said the firm doesn’t take this move lightly, and company officials appreciate the cooperation of Scio Township and Dexter to come up with a plan that’s beneficial to all concerned.

Dextech Property Annexation: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson expressed support for economic development, and joked that the firm should visit the county’s east side. “You will find it’s a little quicker and easier to develop on the eastern side of the county,” he said, adding that he’d love to show the firm some sites. [Peterson represents District 6, which includes the city of Ypsilanti and portions of Ypsilanti Township.]

Dan Smith wondered how the boundary change would affect Dexter’s attempt to become a city. Dexter president Shawn Keough responded, saying that it has a very small impact procedurally at this time. After the village receives cityhood status for its current boundaries, an additional boundary modification would be required to bring in that parcel.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the annexation.

Staff for County Clerk’s Office

On the agenda for initial approval was a modest increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office, primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications.

The change involves creating a full-time administrative coordinator position from a job that’s currently part-time (an 0.64 full-time equivalent position). The total cost for that full-time position is estimated at $56,902 – or an additional $15,631 in general fund support. It’s expected that a decrease in the need for temporary workers will help offset the payroll increase, as will a projected surplus in license and permit revenue. According to a staff memo, that revenue is expected to exceed projections by at least $33,824.

From left: Ed Golembiewski, the county’s director of elections, and county clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum.

Until mid-2008, the office had 5 full-time employees (FTEs) in the elections and administration division, which handles passport applications and concealed pistol licenses (CPL). The economic downturn and subsequent restructuring dropped staffing levels to 3.64 FTE positions.

CPL applications increased 140% between 2009 to 2012, to an average 2,091 applications per year compared to 870 in 2009. This year is expected to set a record for CPL applications. For the first quarter of 2013 there were 1,168 applications, compared to 540 in the first quarter of 2012. [.pdf of application data from 2004-2013] [.pdf of approved licenses from 2008-2013]

If the total number of applications in 2013 reaches projections of at least 3,225, then that will generate revenue of $83,824 to the general fund – above the original 2013 budget amount of $50,000.

In addition, on July 10 commissioners were asked to give initial approval to shift support for one full-time position in the clerk/register of deeds office back into the general fund, at a cost of $56,117. That position – a records management specialist – is currently funded by revenues from the office’s “automation fund.” Until 2008, that position was paid for out of the general fund.

The automation fund gets revenue from a $5 surcharge on every deed that’s processed, and is a statewide authorized fee that pays for technology related to the work of the clerk/register of deeds office. It pays for digitizing the county’s land records from 1824 through 1958, which are currently available only on paper. The goal is to relocate the paper records and clear out space in the lower level of 200 N. Main Street, as part of the county’s “space plan.” Digitization will also allow the public to quickly search and retrieve county records electronically, which will generate usage revenues for the general fund. Revenues for online usage increased from about $220,000 in 2010 to about $323,000 in 2012.

According to a staff memo, the number of documents recorded by the county clerk/register of deeds office has increased from fewer than 53,000 documents in 2008 to more than 85,000 documents expected in 2013. Revenues from the office to the general fund have grown from $2.248 million in 2011 to $3.198 million in 2012. Those revenues are expected to continue growing as the local real estate market recovers.

Staff for County Clerk’s Office: Board Discussion

Dan Smith pointed out that this is the third time in 2013 that the board has been asked to approve an increase in staffing. In isolation, each increase makes sense, he said. But as the headcount changes over time, it’s troubling.

County clerk Larry Kestenbaum responded, saying: “This doesn’t change headcount at all.”

Felicia Brabec asked Kestenbaum to elaborate and explain why it doesn’t change the headcount. Kestenbaum said the change entails moving a position from part-time to full-time. That’s based on the need to cover the tremendous increase in applications for concealed weapon licenses. The other change is to shift the funding source for an existing position into the general fund. As the land economy has improved, the number of associated transactions handled by his office has increased, Kestenbaum said. It’s important to keep up with those transactions to avoid delay, he added.

Kestenbaum also noted that his office is giving up its space in the lower level of the administration building at 200 N. Main, as part of the strategic space plan for county facilities. The documents stored there are being digitized, and he wasn’t expecting the move to happen on such an accelerated schedule. Money for this digitization process comes from the automation fund, he noted. By shifting the funding for one employee out of the automation fund and into the general fund, it frees up more funds from the automation fund to pay for digitizing documents. He noted that the paper documents will still be stored, but not at that location. He also reminded commissioners that the increased general fund revenue that’s generated by his office will more than cover the cost of the employee.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the requested changes for the clerk/register of deeds office. A final vote is expected at the board’s meeting in August.

Appointments

Appointments to five Washtenaw County boards and commissions were on the July 10 agenda.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi made the following nominations:

• Police services steering committee: Scott Cooper, representing non-contract areas for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.
• Washtenaw County/City of Ann Arbor community corrections advisory board: Tori Noe for a term ending Dec. 31, 2013.
• Food policy council: Seema Jolly, filling a slot representing a nutritionist, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2013.
• Workforce development board: Renee Adorjan for the community-based organization slot for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014; and Fred Pittman for the veterans slot for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015.
• River Raisin watershed council (alternate): Evan Pratt.

Rabhi said he planned to hold off on making nominations to the county historic district commission.

Outcome: All nominations were confirmed unanimously without discussion.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Human Services Funding

During public commentary, two people spoke about the importance of funding human services organizations. Margy Long, director of Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative, thanked commissioners for their support of human services in this community. She described the importance of investing in early childhood programs. Success by 6 has one goal, she said – to ensure that every child in Washtenaw County reaches kindergarten in good health and ready to succeed in school.

Margy Long, director of the Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative, talks with county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

As many as two out of four kids don’t meet that goal at this point, she said, and there are over 40 organizations collaborating to find ways to improve that number. Research has shown that the first five years of a child’s life are critical to their success in learning throughout their life, she said. Long pointed to the return on investment that comes from support during those early years of childhood, including an increased likelihood in graduating from high school and earning a higher income later in life, and less likelihood of criminal activity.

Nicole Adelman, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House, described the nonprofit as an emergency shelter for children and families experiencing homelessness. Her organization works with families to find employment, increase income, and find affordable housing. She also serves on the board of the HIV-AIDS Resource Center (HARC) and the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Adelman said she knew she was preaching to the choir for many commissioners, and she thanked them for their support.

IHN-Alpha House receives about $90,000 each year from the county’s office of community & economic development through the coordinated funding approach. Losing that funding would devastate the agency, she said. It doesn’t get much worse than not having a place to live or knowing where your next meal is coming from, she said. The demand already exceeds the available resources, Adelman added. Budget cuts are incredibly hard, she said, but she’s asking the board to dig deeper and find somewhere else to cut. She noted that she’s a 30-year resident of Washtenaw County, and she votes. The county funds services for people who have nowhere else to go. She said she’d bet that the board’s constituents are willing to vote for those who support human services funding. “I know I will,” she concluded.

The county handles its support for human services through a coordinated funding approach managed by the county’s office of community & economic development. The approach involves a partnership of the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw Urban County, the United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Felicia Brabec, during her report as ways & means committee chair, noted that the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) has selected the coordinated funding program to profile as a best practices case study on social sustainability. [.pdf of ICMA letter]

Communications & Commentary: Benefits for Same-Sex Partners

Cynthia Emerick, a Manchester resident and member of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Ann Arbor, thanked commissioners “for moving so quickly to correct a wrong.” Nine employee families of Washtenaw County government lost health care coverage when the state banned domestic partner benefits for public employees, she noted. [As background, new 10-year labor contracts that the county negotiated earlier this year – to avoid the impact of Michigan's "right to work" law – resulted in the elimination of the county’s healthcare benefits for domestic partners. When the county’s previous labor contracts were opened for renegotiation, that triggered the need to comply with a state law passed in late 2011: PA 297, which restricted public entities from offering domestic partner benefits. For the county, those benefits had been offered to “other eligible adults” who met certain criteria, like sharing the same residence. Nine county employees had been using those benefits, which had been eliminated as of April 1.]

But in late June – soon after a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a ruling came down from U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Michigan that blocked the state from enforcing its ban on domestic partner benefits. Emerick noted that board chair Yousef Rabhi and the county administration acted quickly, and in less than one business day, those nine county employees had their health care coverage reinstated. She thanked the county staff and commissioners for their action, saying it affected a lot of people.

Deborah Dean-Ware, pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd, also thanked the board. She said her church has a long history of supporting the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community, and they are working hard to see marriage equality become reality in Michigan. The county’s work on the domestic partner benefits “is a very powerful statement for justice,” she said.

Communications & Commentary: Head Start

Felicia Brabec reported that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District has received a notice of award from the federal government, designating the WISD as the organization that will take over management of the Washtenaw Head Start program. The county has been administering the program for more than four decades, but last year decided to relinquish that duty. Brabec said that plans are being made for handling the transition.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

However, on Wednesday, July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put the bond-related items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address questions and concerns that had been raised by commissioners and the public, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that’s required for this type of bonding. [See Chronicle coverage: "County to Push Back Vote on Bond Proposal."]

Another public hearing on the bond proposal had been held on June 5. That public hearing drew four people who all expressed caution about the possible action, as some attendees suggested a millage or additional budget cuts to cover the retiree obligations – instead of bonding. More than a half dozen people also spoke at the July 10 hearing, as well as during two opportunities for public commentary. Many of the speakers were affiliated with a group called the Washtenaw Watchdogs, which has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve. Doug Smith, one of the group’s organizers, told commissioners that the Washtenaw Watchdogs will have a booth at the Ann Arbor art fairs, and is recruiting volunteers.

Some commissioners have also asked whether alternatives to a bonding approach might also be viable, but the administration has not provided other options. The plan put forward by the administration was to bond for up to $345 million, although officials believed the amount would be lower than that, pending an updated actuarial report.

It’s unclear what actions might be taken next. The administration has previously stated that the bonding proposal was crucial to developing a four-year budget from 2014-2017. The administration has set a goal of identifying $6.99 million in structural reductions for the overall 2014 general fund budget, based on the assumption that the bonding would take place. Without the bonding, the county had expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward these obligations in 2014, with additional amounts varying in subsequent years.

The board had also voted to hold an extra meeting this month, on July 24. That meeting will be held as planned, but instead of bonding, the main topic will be a discussion of budget priorities.

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

County administrator Verna McDaniel, standing, at a June 27, 2013 public forum to discuss a major bonding proposal. Seated from the left are county commissioners Yousef Rabhi and Andy LaBarre, and former Ann Arbor Public Schools trustee Bob Rorke.

A joint statement by board chair Yousef Rabhi and county administrator Verna McDaniel, posted on the county’s website late Wednesday afternoon, cited the need to address questions and concerns that had been raised by commissioners and the public, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that’s required for this type of bonding.

Just last week, McDaniel held a public forum to provide information about the bonding process. At the June 27 forum, which was attended primarily by county staff and former or current elected officials, McDaniel presented only two options: (1) issue bonds to cover the full amount of unfunded liabilities, estimated to total more than $250 million, or (2) implement dramatic cuts in county services and programs.

This had been the administration’s approach since first publicly floating the idea in mid-April, and since work started on the plan privately in November 2012. A website devoted to the bond proposal, posted last month, includes a list of potential cuts to discretionary programs if the bonding did not move forward. The cuts include items like the elimination of 12 sheriff deputy road patrol positions and cutting the Washtenaw Health Plan. [.pdf of discretionary cuts] [.pdf of implications for county funding to outside agencies]

A public hearing on the bond proposal was held on June 5, and the board had voted to schedule another public hearing – to be held on July 10. The June 5 public hearing drew four people who all expressed caution about the possible action, as some attendees suggested a millage or additional budget cuts to cover the retiree obligations – instead of bonding.

Some commissioners have also asked whether alternatives to a bonding approach might also be viable, but the administration has not provided other options. The plan put forward by the administration was to bond for up to $345 million, although officials believed the amount would be lower than that, pending an updated actuarial report. A preliminary report, delivered late last month, has set the total of unfunded liabilities at $295,115,000 according to Rabhi.

This is the second time that action has been pushed back. Items related to the bonding proposal were originally slated for the May 15, 2013 agenda, but Rabhi pulled those items from the agenda after concerns were raised that the process was moving too quickly for adequate public input and board deliberation.

The bonding is made possible by Michigan’s Public Act 329 of 2012, which the state legislature passed in October of 2012. [.pdf of Public Act 329] The law enables municipalities to issue bonds to cover unfunded accrued pension and retiree healthcare liabilities. At this point, the law has a sunset of Dec. 31, 2014.

The county had expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward these obligations in 2014, with additional amounts varying in subsequent years. The county administration was looking for ways to manage those payments as it develops a four-year budget proposal for 2014-2017. The administration has set a goal of identifying $6.99 million in structural reductions for the overall 2014 general fund budget, based on the assumption that the bonding would take place.

The county’s bond counsel, John Axe, was instrumental in crafting the law that makes this kind of bonding possible. He had been working on the proposal for Washtenaw County since November 2012, and has advocated for bonding for the entire amount of the unfunded liabilities. At the board’s May 2, 2013 working session to discuss the proposal, Axe told commissioners: “If you don’t issue the bonds, you’re going to have horrible budget problems.”

A financial analysis prepared by Municipal Financial Consultants Inc. (MFCI) – led by Axe’s daughter, Meredith Shanle – assumed that the county would pay an average interest rate of 4% on the bonds, or a total of $239 million in interest over the life of the 25-year bond. At that rate, the county would pay a total of $583 million in combined interest and principal, based on bonding for an estimated $345 million. Fees paid to Axe would have been an estimated $485,000. The county planned to invest the funds from the bonds and earn an average return on its investments of 6.5%.

Part of the process for issuing this type of bond includes approval by the Michigan Dept. of Treasury. [.pdf of bond application requirements] To date, no other municipality has completed the approval process. Saginaw County was the first to apply, making its application in February.

Several actions related to bonding proposal had been expected to take place at the July 10 meeting, prior to the July 3 decision to delay on a vote. Those actions would have included:

• Vote on a “notice of intent” to issue the bonds. This is a standard initial step in the bonding process, letting residents know that they have 45 days during which they can circulate petitions to require a vote of the people before any bonds are issued.
• Vote the bond resolution and “continuing disclosure” resolution. The board would have been asked to set a maximum amount for the bond. The continuing disclosure resolution is standard for all bond issues over $1 million, and indicates that the county will provide updated financial information annually during the term of the bond.
• Vote to create an intermediate trust. The trust would have received the bond proceeds, and trustees would have been appointed to oversee the money managers to handle the investments.

The board had also voted to hold an extra meeting this month, on July 24. In a phone interview with The Chronicle on July 3, Rabhi said the July 24 meeting will be held as planned. Instead of bonding, however, the main topic will likely be a discussion of budget priorities.

At this point, Rabhi said, no date has been identified for when a bonding proposal might be back on the board’s agenda.

Here’s the statement from Rabhi and McDaniel, issued late afternoon on July 3:

As all of you are aware, the proposed retiree health care and pension bonding is scheduled for the July 10, 2013, Ways & Means agenda. The opportunities which the County has presented for public input has demonstrated that there are many unanswered questions pertaining to this proposed bonding. In addition, Commissioners still have concerns and questions about the bonding, which we wish to resolve prior to bringing the bonding before the Board for deliberation.

Also, while doing due diligence for Wednesday’s meeting, Finance Director, Kelly Belknap, discovered that the Michigan State Department of Treasury, which must ultimately approve the bonding, still has not developed a template of the items which a local governmental entity must provide to be approved. This matter has been discussed with Board leadership and we have agreed to put a hold on the proposed bonding to give the Board and Administration enough time to explore other options for the County to follow and address its budget needs. The proposed bonding items have been removed from the July 10, 2013, Ways & Means agenda.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Washtenaw County Administrative Office at (734) 222-6894, Yousef Rabhi, Chair of the Board, at (734) 548-5159, or email the County Administrator at WCAdministrator@ewashtenaw.org.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi, Chair of the Board & Verna McDaniel, Washtenaw County Administrator

For background, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board Debates $345M Bond Proposal” and “County Budget, Bonding Decisions Loom,” and “County Grapples with Court Budget.”

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

Board chair Yousef Rabhi and vice chair Alicia Ping. (Photos by the writer.)

After a lengthy and often heated debate, the board voted 5-4 to give initial approval to the notice, but postponed final action until July 10. Voting in favor of initial approval were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Ping noted that her goal isn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. The board could ultimately decide to leave the lump-sum approach in place. Giving a notice to terminate the agreement simply gives the board the option to end it.

Conan Smith, who has wrangled with court officials in the past on this issue, argued that the legislative branch is responsible for budgeting, and the board has abrogated that responsibility by agreeing to lump-sum funding. The board gives up far too much authority over line-item expenditures in exchange for “peace in the valley,” he said. “I want to see something different.” With a line-item approach, the county board could indicate priorities for the courts by allocating more funds to specific areas. Dan Smith also argued in favor of the action, noting that the courts are funded with essentially no oversight.

No court officials attended the June 5 meeting. The proposal had not been on the published agenda.

Ronnie Peterson argued most strongly against Ping’s proposal, fearing it would damage the board’s relationship with the courts. Peterson also felt the board itself hadn’t been very accountable regarding a $345 million bond proposal it’s considering. “So as we blast others, let’s prepare to take a few pellets ourselves,” he said. Rolland Sizemore Jr. warned that the board might be starting a fire that they couldn’t put out. He noted that if court officials decide to sue, the county would be required to pay the attorney fees.

Commissioners initially were set to take a final vote at the board meeting that same night – held immediately after the ways & means committee meeting. However, after a break between the two meetings, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger reported that the memorandum of understanding with the courts actually requires a 12-month notice, not the six months that had been discussed. This turned the opinion of some commissioners, who wanted to take more time to study the issue. Andy LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working session, offered to schedule the topic for a working session as soon as possible.

The motion to postpone final action passed on a 6-3 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Dan Smith and Kent Martinez-Kratz. So the proposal will appear on the board’s July 10 agenda.

That July 10 meeting will also include action related to the county’s major bonding initiative to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations, including a public hearing. The first public hearing for the potential $345 million bond proposal was held on June 5. It drew four people who all expressed caution about the possible action, with some suggesting a millage or additional budget cuts to cover the retiree obligations instead of bonding.

On June 5, commissioners also set other public hearings for July 10: (1) for two brownfield redevelopment projects in Ann Arbor – at Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall), and 544 Detroit St.; and (2) for the annexation of industrial property from Scio Township into the village of Dexter. And the July 10 meeting will include final consideration of a strategic space plan for Washtenaw County government facilities totaling about $5 million. The proposals, which got initial approval on June 5, include creating a plan to redevelop the Platt Road site where the old juvenile center was located. The redevelopment might entail a mix of uses, including affordable housing.

A range of other items addressed on June 5 included: (1) creating an historic district for the Jarvis Stone School in Salem Township; (2) an update on the county’s Head Start program, which will be falling under control of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District; and (3) resolutions of opposition – one against gun violence and one against the long-range transportation plan of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). The SEMCOG plan calls for expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County. Some commissioners think that funding should be used to repair existing roads and bridges instead.

Court Funding

For several weeks during budget deliberations, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) has expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system.

County commissioners Alicia Ping of Saline (R-District 3) and Dan Smith of Whitmore Lake (R-District 2) at the board’s June 5 meeting.

Unlike other units of county government, which prepare line-item budgets authorized by the county board, the courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] Ping had been absent at that Jan. 19 meeting.

The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

The MOU also covered the community corrections division. However, subsequently oversight of that operation has shifted from the trial court to the sheriff’s office, and is not subject to the lump sum agreement.

The 2011 MOU was signed by Conan Smith, who chaired the board at that time; Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court; and Kirk Tabbey, the 14A District Court’s chief judge.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047. [.pdf of 2013 budget pages with trial court-related amounts highlighted]

The June 5 proposal by Ping, the board’s vice chair, came in the context of the administration’s goal of identifying $6.99 million in structural reductions for the overall 2014 general fund budget. For several weeks, Ping has raised concerns that the courts are treated differently than other county units in the budgeting process. At the board’s May 15, 2013 meeting, for example, she asked to see the history of funding for the courts, saying she was curious about whether the courts had cut in the same way that other county units had cut. “I’d like to know that we’re all in the game together,” she said at the time. [.pdf of historical funding for public safety & justice operations]

No court officials attended the June 5 meeting. Ping’s proposal had not been on the published agenda.

The process for ending the lump-sum agreement is written into the MOU. The term “the Court” is used to refer to all courts covered in the MOU:

13. Modification and Duration – This Agreement may be modified by mutual consent of the parties. This Agreement shall continue indefinitely and may be terminated only upon one year’s written notification by a party to all other parties. The County agrees to include the Court in the modification process relative to any County policies covered by this Agreement.

However, during the board’s June 5 ways & means committee meeting – when Ping brought forward her proposal – the discussion was based on a faulty assumption that the MOU called for a six-month notification process. That assumption influenced the debate, with some commissioners arguing that it was urgent to end the agreement before voting on the next budget. The administration is preparing a new four-year budget from 2014-2017, which will require board approval before Dec. 31, 2013.

The board’s discussion also focused most frequently on the trial court – the county’s largest court – although the MOU covers the 14A District Court and other court-related operations as well.

Court Funding: Ways & Means Committee – Trial Court Software

A court-related item was first mentioned near the beginning of the June 5 ways & means committee meeting, which immediately precedes the board meeting. Board chair Yousef Rabhi reported on the trial court’s efforts to secure new software. Court officials had approached him with a proposed vendor, Rabhi reported, but he had insisted that the court follow the county’s standard procurement process, including issuing an RFP (request for proposals). “This project, in my mind, should not be above [the RFP process],” Rabhi said. “I got pushback from folks saying that we wouldn’t get any other bidders, and that we’d just make a fool of ourselves and that we shouldn’t do the RFP process. But we stuck with it.”

The result of the RFP, Rabhi said, is that the same proposed vendor and the same service came in at a savings of $500,000. [.pdf of bid responses, which are still under evaluation] “I think that it’s a testament to the procurement process that we have,” he said, and that a good process leads to good outcomes.

Rabhi said he wasn’t arguing that the county should go ahead and approve the funding for the trial court’s new system – as that’s a topic that deserves more discussion. The item would be brought to the board at its August meeting, he said.

Court Funding: Ways & Means Committee – Ping’s Proposal

After other items at the ways & means meeting had been dispatched, Alicia Ping announced her intent to make a motion to give notice to the courts to terminate the lump-sum agreement with the county. No other elected official’s office is given a lump sum for its budget, and Ping felt it’s only proper that the board is able to look at everything as a whole – “and not just have a lump of money go to the court and not have any idea where it goes.” It’s especially important, she noted, as the county grapples to cut nearly $7 million from the 2014 budget.

The purpose isn’t necessarily to reduce the courts’ budget, she said. Rather, the board should know where the money is going, since commissioners are ultimately responsible for the entire county budget – including court operations.

Ronnie Peterson wondered if the relationship with the courts has deteriorated to the point that the board or administration isn’t communicating about what’s expected from the courts. Has any attempt been made to enhance that relationship, especially regarding the budget? He was very interested in engaging the chief judge [of the trial court, Donald Shelton], other judges and court administrators on this issue. Peterson said he respected Ping, but he hadn’t been privileged to know that this resolution would be made that night, or why it was being made.

Ping replied that she wasn’t aware of any deterioration in the relationship between the courts and the board. She said she was only proposing the notice of intent to terminate the agreement, saying that the agreement required a six-month notice before it could be ended. [This later proved to be faulty information; the agreement requires a 12-month notification.]

Lloyd Powell, Washtenaw County public defender.

Ping clarified that she didn’t intend to cut $7 million from the court budget. That $7 million figure is the amount of cuts that the county needs to make in its entire general fund budget. The notice, according to the county’s contract with the courts, lets court officials know that the county would like a line-item budget instead of a lump-sum approach. It’s not necessarily to cut the courts’ budget, she reiterated, but only to see where the money is going. “As a body, we are responsible for that money,” she said. Ping noted that the county’s public defender, Lloyd Powell, has reported that his office is doing triple the work now compared to previous years, with a lower budget.

If the board passes this resolution, Peterson replied, “there will be a big question in the minds of those seated in the House of Justice over what happened to their relationship with the board of commissioners.” If the board has an issue with the lump-sum approach, has anyone approached the courts to talk about it? he wondered.

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that the administration has met with court officials about the upcoming budget, as part of the existing budget development process. Everything is on course based on the lump-sum approach, she said.

In that case, Peterson said, it seemed like this resolution was just to send a message to the courts about the board’s interest in discussing this issue – and that the court officials shouldn’t take offense.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. observed that regardless of the vote’s outcome, “tomorrow morning everybody in town will know about it.” His concern is that there hasn’t been discussion about this, and he wanted to schedule a working session on it. His understanding is that the courts are on budget. The board might be starting a fire that they couldn’t put out, he warned, and if the courts aren’t happy, they can hire an attorney that the county will have to pay for. He didn’t necessarily disagree with Ping, but he wouldn’t support her motion until the board has discussed the issue in more detail.

Conan Smith called Ping’s proposal “good government,” and he supported it. There are three branches of government, he noted. At the county level, the board of commissioners is the legislative branch. The board’s only check on those other branches of government – the judiciary, and the administrative branch of elected officials, like the water resources commissioner and sheriff – is “the power of the purse,” he said, and the ability to establish a budget. “When we approve a lump-sum budget, we abrogate that responsibility and we surrender that duty to other people. I don’t think that comports with our process of checks and balances.”

C. Smith pointed out that he had proposed pulling out of the lump-sum agreement in the past, when he was chair of the ways & means committee and again when he served as board chair. [Details of that history are included in The Chronicle's Jan. 19, 2011 meeting report.] He said he had struggled with the courts over it, in terms of getting them to understand how their budget impacts the systemic operations of the entire county. It’s appropriate for the board to have line-item authority over all of the county’s units, including the judiciary, he said.

In addition, it’s not a practice that’s out of line with the custom throughout the court system, C. Smith noted. The Michigan legislature approves line-item budgets for the state courts, and appropriates funding for specific programs, like the drug court. The legislature sets its priorities, via those budgets, he said, “and it’s the same thing for us.” If county commissioners believe that a drug court should be a priority, then they should articulate that in the courts’ budget and have the confidence that taxpayer dollars are being spent on that. “For me, it is a good governance question more than anything else.”

Dan Smith responded to the issue of timing, stating that the current agreement requires a six-month notice of intent to terminate. Just because commissioners give notice doesn’t mean they will end up terminating the lump-sum approach, he said. But if they don’t give notice, they have no options. By acting on it that night, they’ll keep their options open.

D. Smith also noted that this funding system has been put in place by the state legislature. The county board is responsible to allocate funding for county services, including the courts. He agreed with C. Smith that a lump-sum agreement abrogates that responsibility. He wasn’t saying that this was the best system. He thought the courts and many boards of commissioners across Michigan would like to handle it differently. A lot of people would be happy if the state legislature would take over funding of the courts, “and this body would not be in the middle of running the courts,” he said. However, “that is not where things are today.”

D. Smith reported that House Bill 4704 of 2013 had recently passed the state House of Representatives. It changes some of the county budget procedures, he noted. He read aloud a relevant portion of the bill, which states that the county budget “is presumed to fund those activities of a county mandated by law at a serviceable level.” The bill addresses ways to appeal those funding decisions, including mediation, and calls for any formal appeal to be handled by the state court of appeals, not the county circuit court. It appears to shift the balance, he said, adding that he isn’t intending to fire a shot across the bow of the courts and judges. But the board needs to keep its options open as they’re looking at a $7 million shortfall, he added, and there’s a huge pot of money that’s given to the courts “with essentially no oversight.”

County board chair Yousef Rabhi of Ann Arbor (D-District 8). In the background is county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Yousef Rabhi spoke next, saying he wasn’t expecting this proposal to come forward that night. It had been discussed in the past, he noted, and he agreed that oversight was important. The lump-sum agreement might not be the best way to accomplish that. But he also believes in process, Rabhi said, and as board chair he felt his duty is to lead the county as a whole. “This action could have significant ramifications on our relationship with the courts, so I want to make sure that we’re understanding the full context of the action that we’re taking today.”

He asked McDaniel to talk about the history of the county’s relationship with the courts, particularly in terms of oversight and consistency. How are the courts treated, compared to other county units? What oversight does the board have?

When McDaniel indicated some uncertainty in responding, Rabhi said that in the absence of that information, he felt the board shouldn’t act on the proposal. He agreed in concept that the board needs more oversight of the courts, but commissioners need more information. They need a process in order to vet the idea and properly discuss it with court officials. The board needs to lead the county in a way that doesn’t alienate its partners, he said. Rabhi hoped commissioners would vote to postpone it so that they could discuss it at a working session. He said he was open to changing his mind, but that was his initial response.

Felicia Brabec noted that the board does have a process for addressing issues like this, and it begins at a working session. Resolutions are then brought forward for an initial vote at a ways & means committee meeting, she said, and then for a final vote at the regular board meeting. That process seems solid to her. She felt like she was being asked to make a decision without that process, having heard about it just that evening.

Pointing out that Rabhi had indicated he might change his mind, Conan Smith raised the issue of a four-year budget, which the board has authorized the administration to develop. Doing a lump sum for four years “makes me highly uncomfortable,” C. Smith said. He’s supportive of the four-year budget process because the board has strong control over the budget’s line items. But that’s not the case with the courts.

C. Smith also reiterated the point that the board wouldn’t be making a decision about the lump-sum budget itself. Commissioners are just making sure they have that option later in the year. This is simply starting the process. “If we don’t do it, then we’re hamstrung.”

Peterson moved to postpone initial action on the item until the board’s July 10 ways & means committee meeting.

Outcome on motion to postpone initial action: The motion failed on a 4-5 vote, with support only from Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Discussion continued.

Dan Smith argued that if commissioners wait until July to notify the courts, they’ll miss their window on this option and won’t have the option to eliminate the lump sum by the end of the year, when the budget must be adopted.

Ping compared her proposal to the board’s proposal to issue a notice of intent to bond. That notice of intent doesn’t mean the board will decide to issue bonds – it just provides that option, she said. The same is true with her proposal to notify the courts. Ping pointed out that she asked for a 10-year funding history of the courts about six weeks ago, and she raised the issue again at the board’s budget retreat in May. “Maybe nobody took it seriously up until I made this resolution,” she said, “but I have been talking about this for six weeks.”

She also was uncomfortable with a four-year lump-sum budget for the courts, given that there’s uncertainty about whether some of the courts will remain open, she noted. “If that budget’s in place, the money goes – whether they need it or not,” she said.

Sizemore noted that several commissioners had referred to a four-year budget, as though the board has decided to adopt a four-year budget. Perhaps they should revert to a two-year budget cycle, he said, which could give the board more control. [At its May 1, 2013 meeting, the board authorized McDaniel to develop a four-year budget process. However, the board is only required by state law to adopt the budget one year at a time. For several years, the county has worked on a two-year budget planning cycle.]

Washtenaw County commissioner Ronnie Peterson of Ypsilanti (D-District 6).

Peterson said he fully understood Ping’s intent. But for him, it’s a matter of respect for the courts. If at any time commissioners felt that they needed to discuss the lump-sum budget with the chief judge and court administrator, “we should have done that.” As he has in the past, Peterson expressed concerns about adopting a four-year budget. He felt that the courts were very accountable and responsive. The board can ask the courts for a line-item report of its expenditures, he noted – so there are already checks and balances in place.

The courts had wanted flexibility in spending their budget, and that request had been mediated years ago, resulting in a lump-sum agreement, Peterson said. And if commissioners had wanted to send a notice to the courts to terminate that agreement, they should have acted in January, he argued. Peterson felt the board itself hadn’t been very accountable regarding the $345 million bond proposal. “So as we blast others, let’s prepare to take a few pellets ourselves.”

Conan Smith agreed that the board has the right to ask the courts for detailed budget information. But in his experience, when he was chair of the ways & means committee and was dealing with a proposed $30 million deficit a few years ago, he said, the courts weren’t very forthcoming with information, including detailed projections. “It was extraordinarily frustrating,” he said.

Also, C. Smith added, “it shouldn’t be about asking – it should be about telling.” It’s the duty of the legislative body to determine how the county’s budget is allocated. He felt the board has an obligation to set the line items, telling the courts – by way of funding – what the board’s priorities are. That’s different from asking the court to inform the board about how a lump-sum budget is being spent, he noted.

Rabhi asked McDaniel to explain the purpose of a lump-sum agreement. She talked generally about the elements in the agreement, not the motivation behind it. She described it as “not a very detailed document” that spells out the powers of the county and the courts. Rabhi asked what actions the courts had taken to demand this kind of agreement. McDaniel said she didn’t think the courts demanded it, but that both the county administration and the court officials felt it was a good document to have a clearer understanding about the role of each entity. [In general, members of the judiciary view their operation as a separate unit of government, and believe that their independence should be reflected in the budget process. This is a tension that's not unique to Washtenaw County.]

Rabhi noted that the courts feel very strongly about the lump-sum agreement, so he was trying to understand their perspective. In addition to the oversight issue, he said, as board chair he has an interest in having “a peaceful, well-functioning organization – so I don’t want to make anybody angry in this process.” He acknowledged that people will likely be mad now that the discussion is already taking place.

He observed that Ping and other supporters of her proposal view it as the start of a process. If it passed, he hoped that commissioners would engage the board in that process and not go into it with the preconceived notion that the lump-sum agreement will be eliminated.

Andy LaBarre called the question, a procedural move meant to force a vote.

Outcome on calling the question: On a voice vote, the board unanimously agreed to call the question.

Outcome on initial vote to send a notice of termination: The item passed on a 5-4 vote, with support from Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Alicia Ping, Conan Smith and Dan Smith. Voting in dissent were Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Dan Smith then moved to forward the item to the board’s regular meeting that same night.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, explained that in a procedural motion like this, only five votes are needed to move the item to the board meeting. However, the vote at the board meeting would then need six votes in order to pass – a two-thirds majority.

Responding to a query from Rabhi, Hedger said if the board doesn’t take a final vote that night, the item would be moved to the board’s July 10 agenda. A six-month notice approved on July 10 would push the earliest termination date into January 2014. Hedger noted that the board can act at any time, saying a decision doesn’t need to be tied to the budget process. However, it would mean that negotiations with the courts would begin almost immediately after their 2014 budget had been approved.

In that case, Rabhi said, he’d support moving it to the board meeting that night for a final vote.

From left: Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. of Ypsilanti Township (D-District 5).

Peterson wanted to assure commissioners that the courts wouldn’t “roll over” on this issue. He felt the courts would ask for mediation. “This board may speak,” he said, “but you will not have the last word.”

Peterson argued that because the county pays all the bills, anyone can find out how the courts spend their lump-sum budget. Even with a line-item budget, he said, the only way to know if the courts – or any department – spent the money in the way it was allocated is to contact the finance department. The main issue is whether the budget for the courts is an appropriate amount – whether it’s given as a lump sum, or as a line-item budget. But if commissioners think they’ll be able to “rope in” the courts with a line-item budget, “you’re dreaming,” Peterson said. He couldn’t believe they’d wasted so much time discussing it, when they should have simply dispatched the county administrator to talk with court officials. “It’s not your job to be watchdogs of the court system …” he said.

Kent Martinez-Kratz noted that his constituents are asking about the $345 million bond proposal, and residents want every rock turned over regarding the budget. It might be grandiose to think that the county board can influence the court system, he said. But he didn’t think that creating an open and transparent budget for the courts is asking too much. As he asks his constituents to consider this bond proposal, he’s also asking the courts to produce a transparent budget. He thought his constituents would support that, too.

Brabec said she was struggling, because the board doesn’t know what the implications are. She agreed with the points on oversight and transparency. But they don’t know what unintended consequences this action might cause, because it’s so rushed.

Rabhi called the question.

Outcome on calling the question: It was approved on a unanimous voice vote.

Outcome on vote to move the item forward to the board meeting that same evening: The motion was approved on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Court Funding: Regular Board Meeting

During the board meeting that immediately followed the ways & means committee meeting, Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked about the notification timeline. Curtis Hedger reported that during a break between the two meetings, he’d looked at the memorandum of understanding. It actually states that a 12-month period of notification is required, not six months. So if the board approves giving notice that night, the agreement couldn’t be terminated until June of 2014. “So it is a bit of a difference than what we discussed at ways & means,” Hedger said.

Sizemore observed that the board spent an hour discussing something that doesn’t matter now, in terms of the budgeting process. “I’m not going to comment on that,” Hedger replied.

Ronnie Peterson asked that the lump-sum item be separated out from the other agenda votes, so that the board could discuss it further. He criticized the fact that the board acted on a resolution when they didn’t know all the facts. He wanted to make sure people knew he hadn’t been part of that, saying he had a different style of communication. He hoped to reach out to court officials in a different way, and to make sure they knew that the $7 million in cuts to the county budget “does not rest with the court.”

Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9).

Conan Smith noted that the six month difference is significant in terms of timing, but it’s not significant in terms of the philosophical underpinning of whether to have a lump-sum agreement. Technically, the board could adopt a lump-sum budget for the first six months of 2014, then move into a line-item approach for the second six months. “It’s completely doable,” he said. The board gives up far too much authority over line-item expenditures in exchange for “peace in the valley,” he said. “I want to see something different.”

Alicia Ping said she thought of it as being six months early for the 2015 budget, rather than six months late for 2014. She supported C. Smith’s idea of doing a lump sum for the first six months of 2014, followed by a line-item budget.

Ping also pointed out that she in no way insinuated that she wanted to balance the county’s budget cuts on the back of the courts. “I never said that,” she noted, adding that in fact she had suggested the courts’ budget might not change at all, in terms of the amount. The request for a line-item approach isn’t out of line at all, she said. “I answer to the people in my district, the taxpayers. I don’t answer to the courts.”

Peterson noted that nothing mandates the courts to negotiate with the county, as long as there’s a signed agreement [the memorandum of understanding]. The only reason he could imagine that this was being brought up now is to save face, given that the 2014 budget “is $7 million out of whack.” The only thing that the county can do at this point is to ask the courts to cooperate and help address the deficit, he said.

But if the intent is for the board to manage the courts’ budget, that’s a very different discussion, Peterson said. “Those are two separate issues.” When the board can’t even narrow down its budget, he didn’t know how commissioners could presume to control the court system’s budget. The board hasn’t balanced its budget in a long time without using reserves or employee furlough days and other concessions, he said. What’s more, they’re now in a position to need to borrow $345 million to cover their retiree obligations, he noted. Peterson wasn’t interested in managing the judicial system’s budget. “We have our hands full.”

As chair of the board’s working session, Andy LaBarre said he hoped to diffuse some of the tension by rearranging the working session schedule to bump up this topic. Regarding the charge that the board had wasted an hour on this discussion, he quipped, “folks would say that’s not the first time, and sadly they would not be wrong.”

LaBarre observed that everyone is trying to address how to do things differently, given that they face an entirely new set of challenges. They need to understand where every dollar is going so that when they pass the budget, they can make the case to citizens that they’ve had a full discussion and it’s been well considered.

LaBarre also noted that the working session topics have been good, but attendance at those sessions “is not always as good as the volume of ideas that are brought forward for them.” He’s happy to move the topic up in the queue of working session schedules. “All I’d ask is that we come and have a full discussion with a full caucus.”

Yousef Rabhi described himself as conflicted on this issue. Accountability and transparency are very important, so he appreciated that Ping introduced this topic. But from a process and courtesy standpoint, the board is a partner with the court system, he said. The courts have helped balance the county’s budget, and the board needs to be respectful of that. He didn’t want to create a confrontational atmosphere, adding “I know some of that has already been done.”

County commissioner Andy LaBarre of Ann Arbor (D-District 7).

In light of the longer one-year notice requirement, Rabhi said he’d like to postpone the item until the board’s July 10 meeting. Commissioners need to engage in a dialogue with court officials, he said. “Otherwise, it could lead down a very ugly path and one that I don’t want to go down. It’s going to be an interesting summer, one way or another.”

With that, Rabhi moved to postpone the item until July 10.

Dan Smith opposed postponement. He posited that this is exactly how the process is supposed to work. The board is a public body, he noted, and a motion was brought forward at a public meeting for a vote. This is the beginning of a 12- or 13-month conversation. At the end, the board might decide to continue with a lump-sum approach. But they can’t have that discussion unless they give notice to the courts. “I see no value in waiting another month to have a 13-month discussion versus a 12-month discussion,” he said.

Rabhi stressed that he appreciated that Ping had started the discussion. He noted that the board rules call for introducing an item at the ways & means meeting, then waiting until the board meeting two weeks later for a final vote. The board rules allow for a process to handle it in one night, but it’s more common to do it on different nights. That’s why he’s comfortable postponing the item until July, Rabhi said.

D. Smith noted that during the summer months, the board meets only once a month. It’s typical during the summer for the board to handle all agenda items by taking both an initial and final vote on the same evening.

Outcome on postponing until July 10: The board voted 6-3 to postpone, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Kent Martinez-Kratz and Dan Smith.

Bond Proposal

Aside from the unanticipated court budget discussion, the major item on the June 5 agenda concerned the proposed bond issue to cover the county’s retiree obligations. The meeting included the first of two public hearings on the potential $345 million bond proposal. A second hearing is scheduled for July 10, when the board will likely take action on the proposal.

The proposed bond issue of up to $345 million, the largest in the county’s history, is intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations from the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) – the defined benefit pension and retiree healthcare plans. Those plans will be closed to employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014.

The proposal had first been mentioned publicly in mid-April, though the administration has been working on it since November of 2012, and commissioners had discussed it in closed session earlier this year as part of the county’s negotiations for new labor contracts. For background, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board Debates $345M Bond Proposal” and “County Budget, Bonding Decisions Loom.”

The original plan called for taking an initial vote on May 15 authorizing the publication of a “notice of intent” for the bond issue, with final approval on June 5. Responding to concerns about the speed at which the process was moving – without the opportunity for sufficient public input – board chair Yousef Rabhi pushed back the timetable. Now, it’s expected that a resolution to issue the notice of intent will come before the board on July 10 for initial – and possibly final – approval. This is a standard step in the bonding process, letting residents know that they have 45 days during which they can circulate petitions to require a vote of the people before any bonds are issued.

The board scheduled a working session on June 6 focused on the bond proposal. Participating in the session were: Jens Stephan, accounting professor at Eastern Michigan University; John Axe, the county’s bond counsel; and Larry Langer of Buck Consultants LLC.

In addition, other forums for public input are scheduled:

• Saturday, June 15: 4-6 p.m. “Bonding over Coffee” with Yousef Rabhi at Espresso Royale, 214 S. Main St., Ann Arbor.
• Wednesday, June 26: 4-6 p.m. “Bonding over Coffee” with Yousef Rabhi at Caribou Coffee, 1423 E. Stadium Blvd. (corner of Packard and Stadium).
• Thursday, June 27: 4:30 p.m., public forum with county administrator Verna McDaniel at the Learning Resource Center, Room A, 4135 Washtenaw Ave., Ann Arbor.

Bond Proposal: Public Hearing & Public Commentary

Four people spoke at the June 5 public hearing.

Doug Smith spoke in strong opposition to the bonding proposal – both during the public hearing, and during the general public commentary. In addition to paying $239 million in interest, the move would downgrade the county’s bond rating, he argued, which means that every dollar that’s borrowed in the next 25 years will cost more in interest. It’s a very expensive way to kick the can down the road. He noted that the alternative put forward is to cut jobs. He suggested that cutting the overtime of the sheriff’s secretary would equate to more than a full-time employee. The county should find cuts in its budget long before it borrows money, Smith said.

From left: Former county commissioner Wes Prater and current commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz of Chelsea (D-District 1).

Smith wondered how borrowing money, which the county would have to pay interest on, is somehow going to solve the county’s problems. He said he didn’t quite understand what the county was doing. There’s no revenue associated with the bonding, he noted – it’s not like building something that will generate money to help pay off the bond. At minimum, he suggested, the county should take a variety of approaches, including budget cuts and tax increase. There needs to be a combination to avoid putting the county $600 million worth in debt, he concluded.

Thomas Partridge said it was unjust, unfair and anti-democratic that the county had presented only one plan. He pointed out that the county has additional time to look at this issue, and that there are other options – including the option of putting a millage on the ballot to pay for these retiree obligations. Partridge called that a good alternative. Another option is to tighten the county’s budget even further, and downsize the county services, but that’s too much in line with Mitt Romney, he said.

Kathy Fojtik Stroud recommended that the board investigate the possibility of a new millage. She said the gossip in her neighborhood was that the board would put a millage proposal on the ballot to pay for these retiree obligations. It would give the citizens an opportunity to vote on it.

Wes Prater started by thanking the board and staff for slowing down the process, and for bringing in experts to discuss the issue. It was a wise thing to do, he said. He asked about the timing of the new actuarial reports – when would those be completed? If they don’t have those reports, how can they make an informed decision? He argued that the legislation that enabled this type of bond sale hadn’t been created with sufficient research. Other than this particular exception to bond for retiree obligations, Michigan’s municipal finance act only allows for bonding to fund capital improvements without a vote of the people, he said. More research is needed, he concluded.

Bond Proposal: Communications & Discussion

During the county administrator’s report, Verna McDaniel said she’d been communicating about the bond proposal with township officials, county employees and the public.

Felicia Brabec, chair of the board’s ways & means committee, reviewed activity related to developing a four-year budget for the county, from 2014-2017, including outreach efforts for the bond proposal. She laid out the timeline for items coming before the board that relate to the bond proposal. Action on July 10 will include:

• Vote on a “notice of intent” to issue the bonds. This is a standard initial step in the bonding process, letting residents know that they have 45 days during which they can circulate petitions to require a vote of the people before any bonds are issued.
• Vote the bond resolution and “continuing disclosure” resolution. The board will be asked to set a maximum amount for the bond. The continuing disclosure resolution is standard for all bond issues over $1 million, and indicates that the county will provide updated financial information annually during the term of the bond.
• Vote to create an intermediate trust. The trust will receive the bond proceeds, and trustees will be appointed to oversee the money managers that will be hired to handle the investments.

Brabec said that if these items receive initial approval on July 10, they’ll be forwarded for a final vote at a special board meeting set for July 24. [It's also possible for the board to decide to take a final vote on the items that same night.]

Felicia Brabec of Pittsfield Township (D-District 4) is chair of the county board’s ways & means committee.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi highlighted his “Bonding over Coffee” meetings in Ann Arbor. Rolland Sizemore Jr. wanted someone to hold a similar session on the east side of the county. Rabhi noted that he had scheduled his coffee hours to make it convenient for constituents in his Ann Arbor district – and that’s why the sessions were located in Ann Arbor, not elsewhere in the county. Rabhi wondered if McDaniel’s June 27 public meeting at the Learning Resource Center, just east of Carpenter Road, was far enough east to serve resident on that side of the county. Sizemore indicated that the LRC meeting would suffice.

Alicia Ping also put in a request to hold a public forum on the county’s west side, saying that she and Kent Martinez-Kratz – who represent districts in southwest and west Washtenaw, respectively – would appreciate it. McDaniel agreed to set something up.

Later in the meeting, Sizemore complained that he has asked the administration for alternatives to the $345 million bond proposal, but none have been presented. He suggested that there are other budget items that could be cut, such as overtime or providing less expensive cars to employees.

Sizemore also wanted the administration to provide a summary that would “dummy down” the proposal to make it easier for commissioners and the public to understand.

Ronnie Peterson wondered if the county would be borrowing more than the amount of its pension and retiree health care obligations. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that it isn’t legally possible to bond for more than the amount of those obligations. However, the amount won’t be known until the actuarial reports are completed in late June. Hedger noted that the bond counsel and financial consultant had been very conservative when they estimated that the county would need up to $345 million. The administration is hoping that the actual amount will be lower than that.

Peterson also asked where the money would come from to make the bond payments. County administrator Verna McDaniel answered in a general way, saying the funds would come from monies that the county already collects, as well as from the bond proceeds. Each department will make a contribution to those obligations, she said. Those amounts will be reflected in the budget, starting in 2014. Peterson said he wanted to make sure the county would be able to meet its obligations, without any massive reduction in services or layoffs. He wanted everyone to understand clearly where those bond payments are coming from.

Conan Smith asked for the amount of the county’s current bond payment for those retiree obligations. McDaniel clarified that the county doesn’t currently have a bond for that, but it does make annual contributions to cover those obligations. The most recent payment was $20 million, she said. Without the bonding, the 2014 payment will be higher, she noted.

C. Smith pointed out that the bond is structured so that annual payments over the 25 years will range from between $12 million and $26 million. But the county’s actuarial contributions might be as high as $30 million a year during that time, he said – that’s what the actuarial study will project. If the county bonds, its payment will show up on the books as a line item for bond payments. If the county doesn’t bond, it will show up as an unfunded liability, he said.

Peterson noted that some of the current payments for retiree obligations are made from federal and state grants that support certain county programs. But over the course of the 25-year bond, there will be possibly 5 or 6 new U.S. presidents, he said, and 4 or 5 new governors. These changing administrations could have an effect, because the county relies so much on federal and state dollars, Peterson said. Only about half of the county’s entire budget is tied to the general fund, he noted. The rest is from federal and state funding, and in that regard the county is at the mercy of other governments. Whenever that funding is reduced, it impacts the county’s ability to make retiree contributions.

Peterson said he was concerned about the county’s ability in the future to make bond payments out of the general fund, if federal and state funding is cut. That could result in massive layoffs, he noted, because the county will be obligated to pay the bond. “This bond will supersede anything else we do,” he said. Referring to the county’s possible shift to a four-year budget cycle, Peterson said he didn’t know how that could work, given the uncertainty of federal and state funding. He said he’s not “throwing bricks” at the administrator – it’s the board’s responsibility.

Commissioners Dan Smith of Whitmore Lake (R-District 2) and Andy LaBarre of Ann Arbor (D-District 7).

Conan Smith thanked Peterson for bringing up this point. He noted that part of the revenue stream for paying off the bond would come from current employees who are in the defined benefit plan, and who are contributing to that plan. So the portion of those employees who are in non-general fund programs – supported by state and federal funding – are less under the county’s control. If that funding is cut, the county would likely need to eliminate those jobs, he said, which in turn will eliminate the contributions that those employees make toward retirement obligations. It’s an element of risk that’s outside the county’s “zone of control,” he said. But that risk declines over time, and is predictable, he added. The county knows the number of employees who are in the plan, and how much they contribute.

C. Smith asked McDaniel if she could provide information about the scope of the risk that Peterson had identified, in case the board decides to develop a contingency plan for the loss of state and federal funding. It’s not an actuarial question, he noted. It’s a matter of identifying the number of employees in non-general fund programs, and how much they would contribute to the bond payment strategy. If all of those employees were to disappear, what would that do to the revenue stream for repaying the bond? he asked.

McDaniel replied that if those jobs are eliminated, some of the retiree obligations will be eliminated too – because not all employees would be vested. C. Smith still wanted to get a sense of what the range of risk might be.

Dan Smith noted that if the county issues bonds and jobs are subsequently eliminated because of a cut in federal or state funding, the obligations for those employees don’t go away – because the county would be repaying the bonds, not the retiree obligations. The only opportunity to discharge that obligation is when the bonds are called. “The fact that we have issued bonds makes all these liabilities – these soft liabilities – it turns them into a real hard honest-to-goodness liabilities that we must pay.” Those bond payments must be made on schedule, he said, no matter what.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. The board is expected to take action on the bond proposal – and to hold another public hearing – at its July 10 meeting.

Facilities Plan

A strategic space plan was on the June 5 agenda for initial approval, laying out a range of infrastructure projects for Washtenaw County government facilities totaling about $5 million. The proposals include redeveloping the Platt Road site where the old juvenile center was located.

Projects include:

• Demolish the former juvenile center and explore redeveloping the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road in Ann Arbor for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices.
• At 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor, consolidate the land records from the building’s lower level to the 1st floor, and remodel the lower level to accommodate administrative offices.
• At 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor, repurpose space in the garden level, including redesigning conference room space.
• At 110 N. Fourth in Ann Arbor (known as the Annex), relocate the Office of Community and Economic Development, Office of Infrastructure Management, and the Public Defender’s office to other leased and county-owned space. For example, the Public Defender’s office will be relocated to the City Center building at the southwest corner of Fifth & Huron.
• At the county’s service center near Washtenaw and Hogback, redesign the Learning Resource Center (LRC) as a full conference center, providing county-owned space for large and small meetings. Also, make parking improvements, including adding 110 new spaces, rebuilding the lot between the LRC and the courthouse, and resurfacing the entry drive off of Hogback.
• At a location to be determined, develop a specialty vehicle storage facility for the sheriff’s office and other departments.

According to Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, no general fund dollars will be used for the projects, which are estimated to cost about $5 million.

Greg Dill, Washtenaw County’s infrastructure management director.

Funding will come from several sources: (1) $1 million from the 1/8th mill fund balance; (2) $650,000 from the facilities operations & maintenance fund balance; (3) $650,000 from the Office of Community & Economic Development reserves; (4) $500,000 from the tech plan fund balance; and (5) $2.2 million from the county’s capital reserves. Dill had briefed commissioners on the plan at a March 20, 2013 working session.

In addition to the projects listed above, other changes will be made to accommodate the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) unit, which provides contract services to the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). The WCHO will pay for that facilities work, including moving the entire Adult MI program staff to the Annex at 110 N. Fourth; repurposing vacated space at 2140 Ellsworth for Youth and Family Services; and relocating all “service delivery” units to the 1st floor of the Towner II building at 555 Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Facilities Plan: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked about the amount of funding provided by OCED, and confirmed with Greg Dill that it was an estimate for moving costs. If the move doesn’t cost that much, she asked, what happens with the extra funds?

Dill replied that the entire plan is based on initial estimates. The staff will make adjustments as the projects move forward, and if the cost for OCED is less than estimated, the money will return to the OCED reserves.

Most of the remaining board discussion focused on the Platt Road property. Conan Smith asked Dill to talk about the process of developing a plan for that site.

The first phase is to demolish the buildings on the property, Dill explained. The county had issued an RFP (request for proposals) and is now in the process of selecting a firm for that work. The second phase would be developing a plan for the site. Dill said he’s had several conversations with board chair Yousef Rabhi about that, including the likelihood of a steering committee to guide the process. Dill expected that he’d return to the board later this year with an updated proposal for that site.

In response to a query from Ronnie Peterson, Dill described the plan for Platt Road as still very early in the process. The staff first wanted to get the space plan approved and the funding settled, he said. Then there would be discussion about who should serve on the Platt Road steering committee and what their charge should be. Dill planned to work with Rabhi on that, but it would be brought back to the board for action.

Rabhi added that Andy LaBarre would be involved as well, since the site is in District 7, which is represented by LaBarre. Rabhi noted that LaBarre is interested in engaging neighbors and others in that area about the site’s future.

Peterson thanked Rabhi for the information, adding that “I wish I was invited to more things that happen in my district.” A lot of county activity happens in his district and in Rolland Sizemore Jr.’s district, Peterson said, “and I sometimes read it in the newspaper.” [Sizemore and Peterson represent districts 5 and 6, respectively, primarily covering Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.]

Peterson said it seemed the Platt Road property might be put up for sale, because the space plan indicated affordable housing on the site. But “we’re not in the housing business,” he said. Peterson felt that the resolution before the board that night was indicating an intent to sell. Dill replied that a decision to sell hasn’t been determined. The only action that the board would be taking that night was to demolish the two structures on the site.

Before the July 10 final vote, Peterson wanted to know exactly where the funding for the overall plan would be coming from, and how much would remain in the fund balances and reserves.

Sizemore wanted more detail about the specific projects, like how much the demolition of the Platt Road buildings would cost. Dill offered to prepare a supplemental document with that information. Sizemore complimented Dill and his staff for their work on the Platt Road property, saying that he enjoyed seeing community gardens there.

In general, Sizemore expressed his view that the county doesn’t need new buildings, so he wouldn’t support any plan that included building new offices. He noted that there are vacant school buildings that might be available for use in certain parts of the county.

Sizemore also urged Dill to find opportunities to involve youth. Dill replied that his staff looks for opportunities for job shadowing and other youth involvement in every aspect of the county’s operation, not just this space plan. Sizemore acknowledged that Dill has been helpful in that regard. He also noted that the Washtenaw International High School is looking for summer internship opportunities.

Conan Smith recalled the lengthy discussion on the overall space plan that was held at the board’s March 20, 2013 working session, saying that he had the materials from that session. He wondered if there was another document that articulates the strategic infrastructure plan. Dill indicated that the same materials from the working session were the basis for the current plan.

Smith then noted that in the conversations he’s had with Dill, they hadn’t talked about divesting the Platt Road property. “We have not talked about that,” Dill confirmed. “Of course that is a decision that this body will undertake. We made no plans for the disposal of that property, except to get a formal appraisal of the site.”

Smith also confirmed with Dill that the vote being taken that night was to approve a planning process for the site, as well as demolition of the buildings.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave initial approval to the facilities space plan, with a final vote expected on July 10.

Millage Rates

The board had given initial approval on May 15, 2013 to set Washtenaw County’s 2013 general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. The item was on the June 5 agenda for a final vote.

Several other county millages were part of the same resolution and are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (0.2353 mills and 0.2367 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2012.

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

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

Millage Rates: Public Hearing

The only speaker at a public hearing on the millage rates was Thomas Partridge. He said the millage revenues were insufficient to provide for the needs of county residents. The board has been bereft of ideas to support affordable housing, public transportation, health care and other needs, he said. He suggested proposing a Headlee override.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board gave final approval to set the county’s millage rates.

Gun Violence Awareness

Commissioners were asked to pass a resolution declaring June 2013 as Gun and Societal Violence Awareness Month.

The resolution stated that the board “supports President Barack Obama’s continued efforts to reduce gun violence through enhanced background checks, restricted sales of some types of ammunition and high capacity magazines; and … further supports the reduction of societal violence through the development of proactive programs that will educate citizens on non-violent conflict resolution and allow physicians to prevent firearm and other violence related injuries through health screening, patient counseling, and referral to mental health services for those with behavioral or emotional medical conditions.”

According to county records, applications for concealed pistol licenses in Washtenaw County have increased dramatically so far this year. There were 1,510 applications for the first four months of 2013, compared to 717 applications during the same period in 2012. For the full 12-month period in 2012, the county received 2,153 applications – compared to 546 in 2007. [.pdf of application data from 2004-2013] [.pdf of approved licenses from 2008-2013]

The June 5 resolution was brought forward by board chair Yousef Rabhi and commissioner Conan Smith – both Democrats representing districts in Ann Arbor.

Gun Violence Awareness: Public Commentary

Kathy Fojtik Stroud of Ann Arbor spoke at the beginning of the June 5 meeting, and started by telling commissioners that she had figured out why the boardroom felt smaller – there were only nine commissioners now, compared to previous years when there had been more commissioners. [Redistricting took effect with the 2012 election, reducing the number of Washtenaw County districts from 11 to 9.]

Stroud was speaking on behalf of the Washtenaw County health code appeals board, an appointed body on which she serves. That board had passed a resolution urging county commissioners to pass the resolution in support of reducing gun violence and societal violence. Other groups – including the Interfaith Council on Peace & Justice, a lot of churches and other organizations – are supportive of this action, she said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that Stroud had served on the county board of commissioners in the 1970s, and he appreciated her service.

Gun Violence Awareness: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi highlighted the resolution, noting that there have been some very tragic gun-related deaths in the past few months. He thought that Washtenaw County should take a step in recognizing these acts as horrific, and in recognizing the need for the country to move forward with some sort of reform that can bring an end to this type of violence. He hoped commissioners would support it. There was no further comment from commissioners.

Outcome: The board unanimously passed the gun violence resolution.

SEMCOG Long-Range Plan

Yousef Rabhi also brought forward a resolution opposing the 2040 long-range regional transportation plan developed by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Specifically, he opposes the recommendation to expand I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County.

The resolved clauses stated:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners opposes the inclusion of these highway capacity expansion projects in the 2040 Long-Range Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners requests that funding currently programmed for these capacity projects be redirected to preventive maintenance and rehabilitation of existing roads and bridges, addressing critical safety needs, and enhancing quality of life.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be transmitted to SEMCOG, the Michigan Department of Transportation, and State Senators Randy Richardville and Rebekah Warren, and State Representatives Gretchen Driskell, Jeff Irwin, David Rutledge, and Adam Zemke in advance of SEMCOG’s June 20, 2013, General Assembly meeting.

Rabhi noted that he had raised this issue at the board’s May 15, 2013 meeting. His concerns are social and environmental. The region shouldn’t be building more roads for cars. Instead more alternative forms of transportation should be built. The highway system has already destroyed neighborhoods and impeded economic development in certain areas, and this expansion would only continue that.

A more conservative mindset, Rabhi said, would argue against investing in new infrastructure at a time when governments can’t maintain the existing infrastructure – including a crumbling bridge and road system. At SEMCOG’s executive committee meeting in May, Rabhi said he voted against the long-range plan, and he intends to vote against it at the entity’s general assembly later in June. He believes that both progressive and conservative minds can find reasons to oppose this plan.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wondered how this plan related to the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), of which Washtenaw County is a part. He hoped the board would hold a working session on the RTA soon.

Rabhi explained that since SEMCOG’s funding can’t be used for transit, it doesn’t affect the RTA. It must be used on roads, but it could be used for repair rather than new construction, he said.

Conan Smith said he shared Rabhi’s concerns. The Washtenaw County road commission has a list of unfunded needs totaling $82 million. He criticized the idea that some of those dollars would be used to build new infrastructure at a time when the demand isn’t there, even based on SEMCOG’s own population projections.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the resolution opposing SEMCOG’s long-range regional transportation plan.

Dexter Annexation

Commissioners were asked to set a public hearing for July 10, 2013 regarding the annexation of land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter. Commissioners are expected to vote on the annexation that same night.

According to the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, the annexation of township property into a village is one of the few instances that requires county board approval. Generally, annexation is handled by the individual municipalities where the annexation occurs.

A letter to the county from Dexter village manager Donna Dettling states that the annexation request – for a 16.66-acre property – was made by the property owner, Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. The land is adjacent to the Dexter Business & Research Park, where Dextech hopes to expand. The company is one of Dexter’s largest employers.

On May 13, 2013, the Dexter village council unanimously passed a resolution in support of the annexation. The resolution indicates that although the Scio Township board did not take formal action about the request, there was generally support for the action. [.pdf of communications from Dexter regarding the annexation]

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners set the annexation hearing for July 10.

Jarvis Stone School

The county board was asked to designate Jarvis Stone School in Salem Township as an historic district. The building is a former one-room schoolhouse built in 1857 and located at 7991 North Territorial Road.

Specifically, the board was asked to approve an ordinance that designates the 1.42-acre property as an historic district under the jurisdiction of the Washtenaw County Historic District Commission. [.pdf of proposed ordinance] The property is owned by the Salem Area Historical Society, which uses the school as its headquarters. It would be the second historic district in Salem Township. The first one is Conant Farm on Napier Road.

The Salem Township board had granted a request to consider the property as an historic district in 2011. And at its Oct. 19, 2011 meeting, the county board voted to establish a study committee regarding the request. That report was completed this year. [.pdf of study committee report]

Jarvis Stone School: Public Commentary

Terry Cwik, president of the Salem Area Historical Society, described the process that had been undertaken, calling it a team effort of a volunteer group. Cwik praised two county staff members – Cynthia Christensen and Melissa Milton-Pung – who had provided guidance on developing the final report. About 25-30 people had attended a public meeting in January about this project, giving only positive feedback and input, he said. And the Salem Township board has voted unanimously in support of the ordinance to create the historic district. Cwik hoped that commissioners would make Jarvis Stone School the county’s 13th historic district, and that the county would continue to preserve its past into the future.

Marcia Van Fossen, vice president of the Salem Area Historical Society, also spoke in support of the new district. She noted that a previous member of the county board lives in Salem Township, and she hoped that it would influence the board’s decision to approve the new district. [Van Fossen was alluding to Alma Wheeler Smith, who is also the mother of current county commissioner Conan Smith.]

In responding to Van Fossen’s remarks, Conan Smith quipped: “My mom told me to vote yes.”

Alicia Ping thanked Cwik and Van Fossen for their work, noting that she had served on the Saline Historical District Commission for 11 years. It takes a lot of work to make something like this happen, she said.

Jarvis Stone School: Board Discussion

Conan Smith questioned why this proposal wasn’t first brought forward for initial approval at the board’s ways & means committee meeting, rather than just receiving one final vote at the board meeting that night. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, explained that because the county doesn’t have original jurisdiction over historic districts, this type of resolution has always gone directly to the board meeting. He explained how the process works. First, a local government where the proposed historic district would be located contacts the county, starting the process in motion. The county’s historic district commission studies the proposal, then makes a recommendation to the county board.

Hedger said he’s reviewed all the previous historic districts that the county has created, including Gordon Hall in the Dexter area. The county is simply doing what it’s contractually obligated to do, he said. Although the county is creating a new ordinance, it’s a very specific type of ordinance, outlined in the state enabling legislation for county historical district commissions.

Smith said he was fully supportive of creating the district for Jarvis Stone School, but he was concerned that there hadn’t been sufficient public notice about it. He asked for the opinion of Dan Smith, who represents District 2, where the historic school is located.

Dan Smith replied that he had received emails from Terry Cwik of the Salem Area Historical Society, notifying him that this process was moving forward. D. Smith indicated that others in the community had been contacted as well about the process.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved creating the Jarvis Stone School historic district.

Community Corrections Plan

At their June 5 meeting, commissioners were asked to approve an annual community corrections plan with a $1,042,468 budget for FY 2013-14 – from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. [.pdf of community corrections plan]

The community corrections division is a unit of the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, with an emphasis on programs and services aimed at keeping people out of jail by providing sentencing options for the Washtenaw County trial court – including pre-trial services, drug testing, electronic monitoring, and social education. The funding comes from several sources: (1) $421,900 in state revenue; (2) $260,890 in program-generated fees; (3) $240,983 in appropriations from the county’s general fund; and (4) $118,703 from fund balance.

According to a staff memo, an estimated 99,365 jail bed days were saved in 2012, for an estimated savings of $8.446 million – based on an estimate of $85 per day for incarceration. [.pdf of staff memo]

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave both initial and final approval to the community correction plan.

Brownfield Public Hearings

On the agenda were resolutions to set public hearings for July 10 regarding two brownfield redevelopment projects in Ann Arbor – at Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall), and 544 Detroit St.

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. The project’s site plan received a recommendation for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission on Dec. 18, 2012. Both the site plan and brownfield plan are expected to be on the council’s June 17 agenda, according to city planning manager Wendy Rampson.

For Packard Square, the July 10 hearing relates to a proposed amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development – that grant was later awarded to the project. Demolition is underway, with plans to build more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space at 2502-2568 Packard Street.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing, including underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012.

Outcome: The public hearings for both projects were set for July 10, when the county board will likely take action on both brownfield items. The vote on the Packard Square hearing was unanimous. For the 544 Detroit St. hearing, the board’s two Republican commissioners – Alicia Ping and Dan Smith – cast the only votes of dissent. They did not publicly state their reasons for voting against the hearing on that project. In the past, they and other commissioners have expressed concern about the diversion of property tax revenues through TIF districts. While the Packard Square TIF already exists, the TIF for 544 Detroit would be new.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Head Start

Dan Smith highlighted an item in the claims report related to Head Start. He asked for a brief update on the situation with Head Start. [For the period April 27 through May 17, 2013, a total of $13,014 had been paid in claims related to the Head Start program.]

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that federal officials have begun negotiating with the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) about taking over the local Head Start operation. A notice has been issued to grant WISD the funding to support Head Start, she said. The county has been instructed to negotiate a transfer of assets.

In response to a query from Ronnie Peterson, McDaniel said that leasing the county’s Head Start facility to WISD is probably the best option at this point. Peterson said he was concerned about the location of the Head Start program, and wanted to make sure it stayed close to those who need it most.

By way of background, in 2011 the board voted to relinquish the county’s 46-year administration of the program on July 31, 2012. But the transition to a new administrator – a process overseen by the federal Head Start program – hasn’t moved as quickly as expected. So the county agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the program, through July 31, 2013.

The county-owned Head Start building at 1661 Leforge in Ypsilanti was built in 2003. The 17,500-square-foot building on 10 acres of land is tied to the early childhood program. The county still owes about $2.6 million on the bond for the building, and makes $167,000 in bond payments annually. The bond payment schedule runs through 2022.

Communications & Commentary: County Budget

Felicia Brabec, chair of the board’s ways & means committee, reviewed activity related to developing a four-year budget for the county, from 2014-2017. Most of the update related to the bond proposal, which is reported earlier in this article.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. noted that Dick Fleece, the city’s public health director, plans to retire at the end of 2013. Sizemore felt it might be a good opportunity to review the entire public health department, before filling that position. He suggested scheduling a working session on that topic.

Communications & Commentary: Road Commission

As liaison to the county road commission, Rolland Sizemore Jr. reported that the commission is forming a committee to look at the condition of roads throughout the county. He’ll be serving on that.

Somewhat related, Sizemore – who also serves on the board of the Ypsilanti Area Convention & Visitors Bureau – had copies of a guide that was put out of routes in Washtenaw County for motorcyclists.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke at the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary, in addition to the public hearings reported above. He generally criticized the board for not attending to important issues like affordable housing, public transportation, health care and taking care of the needs of the most vulnerable.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The proposed bond issue of up to $345 million, the largest in the county’s history, is intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations from the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) – the defined benefit pension and retiree healthcare plans. Those plans will be closed to employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014.

The proposal had first been mentioned publicly in mid-April, though the administration has been working on it since November of 2012, and commissioners had discussed it in closed session earlier this year as part of the county’s negotiations for new labor contracts. For background, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board Debates $345M Bond Proposal” and “County Budget, Bonding Decisions Loom.”

The original plan called for taking an initial vote on May 15 authorizing the publication of a “notice of intent” for the bond issue, with final approval on June 5. Responding to concerns about the speed at which the process was moving – without the opportunity for sufficient public input – board chair Yousef Rabhi pushed back the timetable. Now, it’s expected that a resolution to issue the notice of intent will come before the board on July 10 for initial – and possibly final – approval. This is a standard step in the bonding process, letting residents know that they have 45 days during which they can circulate petitions to require a vote of the people before any bonds are issued.

The board is also holding a working session on June 6 focused on the bond proposal. Participating in the session will be: John Axe, the county’s bond counsel; Rowan Miranda, associate vice president for finance at the University of Michigan; Jens Stephan, accounting professor at Eastern Michigan University; and Larry Langer of Buck Consultants LLC. The working session begins at 6 p.m. in the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor.

In addition, other forums for public input are scheduled:

• Saturday, June 15: 4-6 p.m. “Bonding over Coffee” with Yousef Rabhi at Espresso Royale, 214 S. Main St., Ann Arbor.
• Wednesday, June 26: 4-6 p.m. “Bonding over Coffee” with Yousef Rabhi at Caribou Coffee, 1423 E. Stadium Blvd. (corner of Packard and Stadium).
• Thursday, June 27: 4:30 p.m., public forum with county administrator Verna McDaniel at the Learning Resource Center, Room A, 4135 Washtenaw Ave., Ann Arbor.

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

From left: Princess Logan and Monique Franklin, students at Ypsilanti High School, are part of the Young Women Making Washtenaw Better program. Seated behind them is Natalia Harris, community outreach coordinator for the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, which sponsors YWMWB. (Photos by the writer.)

In her state-of-the-county address, county administrator Verna McDaniel set a goal of identifying $6.99 million in structural reductions for the 2014 budget. The approach to addressing this $6.99 million target depends on whether the county moves ahead with a major bond proposal, which would cover the county’s pension and retiree healthcare obligations. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates $345M Bond Proposal."]

If the board decides not to bond for those obligations, McDaniel said that most of the $6.99 million would need to come from a reduction in operating costs, as well as $100,000 in cuts to outside agency funding. Finding the $6.99 million in cuts would be very challenging, she added, given the amount of reductions that have already occurred in the past few years. Serviceability levels and major programs would be affected.

Action related to the bonding proposal – for up to $345 million, the largest ever issued by the county – was originally on the May 15 agenda. But early in the meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi announced a decision to push back the process until the board’s July 10 meeting. He cited the need for more time for public input and additional information – including updated actuarial reports that are due in late June. Public hearings on the proposal are set for June 5 and July 10, with a board working session on the issue scheduled for June 6.

The board also voted to hold a special meeting on July 24, to allow for additional bond-related votes and public commentary, if needed. Rabhi also announced a series of informal meetings at coffee shops in Ann Arbor to discuss the bond proposal with residents. The first “Bonding Over Coffee” will be held on Tuesday, May 28 from 4-6 p.m. in the basement of Elixir Vitae (formerly Café Ambrosia) at 326 Maynard St. in Ann Arbor.

Among the several items that the board is expected to vote on at its July 10 meeting is a “notice of intent” to issue the bonds. This is a standard initial step in the bonding process, letting residents know that they have 45 days during which they can circulate petitions to require a vote of the people before any bonds are issued. Ronnie Peterson reminded commissioners that just a few years ago, a citizens group had gathered enough signatures to force another bond proposal – for expansion of the county jail – onto the ballot, where it was defeated by voters. For the current bond proposal, about 15,000 signatures would be required to force a voter referendum.

In another budget-related item on the May 15 agenda, the board received a first-quarter 2013 briefing. The county’s financial staff is now projecting a $818,999 shortfall for the year – the difference between $102,364,815 in projected general fund revenues and $103,183,814 in projected expenditures. That shortfall is lower than the $3.03 million shortfall that was originally projected for 2013.

The board continued its budget discussion at a retreat on May 16, where they worked to hone priorities for the next four years. This Chronicle report includes a summary of that two-hour session.

In other May 15 action, the board gave initial approval to set the 2013 county general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (0.2353 mills and 0.2367 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2012. A final vote and public hearing is expected on June 5.

The board also passed a resolution expressing support for the state of Michigan to expand the federal Medicaid program, as part of the Affordable Care Act – a measure currently being debated in the state legislature. During deliberations, Dan Smith (R-District 2) voiced his objection to the county weighing in on state issues, but he left the room prior to the vote.

A range of other issues were raised as items of communication by commissioners or during public commentary. Topics included: (1) a corridor improvement authority planned by Pittsfield Township for a section of State Street; and (2) the possibility of renewing the county’s membership in the Michigan Association of Counties.

Bonding Proposal

A resolution authorizing the publication of a “notice of intent” for a major bond issue was originally on the May 15 agenda of the board’s ways & means committee for initial approval. [.pdf of bond resolution on May 15 agenda] The proposed bond issue of up to $345 million, the largest in the county’s history, is intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations from the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) – the defined benefit pension and retiree healthcare plans.

The proposal had first been mentioned publicly in mid-April, though the administration has been working on it since November of 2012, and commissioners had discussed it in closed session earlier this year as part of the county’s negotiations for new labor contracts.

In addition to the notice of intent to issue the bonds, the resolution on the May 15 agenda also would have officially retained Axe & Ecklund as bond counsel for this issue, and Municipal Financial Consultants Inc. (MFCI) as the financial consultant. Axe & Ecklund provides a 15% discount on its fees if the county hires MFCI as the financial consultant. MFCI president Meredith Shanle is Axe’s daughter.

Washtenaw County commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) serves as board chair.

The notice of intent is a standard initial step in the bonding process. It must be published in a “newspaper of general circulation within the county,” letting residents know that they have 45 days during which they can circulate petitions to require a vote of the people before any bonds are issued. The notice must include a maximum amount of the bond issue, a maximum interest rate, and a maximum term for the bonds. Although the proposal previously presented to the board had indicated a 25-year bond term, the resolution regarding a notice of intent specified a maximum term of 30 years.

The amount of the bond issue is an estimate at this point and will not likely be as high as $345 million, according to the county’s bond counsel, John Axe of Axe & Ecklund. To set the specific amount of the bond issue, the county needs updated actuarial information – but those reports won’t be ready until late June.

The board has been briefed on this proposal most recently at a May 2 working session. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates $345M Bond Proposal."] At that time, Axe had indicated a timeline that included giving initial approval to two other bond-related resolutions on May 15, in addition to the notice of intent.

Those other resolutions were: (1) a resolution setting the bond’s maximum amount; and (2) a continuing disclosure resolution that’s standard for all bond issues over $1 million, indicating that the county will provide updated financial information annually during the term of the bond. However, neither of those two other resolutions were on the May 15 agenda when it was made available to the public prior to the meeting.

The bonding is made possible by Michigan’s Public Act 329 of 2012, which the state legislature passed in October of 2012. [.pdf of Public Act 329] The law enables municipalities to issue bonds to cover unfunded accrued pension and retiree healthcare liabilities, but has a sunset of Dec. 31, 2014. The county faces a $30 million contribution toward these obligations in 2014, and is looking for ways to manage that obligation.

The most recent estimates put the county’s maximum retirement obligations at $340.8 million. The board was presented with calculations for borrowing $344 million at an assumed average interest rate of 4%. The county would pay $239 million in interest over the life of the bond, for a total of $583 million in combined interest and principal.

County administrator Verna McDaniel is advocating for this move, in part to make long-term budgeting easier by having predictable bond payments. The bonding is also linked to new 10-year labor deals approved earlier this year, which closed the defined benefit plan to employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. Unless the defined benefit plans were closed, the county would not have been allowed by law to proceed with this type of bonding. However, closing the plans also triggered the dramatic increase in contributions to those plans, which has prompted the bond proposal.

Bonding Proposal: Public Commentary

During the two times for public commentary on May 15, former county commissioner Wes Prater expressed concern about the proposed bonding. He pointed out that the total debt service is estimated at $583 million over 25 years, and that the first 18 months of payment is $25 million for interest only and no principal. Total interest is about $239 million – an average of $9.5 million annually that could be supporting county programs and services, Prater noted. It amounts to about 14% of the county’s tax revenue, just to make interest payments, he said.

Prater also noted that the bond proceeds wouldn’t immediately pay off the pension and retiree healthcare obligations, but would go into an intermediate trust that would make investments using the bond proceeds.

From left: Former county commissioner Wes Prater and current commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

There’s another approach that the county could take, Prater said – a deficit recovery plan. It would require changing some policies and “you’d have to live within your means,” he said, which means the county couldn’t spend more revenue than it takes in. “That’s what this county has been doing for a long, long time.” [Prater had raised the suggestion of a deficit recovery plan at a May 2, 2013 working session of the county board, focused on the bond proposal. At that meeting, Kelly Belknap – the county’s finance director – stated that such a plan is only required for local governments that have fund deficits. She said none of the Washtenaw County funds have a deficit, so there’s no requirement to submit a deficit elimination plan to the state.]

Later in the evening, Prater again addressed the board. He suggested that commissioners put the proposal on the ballot for voters to decide, saying “it would certainly stop the controversy and it would certainly satisfy most everybody that I know of, including myself.” He hoped commissioners would at least talk about the pros and cons of doing that. Whenever the bond proposal is discussed, supporters of it talk about all the positive things, Prater said. No one talks about what would happen if “the market dunks – what happens then? Who’s holding the bag?” It’s a global economy, he noted, with a lot of uncertainty.

Bonding Proposal: Board Discussion – Postponing Notice of Intent

Near the start of the May 15 ways & means committee meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi announced his decision to pull the bond-related resolution from that night’s agenda. He said the schedule for moving ahead with the bonding process had been “aggressive.” Because he believes the public should have a full voice and full access to information, he added, the board had also set an aggressive public engagement schedule. It included a May 13 press conference, as well as a to-be-scheduled public presentation on the issue, and future public hearings, he said.

Despite that, Rabhi noted that there were concerns about the timeline being too aggressive, and the public not having time to consider the information. So in consultation with other commissioners, Rabhi said, he decided it was appropriate to postpone action on the bond’s notice of intent until after the county receives the actuarial report at the end of June.

The resolution will be brought back for consideration at the ways & means committee meeting on July 10. Rabhi stressed that it was not a decision that he made alone. The overwhelming sentiment among commissioners was that the public needs more time to evaluate the information, discuss it, and fully understand its implications. “This is one of the most important issues that we will be dealing with as a board, and perhaps that this board has dealt with for many boards past.” It deserves full consideration by both the board and the community, he said.

Rabhi also stressed that issues underlying the motivation for this bond proposal are real, and must be dealt with. It’s an issue that many other governments face nationwide, he noted. “We must address this issue – it is a critical issue.”

He thanked residents who have contacted the county and given their input already, and he urged people to continue to share their concerns and to not jump to conclusions. “I don’t think that anything is a done deal here,” Rabhi said. “We are discussing this in an honest and open way, and we want your feedback. We want your participation and we want your questions. We want you to understand what we’re looking at and the information we have and the context of the decisions that we have to make.” He urged people to approach the issue with an open mind.

Rabhi, one of the commissioners representing Ann Arbor, also announced a series of coffee hours that he’ll be holding for constituents. Called “Bonding Over Coffee,” the series will start on Tuesday, May 28 from 4-6 p.m. in the basement of Elixir Vitae (formerly Café Ambrosia) at 326 Maynard St. in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of "Bonding Over Coffee" press release]

County commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Later in the meeting, Ronnie Peterson asked about the voter referendum process. If the board issues a notice of intent in early July, and residents are successful in collecting the 15,000 signatures needed to place a bond proposal on the ballot, what’s the earliest election at which that proposal might be put before voters?

Hedger replied that he thought it might be possible to put it on the Nov. 5 ballot, assuming that the notice of intent expires in August. It certainly couldn’t be on the August primary ballot, he said.

Peterson noted that people might think “that this is Ronnie instigating something, but this has happened before.” When the county proposed issuing a bond to fund the expansion of the county jail a few years ago, residents were able to gather the required number of signatures to put the proposal on the ballot in 2005. Voters subsequently defeated the bond proposal at the polls.

It doesn’t take much to get that many signatures, Peterson said. He also noted that commissioners hadn’t received the kind of negative feedback about the jail expansion as they have about the current bond proposal.

Bonding Proposal: Board Discussion – Special Meeting

Rabhi also announced a resolution to set a special meeting on July 24. Typically during the summer months of June, July and August, the board holds only one meeting – on the first Wednesday of those months. The July 24 meeting would give commissioners more opportunity to discuss the bonding proposal and vote on it, he said.

Specifically, the resolution stated that the meeting ”shall be convened to only discuss and vote on the following items: (1) resolution to issue retiree health care and pension bonds; (2) resolution of continuing disclosure related to that bond; and (3) resolution to consider the comprehensive financial plan related to the bond.” [.pdf of resolution setting special meeting on July 24]

Responding to a question from Peterson, Rabhi clarified that at the first meeting in July – on July 10 – commissioners would likely be asked to take an initial vote on these items, with a final vote on July 24. Also on the July 10 agenda would be the notice-of-intent resolution that had been pulled from the May 15 meeting.

Peterson said he appreciated how Rabhi was handling this issue, and noted that he had previously voiced concerns about the process. Peterson stressed that he was committed to honoring the county’s obligations to its retirees. “How do we get there is open for discussion,” he added.

Peterson wondered when the board would receive the documents that they’d be voting on in July. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that documents – including the actuarial reports – would be provided “well in advance” of the July 10 meeting.

Peterson said he didn’t want to “throw a brick through a window,” but he wanted to know when the board would see a copy of the debt retirement schedule. After consulting with Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, McDaniel said the debt schedule would be among the materials provided to commissioners prior to July 10.

Dan Smith also thanked Rabhi for postponing the timetable, and thanked the administration and staff for adjusting their budget development to fit the new timeline. If the board decided to take both initial and final votes on these bond-related issues on July 10, he wondered what the process would be if the board then decided to cancel the July 24 meeting.

Hedger clarified that the board could cancel the July 24 meeting at its July 10 meeting – if a majority of commissioners wanted to do that. Hedger noted that it only takes three commissioners to call a special meeting, according to state law.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) is chair of the county board’s ways & means committee and part of the county’s budget task force.

Peterson wanted to make sure that the public has plenty of opportunity to weigh in prior to a board vote. He hoped there would be at least two formal opportunities for the public to give input to the board.

Hedger replied that it would be possible to do two public hearings – one on June 5, before the actuarial information is received, and another one on July 10. Rabhi indicated that he would like to do that.

Andy LaBarre reported that the board’s June 6 working session will focus on the bonding proposal, and will provide another opportunity for public input and commissioner discussion. [LaBarre chairs the working sessions and sets those agendas.] Rabhi requested that the administration put a list of dates, times and locations on the county’s website, to let the public know when the board would be focusing specifically on the proposal, and what opportunities there would be for public commentary.

Peterson asked if any worst-case scenarios had been developed, to show what the county’s obligations would be if the stock market tanked. The financial consultants hired by the county should show the board “the good, the bad and the ugly,” he said. With only $16 million in general fund reserves, the county doesn’t have a lot of flexibility if things go bad, he added. If he had known the full range of possibilities for his own investments a few years ago, Peterson joked, he would have taken all his money and put it in a mattress. “I’m not instigating tonight,” he added. “I’m advocating.”

Rabhi assured Peterson that those discussions are happening now. He said LaBarre has been asking for that kind of information too, and administration is working on putting that together. Noting that Wes Prater had raised concerns about the county making just interest-only payments in the first years of the bond, Rabhi said the administration is also looking at options for paying down principal in the beginning years, too.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved setting a special meeting on July 24 to handle the bond resolutions. Also set are public hearings related to the bond proposal on June 5 and July 10.

First-Quarter Budget Update

County financial analyst Tina Gavalier gave the first-quarter budget report, for the period from Jan. 1 through March 30, 2013. She began by noting that with just three months of information, it’s still early to tell how finances are trending this year. [.pdf of Gavalier's presentation]

On the revenue side, she reviewed the news – delivered at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting – that property tax revenues will be higher than expected this year, with a surplus of about $2.3 million compared to the original 2013 budget projections. The clerk/register of deeds office is also projecting a surplus of about $254,000 from higher-than-expected real estate transfer taxes and fee revenues. However, the 14A district court is projecting a revenue shortfall of about $297,000, with lower-than-anticipated court fines and fees. New case filings have declined for five consecutive years, she reported.

From left: County finance director Kelly Belknap and finance analyst Tina Gavalier.

Projected expenses are $438,739 more than budgeted, with the largest over-expenditure – of $482,031 – coming from the sheriff’s office for inmate food and medical services, as well as law enforcement operating supplies. The district court is also reporting over-expenditures of $259,000 for overtime and contracts related to magistrate and mediation services. Those over-expenditures are offset by lower expenses from the trial court and support services.

Gavalier also highlighted a projected surplus of about $483,000 from tax appeals and refunds. So far this year, the county has spent about $42,000 for tax appeals and refunds based on board of review and tax tribunal decisions. The budgeted amount for this category is about $1.5 million for 2013.

Overall for 2013, the county’s financial staff is now projecting a $818,999 shortfall for the year – the difference between $102,364,815 in projected general fund revenues and $103,183,814 in projected expenditures. That shortfall is lower than the $3.03 million shortfall that was originally projected for 2013. The county had anticipated covering that $3.03 million by tapping its fund balance, but it’s now expected that the county will need $2.21 million less than that from the fund balance to cover the shortfall. The projected fund balance at the end of 2013 is expected to be about $16 million. [.pdf chart of 2013 budget as of March 30, 2013]

Gavalier told commissioners that the finance staff will be monitoring several items, including the impact of federal sequestration cuts, fringe benefit trends, personal property tax reform, actuarial valuations, and the county’s annual cost allocation plan. The board will get a second-quarter budget update in August.

First-Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Dan Smith thanked the staff and department heads for keeping the budget “not only on track but above track.” Noting that there are three more quarters to go, Smith said the initial trends look good. He highlighted the projected $16 million fund balance by year’s end. Having that kind of fund balance allows the organization to be pro-active in managing its future, he said, rather than reactive.

Ronnie Peterson asked a question about the court budgets, joking that he wasn’t trying to get in trouble with the judges. “Whatever they want, give it to them,” he said. But he wondered how to address the budget fluctuations, especially if the county moves to a four-year budget process. Budgets for the jail, law enforcement and general criminal justice services are “almost uncontrollable,” he said, because those areas are responding to crisis needs. Sometimes the estimates are far off, he noted, and those shortfalls must be made up somehow. He’d rather see a more conservative projection when the budgets are developed.

Peterson contended that $16 million wasn’t a lot for a county the size of Washtenaw to have in reserves. “Any major crisis could make us spend a great portion of that,” he said.

Andy LaBarre asked Gavalier if she saw anything in the first quarter that would be a red flag – something that she hadn’t mentioned in the report, and that commissioners should be aware of. No, Gavalier replied. It’s important to “keep pressure on the organization,” she added, and to continue to monitor and collaborate with each department as the year progresses.

In response to a question from Felicia Brabec regarding the sheriff’s budget, Gavalier said the finance staff looks at expenditures and revenues separately, in reporting shortfalls or surpluses. The variance that she’s reporting is between the budgeted amounts and the first-quarter actual revenues and expenditures, Gavalier explained. When preparing the budget, the staff looks at the previous five years of expenditures to help project future expenses. It’s more difficult to project revenues for each unit, she noted, because that amount depends in large part on the overall county general fund revenue – the largest portion from property taxes. Gavalier added that more detailed budget figures are monitored at the departmental level, compared to what’s presented to the board.

State of the County

The board received a second budget-related update from county administrator Verna McDaniel, as part of developing a four-year budget from 2013 through 2017. [.pdf of McDaniel's presentation] At its May 1, 2013 meeting, the board had approved development of a four-year budget.

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

McDaniel reviewed the county’s current financial foundation, noting that the main guiding principal is fiscal stability. She cited the county’s AA+ rating from credit agencies, the building of its general fund reserves above the board’s policy of 8%, and the organization’s low debt ratio of 0.83% compared to the allowable level of 10%. She highlighted reductions that have been made since 2002, reflecting declines in property tax revenues as well as state shared-revenue funding. Most county departments have been reduced by at least 20% in the past five years, she said.

Unions have made concessions in their contracts, McDaniel added, and non-union employees have seen reductions as well. Personnel accounts for about 67% of the county’s general fund budget, or $65 million. Fringe benefits now equal about 66% of salaries, on average.

She pointed out that the county made $17.5 million in reductions for the 2012 and 2013 budgets, but not all of those were structural.

McDaniel noted that some general fund revenue sources – like property taxes and state revenue-sharing, which is now tied to performance measures – appear to be stabilizing. However, there are other areas of uncertainty, particularly with state and federal funding that support non-general fund programs. Also uncertain is the future of personal property tax replacement revenues. The tax will be phased out starting in 2014 through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for August 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources. It’s unclear what will happen if voters reject that proposal.

On the expenditure side, 72% of general fund dollars support public safety and justice operations. Those areas include the sheriff’s office, trial court, 14A district court, prosecuting attorney’s office, and public defender. About 70% of the county’s services are mandated, she noted, but the county has discretion over how those mandates are fulfilled.

McDaniel outlined key revenue assumptions that the administration is making in developing its budget projections. [.pdf of budget major assumptions] That includes an estimated 1% annual increase in tax revenues, state revenue-sharing reinstated at 75% of its previous levels, and police services contracts increasing by 1% in 2014 and 2015, but showing not increasing in the following two years.

Assumptions on the expenditure side include wage increases of 2% in 2014, 1% in 2015, and 2% in both 2016 and 2017. Fringe benefit packages will be changed for employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014, with defined contribution plans replacing defined benefit plans.

Looking at the period from 2014-2017, McDaniel told the board that she hopes to identify $6.99 million in structural cuts in the first year of that four-year period. [In 2014, the general fund budget is projected to be $107.429 million, according to McDaniel's preliminary report. That does not include the hoped-for $6.99 million in structural cuts.] That $6.99 million represents a slight increase from the $6.88 million in structural changes that McDaniel targeted in her previous budget briefing, delivered at the board’s Jan. 16, 2013 meeting.

If the $6.99 million in structural changes can be identified in that first year, it would eliminate compounded, projected deficits over the four-year period that would otherwise total $34.45 million. [.pdf of 2014-2017 budget estimate] The projections do not factor in a possible major bond proposal that the board is considering.

The approach to addressing this $6.99 million target depends on whether the county moves ahead with the bond proposal, which would cover the county’s pension and retiree healthcare obligations. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates $345M Bond Proposal."] If the board does decide to bond for those obligations, McDaniel said, then the goal in 2014 is to reduce operating costs by $1.83 million, cut $100,000 from outside agency funding, and realize $5.06 million in cost savings from bonding for obligations for the county’s pension and retiree healthcare.

If the board decides not to bond for those obligations, however, then McDaniel said that most of the $6.99 million would need to come from a reduction in operating costs, as well as $100,000 in cuts to outside agency funding. Finding the $6.99 million in cuts would be very challenging, she said, given the amount of reductions that have already occurred in the past few years. Serviceability levels and major programs would be affected.

Both scenarios assume an additional $2.4 million in revenue for 2014. It’s expected that will be achieved primarily from an increase in property tax revenues, as property values in the county climb.

McDaniel told the board that she and her staff need direction in terms of setting priorities and identifying core services. She indicated that the county can no longer provide the broad range of services that it has in the past, and structural changes are still needed.

The strategy to approach these changes includes a continued focus on internal collaboration, looking for alternative ways to deliver services that might generate revenue, and maximizing outside funding whenever possible, McDaniel said. The county needs to talk with community partners to see if there are services provided by the county that can be shifted to others, and to look for services that can be eliminated because the county can’t afford to provide them.

McDaniel also noted that 327 county FTEs now have healthcare benefits that the federal government defines as a “Cadillac plan.” If that remains in place, in 2018 the county will face a 40% federal excise tax on those benefits.

In closing her remarks, McDaniel said the administration will continue meeting with departments to review business plans and define budget targets for 2014-2017, with the goal of providing a budget proposal to the board in September. The coming months will also include town hall meetings with employees.

In seeking direction from the board, McDaniel asked that commissioners consider three questions:

• Do current budget allocations have the impact that commissioners desire?
• Should the general fund respond when there are federal/state revenue reductions in non-general fund programs?
• What community areas (internal and external) should have the greatest impact?

McDaniel told the board that the administration’s approach is to be very conservative. “It is very dangerous to not be conservative,” she said. “If you underestimate the magnitude of the problem, you will have an even bigger problem.”

She also cited the importance of finding structural solutions. If that doesn’t happen, then the board and administration will be facing these same problems year after year, she said. “It’s time for us to face our problems and deal with them effectively.”

State of the County: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec described the situation as daunting. Andy LaBarre, characterizing the presentation as sobering, asked when the county had been at its peak, in terms of employees. Verna McDaniel replied that the county employment levels were highest “just before the economy went bad” in 2008. She noted that 650 current employees – about half of the county’s total workforce of 1,350 – are supported with general fund dollars. Other employees rely on federal and state funding, she said.

From left: County commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2), Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

LaBarre noted that the county isn’t alone – saying cuts have been made statewide. “It just scares the heck out of me to think about more cutting,” he said, adding that employees are there for a reason – to provide services to taxpayers.

Alicia Ping referred to the data point that 72% of the county’s general fund budget is spent on public safety. Ping said it would be helpful to see the history of funding for the trial court and district court, which receive lump sum amounts from the county’s general fund. She was curious about whether the courts had cut in the same way that other county units had cut. “I’d like to know that we’re all in the game together,” Ping said. [The county's finance staff subsequently provided that data: .pdf of historical funding for public safety & justice operations]

Dan Smith asked for elaboration on the fact that fringe benefits equal 66% of salaries, on average. Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, replied that the percentage includes healthcare costs (medical and dental), pension contributions, workers compensation, Social Security and taxes. If someone’s salary is higher, then the percentage for benefits would be lower, she said. For employees with lower salaries, that percentage is higher.

D. Smith also noted that health care costs are estimated to increase 8% annually. Has the county been able to take into account the changes in federal and state law that aim to put downward pressure on healthcare costs? Belknap said that the county is self-insured, though it uses Blue Cross/Blue Shield as a provider. Some changes that the county has made in its healthcare benefits have kept costs down, but she said it’s still too soon to know the impact of federal and state legislation.

McDaniel added that nationally, healthcare costs have been increasing at about 12% annually. The county has been trending at 8% annual increases. “We’ve done some work, and it’s paid off,” she said. At the state level, McDaniel noted, Public Act 152 of 2011 put a cap on the amount that local governments can pay for healthcare benefits. On the federal level, the Affordable Care Act will institute an excise tax on “Cadillac” plans in 2018, she continued, so the county will need to deal with that.

D. Smith highlighted the board’s decision – as part of the negotiated 10-year labor contracts that were approved on March 20, 2013 – to close the county’s defined benefit pension and retiree healthcare plans for employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. The decision to close those plans will result in dramatic increases to the county’s required contributions to those plans in the next few years, which is driving some of the healthcare cost increases, Smith noted. But that had been a board policy decision, he said.

Kent Martinez-Kratz asked whether the line item of “personal services” for the next four years included the upcoming contributions to the pension and retiree healthcare funds. [The line item represents salaries and benefits, and is projected to be $71.68 million in 2014, growing to $77.64 million by 2017.] [.pdf of chart showing budget projections] Finance analyst Tina Gavalier replied that those contributions are factored in, but only for general fund employees. Martinez-Kratz expressed some surprise that the increase per year wouldn’t be higher.

Brabec asked a question related to bonding for pension and retiree healthcare obligations, saying she was trying to understand the implications of that decision. She noted that McDaniel’s presentation had indicated that in the past, there were some county units that hadn’t seen reductions. Brabec asked for more details. McDaniel replied that the prosecuting attorney’s office and equalization department were two areas that haven’t been cut, as examples. “We have to be realistic about where we can cut without just really crippling a department or a service,” she said.

Brabec also asked about another assumption on the expenditure side – an estimated $1.5 million for information technology, with a projected 10% increase. Was that increase annual or over the four-year period? When McDaniel indicated that it was an annual increase, Brabec said it seemed “awfully high.” Gavalier reported that industry standard increases are closer to 20%. The county has IT maintenance contracts on huge systems, McDaniel added, which costs a lot to maintain and operate.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Budget Process Update

During the May 15 meeting, Felicia Brabec – chair of the board’s ways & means committee and a member of the budget task force – gave an update on the budget development process. The county’s finance staff is meeting with departmental staff – those will continue through early July, she said.

Regarding the bonding proposal, a press conference was held on Monday, May 13, she noted. Three members of the media asked questions of bond counsel John Axe and county administrator Verna McDaniel. Brabec reported that she and four other commissioners also attended: Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Andy LaBarre. She said she found it to be very educational.

Brabec noted that the resolution about the notice of intent had been pulled from the May 15 agenda, and the county awaits more information from its actuaries, which is expected to be ready by late June. At the board’s July 10 meeting, there will be several resolutions related to the bond that will be considered for initial approval, including the bond proposal itself and the creation of an intermediate trust. If passed, those resolutions could be considered for a final vote at the board’s special meeting on July 24, or the board could decide to take a final vote at the July 10 meeting, she noted.

May 16, 2013 Board Budget Retreat

During his report as board chair on May 15, Yousef Rabhi reviewed the plan for a second budget retreat the following day. The board had held its first budget retreat on March 7, 2013, where commissioners talked about big picture issues and engaged with other elected officials and department heads, he said. “Now, it’s time to drill down a little bit, to go into detail about what our weighted priorities are.”

Commissioners convened on May 16 at the county’s Learning Resource Center at 4135 Washtenaw Ave., near the county jail complex. The meeting, which was open to the public and videotaped for broadcast on Community Television Network, was attended by seven of the nine county commissioners and about a dozen staff members, including nearly all of the senior administrative staff. Also attending as observers were two of the five countywide elected officials: sheriff Jerry Clayton and prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie.

County administrator Verna McDaniel did not attend, due to a conflict with her daughter’s graduation from George Washington University. The two commissioners who did not attend represent districts in the Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township area: Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

The retreat was facilitated by Lisa Brush, executive director of the nonprofit Stewardship Network. She is also the sister of Andy Brush, who leads the county’s IT unit and was on hand to help with technical support at the retreat. Also attending to help provide support was Mary O’Hare, who facilitated the March 7 retreat. [.pdf of O'Hare's summary from March 7, 2013 retreat]

At the March 7 retreat, commissioners had engaged in a broad discussion of possible areas of investment. O’Hare had provided summaries of five key areas that emerged from that retreat, framed as “success statements”:

• Ensure that Washtenaw County government has a sustainable & effective labor force. What success could look like: (1) Washtenaw County government attracts and retains talented and committed employees; (2) Washtenaw County makes ongoing investments in the professional development and education of its workforce; (3) Washtenaw County develops deep leadership “bench strength” to effectively lead the organization into the future.
• Mobility in Washtenaw County. What success could look like: (1) Washtenaw County has excellent roads, bridges, and related infrastructure to facilitate efficient movement of county residents and local goods and services, and/or; (2) Residents in Washtenaw County can travel easily and affordably throughout the county, using motorized or non-motorized routes and connections.
• Robust economic & workforce development. What success could look like: (1) Washtenaw County has the highest state employment rate, including communities on the eastside, and/or; (2) Entrepreneurs and local businesses have access to capital, talent, and supports needed to grow and thrive, and/or; (3) Housing and transportation costs will be affordable to residents earning less than 80% of the area’s median income, and/or; (4) Washtenaw County has safe and stable neighborhoods, with high rates of homeownership, and/or; (5) Washtenaw County, local communities, and private and corporate partners work together to strengthen the local economy, and/or; (6) All Washtenaw County residents have access to broadband internet connection.
• Ensure a community safety net (health & human services). What success could look like: (1) Washtenaw County residents have ready and affordable access to primary care for mental, oral, and physical health, and/or; (2) Children in Washtenaw County will have access to the care, support, and developmental tools they need to be ready for kindergarten, and/or; (3) Youth in Washtenaw County will graduate from high school, ready for college or career, and/or; (4) Residents of Washtenaw County will be food secure, and/or; (5) Poverty rates throughout Washtenaw County, including on the eastside, will be the lowest in the state, and/or; (6) Low-income residents have access to affordable transportation options.
• Reduce environmental impact. Success could look like: (1) Residents in Washtenaw County can easily travel throughout the county, using motorized or non-motorized routes and connections, preserves, parks and open spaces; and/or, (2) Residents in Washtenaw County can easily access parks, natural areas, and open spaces; and/or, (3) Washtenaw County government will be carbon neutral.

The main exercise at the May 16 retreat entailed commissioners allocating their spending priorities in these five areas. They were given two packets of fake money – one bundle representing the finite amount of revenues in the county’s general fund budget, and another bundle representing revenue from outside sources, such as federal grants or additional taxes. Commissioners were instructed to allocate their dollars into the five priority areas, to indicate how much they’d like to spend on each area. The intent, Lisa Brush explained, is to begin developing a “collective vision” that will help inform budget decisions.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) allocates fake money to indicate her spending priorities, as part of an exercise at the county board’s May 16, 2013 budget retreat.

Some commissioners raised concerns with this approach. Alicia Ping noted that in the category of mobility, there was no way to distinguish her specific priority – widening US-23, for example – with the priority of someone like commissioner Conan Smith, who might want that money to be spent on rail transit.

Ping also wanted to talk about where funding could be cut. She felt the exercise was focused on spending and on non-mandated services, but in fact the board needs to look at mandated services too. The mandated public safety & justice services – including lump sum payments to fund the courts – account for 72% of the general fund budget. Ping said the board needs to look at areas that in the past they’ve funded without question. They need to look at the entire budget, she said.

Dan Smith observed that about 70% of services in the county’s general fund budget are mandated. So the discretionary amount is relatively small. He said some of the things that are important to him – some mandated services that he’d be inclined to spend more money on – aren’t included in the five key areas identified from the previous retreat.

Andy LaBarre suggested that instead of looking at the fake money as funding, the paper could be viewed as “value tokens” that simply indicate how much weight each commissioner gives the five key areas that emerged from the first retreat. Ping replied that for her, those five areas didn’t match up with where she wanted to put her money: “My value bucket is missing from this picture.”

Yousef Rabhi, who as board chair led the planning for the retreat, responded by saying that this session was just another step to help narrow and weight the board’s priorities. It could lead to another retreat, working session, or discussions at a regular board meeting. He suggested that for this exercise, commissioners could write on their extra packet of fake money to indicate that it represented cuts from mandated services, or funding that could be shifted to from mandated to non-mandated priorities.

Commissioners spent the next portion of the retreat making their priority decisions by portioning out their fake money into boxes that represented each of the five key areas from the first retreat. Staff then compiled the results.

Overall, the safety net/human services funding and workforce/economic development categories each received about 30% of the fake money/value tokens. The remaining three categories received the following percentages: maximizing mobility (18%), environmental impact (15%) and effective labor force (8%).

Lisa Brush reported that the extra packets – representing grants, taxes or other revenue sources – were divided roughly in the same way, although about a third of the fake money in that category had been designated by commissioners as “don’t spend.”

Dan Smith reported that his decision was easy, since he didn’t favor funding any new activities. Instead, he put large chunks of his fake money into two categories: (1) workforce/economic development, where he designated it for making the county’s neighborhoods safe; and (2) mobility, where he designated the money for roads.

Conan Smith made an argument for looking at possible new millages, especially for safety net services, where federal funding is in decline, and for roads. The board and administration need to start talking to the community about how much citizens want to invest, he said.

Felicia Brabec wanted to look at how this exercise could translate into the real budgeting process. What would the 30% priority for safety net services look like, as part of the budget? Ping suggested looking at how the existing budget lines up with these key areas. Is the county currently allocating money in the areas that commissioners believe are priorities? It would be interesting to see where the budget is “out of whack” with those priorities, she said. Ping wanted to see numbers attached to the discussion.

From left, standing: Lisa Brush of the Stewardship Network, who facilitated the May 16 retreat, and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development. Seated are Andy Brush, the county’s IT manager, and Mary O’Hare, who facilitated the board’s March 7 retreat. They were compiling results from the board’s priority-setting exercise.

Andy LaBarre continued that thought, saying he’d like to see numbers and scenarios that show him how much “pain” will result from these decisions.

Dan Smith noted that the board is facing $6.99 million in structural reductions for 2014, and there are huge decisions to be made that don’t relate to the priorities they’ve been discussing so far at the retreat. Those structural changes “need to be at the top of our list,” he said.

Brush indicated that the next step would be to identify the outcomes that commissioners would like to see, based on their priorities.

LaBarre stressed the need to get input from the two commissioners who didn’t attend the retreat – Sizemore and Peterson.

Conan Smith advocated for organizing into small committees, structured around the service areas that were formerly known as “communities of interest.” [Those are civic infrastructure, economic development, emergency preparedness and response, health and human services, land use and environment, public safety and justice, and support services.] The committees would consist of a few commissioners and staff, and could develop recommendations to bring to the full board, he said.

Others talked about having an additional retreat or working session discussions. Ping suggested meeting in different parts of the county, to make it easier for citizens to participate. But Conan Smith said he wasn’t interested in another session like this. “We’re not getting down to brass tacks,” he said, adding that it’s not possible for the group of nine commissioners to talk about the entire budget and get anything done.

Conan Smith also recommended that the board review the strategic plans, investment priorities and outcomes that other units of the county – like the sheriff’s office and office of community & economic development – have already developed. He noted that legally, it’s the responsibility of the county administrator to prepare and deliver a budget for the board to consider and approve. He’s heard some commissioners indicate they want a stronger hand in the budget process, but they’re going down a path where soon it will be hard to have a major influence.

Ping agreed with C. Smith. It seems like the budget is developed and brought to the commissioners, then they have only two meetings to make changes and adopt it, she said. Approving the budget is really the only responsibility of the board, she noted. Ping wants a hand in the budget process because otherwise, she said, the only way she can voice her opinion is to vote no on the budget after it’s presented.

C. Smith noted that the other option is to spend those two meeting at the end of the process arguing over $100,000 in a $200 million budget. [He was referring to both the general fund budget of roughly $100 million, as well as the non-general fund portion of the budget.]

Both LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz highlighted the bonding proposal as the other big piece of this year’s budget process that needs to be settled. LaBarre also expressed support for the small committee approach, but said he worried that not all commissioners would participate – or perhaps they all wouldn’t have the chance to participate – and as a result those commissioners might not support the outcome of the process.

LaBarre also said that ultimately he didn’t care what process they used. He just wanted to “get something here that we can really chew on.” It’s helpful to talk about priorities, he added, but now it’s time to see some hard numbers.

In wrapping up the retreat, Rabhi noted that in the past, the chair of the board’s ways & means committee – currently Brabec – has typically been the board’s voice in budget planning. But he’s hearing that commissioners want more involvement, so he’d work with the Brabec and other board leadership to figure out an appropriate way to proceed.

Millage Rate

At their meeting on May 15, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to the 2013 county general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate.

Several other county millages were authorized and are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (0.2353 mills and 0.2367 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2012.

From left: Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office talks with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger.

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

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

A related resolution set a public hearing for the millage rate at the board’s June 5 meeting. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, noted that this is commonly known as the “truth in taxation” hearing. The notice regarding the public hearing includes the county millage rates as well as rates for other taxes that the county receives revenue from via the state – specifically, the alcohol and cigarette tax.

When the state changed the timing of the levy from December to July, the county has been running into issues related to getting information from the state about alcohol and cigarette tax rates. This year, the state hasn’t yet provided those numbers, Hedger said. The board can still pass this resolution to set the county millage rates, Hedger said, but the county clerk will be directed not to publish the notice of a public hearing until the information on alcohol and cigarette tax rates is received.

Legally, he said, the notice of the public hearing – including the proposed millage rates – doesn’t have to be published until six days before the actual hearing. The hearing has to be held on June 5 because that’s the only time that the board meets, he noted, unless commissioners want to call a special meeting.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave initial approval to set the millage rate, with a final vote expected on June 5, when a public hearing is scheduled.

Medicaid Expansion

Commissioners were asked to consider a resolution expressing support for the state of Michigan to expand the federal Medicaid program, as part of the Affordable Care Act – informally known as Obamacare. The resolution of support was brought forward by commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Expansion of the Medicaid program would cover individuals and families earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level, and provide coverage for over 10,000 Washtenaw County residents who are not currently eligible. The resolution cites additional reasons to support the action:

Without the expansion, approximately 5,000 Washtenaw Health Plan (WHP) members will have no coverage options at all because their income is below 100% of poverty, thus by law, these individuals cannot buy subsidized coverage through the insurance exchange; and

WHP funding will be significantly cut on January 1, 2014, and ultimately eliminated completely, regardless of whether or not the state expands Medicaid, thus Washtenaw County’s ability to provide services to this population will be severely limited and these residents will be left to seek care in hospital emergency rooms, adding additional economic burdens to Washtenaw County residents who must indirectly pay those costs;

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder supports the expansion, but it’s not clear whether the Republican-controlled Michigan legislature will approve it.

Medicaid Expansion: Board Discussion

Dan Smith asked that the resolution be pulled out from the consent agenda and voted on separately. He thanked LaBarre for making this resolution very specific to Washtenaw County, with information about impacts to local residents.

Commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

He added that he gets emails from people urging him to contact state legislators to oppose the expansion, while the governor supports it. Clearly it’s a complex issue that Lansing is dealing with, he said, “and I have my hands very full dealing with things that are in front of this board.”

Smith said it’s been his position all along that weighing in on something like this as a body isn’t appropriate. He felt it would be more effective to work with legislators individually, “rather than interfering in Lansing’s business in a resolution of this form.”

[By way of background, at its Jan. 2, 2013 meeting, on a 5-4 vote the board voted to remove the ability of a commissioner to abstain from a vote. The question of abstaining from votes has related primarily to resolutions on state or federal issues, over which the county board has no direct control. In early 2012, Dan Smith had successfully convinced a majority of commissioners to add to the board rules the ability to abstain. That action was reversed by the majority of the newly elected board on Jan. 2 of this year.]

During the discussion on Medicaid expansion, LaBarre noted that he was following up on an issue that he had mentioned at the board’s previous meeting. LaBarre reminded commissioners that he serves as the county’s liaison to the Area Agency on Aging 1-B board board, which recently passed a similar resolution.

He said that if it would put Smith’s mind at ease, Macomb County also passed a similar resolution, and one of their commissioners (Toni Moceri) helped LaBarre with the resolution. Washtenaw County “wouldn’t be breaking new ground,” he noted, adding that he understood Smith’s position.

Felicia Brabec thanked LaBarre, noting that Medicaid expansion is important to the community with dire impacts on people who really need it. She serves on the board of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), which sees the need “in a very real way,” Brabec added. Without the expansion, a lot of residents will go without care.

Outcome: The resolution was approved on a 6-0 vote. Dan Smith (R-District 2) left the room prior to the vote. Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) were also not in the room during the vote.

Grants for Workforce Development

Two items were on the agenda for initial approval for grants administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

An additional $55,000 in funds was available for the Food Assistance Employment and Training (FAE&T) program, bringing the program’s fiscal year 2013 budget to $139,783. According to a staff memo, the program was established through the federal Food Stamp Act of 1977 to help people who are receiving food stamps get training that will lead to regular employment. Locally, this program is administered by OCED through the Michigan Works office in Ypsilanti. These extra funds are available because other entities did not use their allocation of funds, and the money is being redistributed.

The second item was an additional $73,300 for the Dislocated Worker program, bringing that budget to $586,398. That program, which is operated out of the Michigan Works Career Transition Center in Ypsilanti, provides training and services to help workers who have been displaced from their jobs.

Grants for Workforce Development – Board Discussion

Dan Smith commented that grants or other items from the OCED are on the agenda for almost every meeting, and address specific needs of the community. He thanked OCED director Mary Jo Callan and her staff for their work, including dealing with “fairly onerous” federal regulations associated with these grants.

In response to a question from Felicia Brabec about the dislocated worker grant, Callan explained that the state – which receives the federal funds and passes those on to local governments – provides supplemental allocations near the end of the fiscal year, using money that’s unspent at the state level or by other communities that receive these grants. It’s possible to carry over these funds into the next budget year, she said. For the purposes of the dislocated worker grant, the fiscal year starts July 1. The county intends to carry over the funds into the next fiscal year, to help offset federal sequestration cuts. For workforce development programs in Michigan, cuts will range from 16-25%, Callan said. In Washtenaw County, cuts will average 17-18%.

Outcome: Acceptance of both grants received initial approval by the board. A final vote is expected on June 5.

Urban County Plan

Washtenaw Urban County’s five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan was on the May 15 agenda for final approval. The board gave initial approval on May 1, 2013. [.pdf of draft strategic and annual plans]

The Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County and 18 local municipalities that receive federal funding for low-income neighborhoods. Members include the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline, and 15 townships. “Urban County” is a designation of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, entitling them to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs. The Urban County is supported by the staff of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

The plans indicate that the Urban County area is expected to receive about $2.7 million annually in federal funding, which will be used for these broad goals:

1. Increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities

2. Increasing quality, affordable rental housing

3. Improving public facilities and infrastructure

4. Supporting homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing services

5. Promoting access to public services and resources

6. Enhancing economic development activities

A public hearing had been held at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting.

Outcome: The board gave final approval to the Urban County plans.

Appointments

Board chair Yousef Rabhi made two nominations at the May 15 meeting. He nominated Ed Toth to serve on the police services steering committee, filling the position of police chief for a non-contracting jurisdiction. Toth is chief of policy for the city of Chelsea.

To the county’s food policy council, Rabhi nominated nutritionist and pharmacist Gail Solway for the healthcare position and Lauren Atkins Budde – who publishes the Have Fork, Will Eat blog – for the citizens position.

Outcome: Without discussion, all appointments were approved.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Michigan Association of Counties

Two representatives from the Michigan Association of Counties (MAC) – executive director Tim McGuire and Ben Bodkin, director of legislative affairs – were on hand to urge commissioners to renew the county’s membership in MAC. In 2011, the board voted to cut membership to the organization, as part of a broad effort to eliminate a budget deficit in 2012 and 2013.

From left: Tim McGuire, executive director of the Michigan Association of Counties, and Ben Bodkin, MAC’s director of legislative affairs, provided handouts and swag for commissioners. County administrator Verna McDaniel takes a look.

McGuire told commissioners that he’d had individual conversations with several of them, but he also wanted to make an appeal to the full board to consider rejoining MAC. Bodkin highlighted some of the issues that MAC has addressed on behalf of the 83 counties in Michigan, including state revenue-sharing and personal property tax legislation. He hoped Washtenaw would consider rejoining MAC to strengthen the county’s voice, protect taxpayer dollars, and get tools that can help make its work more effective.

McGuire spoke again, citing issues like transportation funding, Medicaid and indigent defense as other areas that MAC is working on. The organization has five standing committees that commissioners can participate in. All counties need to work together to make improvements, he said.

Ronnie Peterson said he’d been very active in MAC in the past, and had served on the search committee that had recommended hiring McGuire. He suggested scheduling a formal presentation from MAC, and he wanted to discuss the possibility of rejoining the organization, which he said was highly respected. The county needs to be a player at the state level, he said. The lobbyist that the county pays – Lansing-based Governmental Consultant Services Inc. – does a good job, Peterson added, but he felt that GCSI’s work is focused on specific projects.

Yousef Rabhi said he’d like to continue the discussion. He wondered how the voting worked for MAC – was it one county, one vote? McGuire replied that MAC’s board has 16 members representing different counties, and each member has an individual vote. At the organization’s conventions, it’s one vote per person with regard to electing those board members. There are also five standing committees at MAC: judiciary, taxation, transportation, human services and economic development. County commissioners from across the state serve on those, he said, and make recommendations on legislative stances. Those recommendations are considered by the board of directors, who develop a formal platform each year that’s used as a guide for lobbying.

Rabhi said he didn’t doubt MAC’s leadership capability or value. He noted that two years ago when the 2012 and 2013 budgets were developed, he was the one who proposed eliminating dues to MAC. The money was used instead to fund the county’s homeless shelter, he said, for which funding had been cut dramatically. One of Rabhi’s concerns with MAC is that some counties have higher populations – including Washtenaw – yet are at the table with the same vote as much smaller counties. “When you’re advocating for policy, that might not be representative of the wills of the people in the state and of the people that those county commissioners represent,” he said. It would be valuable to give weight to populations when MAC’s policy decisions are being made, Rabhi added. That’s how SEMCOG operates, he noted. That said, Rabhi indicated interest in further discussing the issue.

McGuire responded, saying that in his experience if something is good for Washtenaw County, it’s probably good for a county with a smaller population – and vice versa. It’s rare not to have consensus on issues that affect all counties, he said. McGuire felt it’s important to have Washtenaw County represented in MAC’s discussions, and he hoped commissioners would re-engage.

In response to a question from Dan Smith, McGuire said the dues for Washtenaw County would be $26,230 annually, based on population and state equalized value. Dues were frozen in 2003, he added, and have only been increased one time since then – by 3% in 2007. MAC recognized the economic situation, McGuire said, and has tried to make membership affordable for all counties by doing more with less.

Communications & Commentary: Corridor Improvement Authority

Dan Smith highlighted a communication that the board had received regarding the intent of Pittsfield Township to establish a corridor improvement authority (CIA) along State Street. [.pdf of Pittsfield communication] The letter indicates that the township would use tax increment financing as a funding mechanism, he noted. A portion of the proceeds from millages levied by the county and county parks & recreation would be captured by such a TIF.

Smith said he has no objections to what Pittsfield Township is doing regarding its CIA, but he noted that the county board needs to have a discussion about TIF. “Trying to deal with [such projects] as just single items makes it very difficult to really look at what we want to do with TIF financing throughout the county,” he said. If commissioners say yes to one and no to another, it looks like they’re playing favorites rather than following a policy. He’d like to discuss a policy so that when items like this come up, the board has a framework in which to act.

Yousef Rabhi offered to work with Smith to develop such a framework, which could then be brought to a working session for the full board to discuss.

The Pittsfield Township CIA would extend along State Street from Airport (just south of Ellsworth) to Campus Parkway (just north of Michigan Avenue). In April of 2013, the Pittsfield Township board approved the intent to establish this CIA. A public hearing is set for May 22 at 6:30 p.m. at the township hall, 6201 W. Michigan Ave.

Communications & Commentary: County Parks & Recreation

Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Dan Smith – who both also serve on the county parks & recreation commission – highlighted work that’s being done by that group, and noted that Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks will be opening on Memorial Day weekend. Both of those facilities have water parks. The Independence Lake water park, located in Webster Township, is new. The water park at Rolling Hills in Ypsilanti Township has a new 30-foot water slide.

Communications & Commentary: Roads, Transportation

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked when the county road commission would be coming to brief the board at a working session – he thought that was happening in October. Andy LaBarre, who chairs the working sessions, reported that one of the October working sessions is scheduled for the southeast Michigan regional transit authority, not the road commission. Sizemore replied that whenever the road commission is scheduled, he’d like for representatives from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) to attend as well, since SEMCOG also had managed transportation projects. He noted that as the county board’s liaison to the road commission, he’s participating in a committee that’s evaluating the condition of roads countywide.

Yousef Rabhi reported that SEMCOG’s executive meeting would be held on May 16, when they would be taking up the 2040 long-range regional transportation plan. SEMCOG planners are recommending the expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County. Rabhi characterized the expansion as unwise, and said he’ll be opposing it. Looking toward the future with more sustainable transit and fewer cars, he said, it doesn’t seem wise to expand the highway system and take property by imminent domain. “It’s painful for me to see that this is the direction that our region is choosing to go,” he said, even though he understands that the project would be funded with dollars allocated for roads. It seems like a poor use of taxpayer money, he said, but he asked for feedback from other commissioners and the public.

Communications & Commentary: Young Women Making Washtenaw Better

Several teens from Young Women Making Washtenaw Better, a program of the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, introduced themselves to the board and spoke about the program, which celebrated its one-year anniversary in May. The program emphasizes leadership, community service and making a positive impact on the community. Also addressing the board was Natalia Harris, community outreach coordinator for the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, who serves as facilitator for YWMWB. As part of the program’s advocacy focus, she said, members are going to different government groups and introducing themselves. The county board is the first group that YWMWB has attended, Harris said. “So I thank you for being our guinea pigs.”

Harris also invited commissioners to attend an ice cream social celebrating YWMWB’s one-year anniversary. The event is on Tuesday, May 21 at 4:30 p.m. at the sheriff’s office community engagement center, 4101 Washtenaw Ave. – in the community corrections building. She also noted that YWMWB can be a resource for the county, with volunteers working on a variety of community projects. Harris encouraged commissioners to contact her if they needed volunteers in their districts.

Several commissioners thanked the teens for attending the meeting. The county’s two female commissioners – Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) – both offered to meet with the girls to talk about leadership issues.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke during both opportunities for public commentary. He objected to the fact that the budget retreat was not being held at the county boardroom, saying it was a retreat from the public. He urged commissioners to put forward an agenda that would address serious needs in the county. If they can’t do that, he added, they should step aside so that someone else can.

Attendance at the May 15, 2013 Washtenaw County board meeting was as follows:

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

Absent: Conan Smith was at the meeting when attendance was taken, but did not take his seat for the rest of the meeting and did not participate in any votes.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

On May 15, the board also scheduled a special board meeting for July 24, to allow for additional votes and public commentary related to the bond proposal, if needed.

The resolution that originally appeared on the May 15 agenda would have authorized the publication of a “notice of intent” about the bond issue. Several commissioners had previously expressed concern at the timeline, given that the county does not yet have the updated actuarial information it needs to set the specific amount of the bond issue. In explaining the decision to delay this process, Rabhi said he wanted to provide more time for public input, and to move the vote until after the actuarial information has been received. He also announced his intent to hold a series of informal meetings at coffee shops in Ann Arbor to discuss the bond proposal with residents. He’s calling the meetings “Bonding Over Coffee.”

The notice of intent is a standard initial step in the bonding process. It must be published in a “newspaper of general circulation within the county,” and lets residents know that they have 45 days during which they can circulate petitions to require a vote of the people before any bonds are issued. The notice must include a maximum amount of the bond issue, a maximum interest rate, and a maximum term for the bonds.

The amount of the bond issue is an estimate at this point and will not likely be as high as $345 million, according to the county’s bond counsel, John Axe of Axe & Ecklund. To set the specific amount of the bond issue, the county needs updated actuarial information – but those reports won’t be ready until late June. The board is expected to vote on publishing the notice of intent on July 10.

The board has been briefed on this proposal most recently at a May 2 working session. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates $345M Bond Proposal."] At that time, the county’s bond counsel – John Axe of Axe & Ecklund – had indicated a timeline that included giving initial approval to two other bond-related resolutions on May 15, in addition to the notice of intent.

Those other resolutions were: (1) a resolution setting the bond’s maximum amount; and (2) a continuing disclosure resolution that’s standard for all bond issues over $1 million, indicating that the county will provide updated financial information annually during the term of the bond. However, neither of those two other resolutions were on the May 15 agenda when it was made available to the public prior to the meeting. It’s likely those resolutions will also be on the board’s July 10 agenda for an initial vote.

The bonding is made possible by Michigan’s Public Act 329 of 2012, which the state legislature passed in October of 2012. [.pdf of Public Act 329] The law enables municipalities to issue bonds to cover unfunded accrued pension and retiree healthcare liabilities, but has a sunset of Dec. 31, 2014. The county faces a $30 million contribution toward these obligations in 2014, and is looking for ways to manage that obligation.

The most recent estimates put the county’s maximum retirement obligations at $340.8 million. The board was presented with calculations for borrowing $344 million at an assumed average interest rate of 4%. The county would pay $239 million in interest over the life of the bond, for a total of $583 million in combined interest and principal.

County administrator Verna McDaniel is advocating for this move, in part to make long-term budgeting easier by having predictable bond payments. The bonding is also linked to new 10-year labor deals approved earlier this year, which closed the defined benefit plan to employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. Unless the defined benefit plans were closed, the county would not have been allowed by law to proceed with this type of bonding.

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

From left: Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith, Meredith Shanle of Municipal Financial Consultants Inc., and bond attorney John Axe, Shanle’s father. (Photos by the writer.)

The bonding is made possible by Michigan’s Public Act 329 of 2012, which the state legislature passed in October of 2012. [.pdf of Public Act 329] The law enables municipalities to issue bonds to cover unfunded accrued pension and retiree healthcare liabilities, but has a sunset of Dec. 31, 2014. The county faces a $30 million contribution toward these obligations in 2014, and is looking for ways to manage that obligation.

The most recent estimates put the county’s maximum retirement obligations at $340.8 million. New actuarial reports are due in June, however, and estimates could change. The board was presented with calculations for borrowing $344 million at an assumed average interest rate of 4%. The county would pay $239 million in interest over the life of the 25-year bond, for a total of $583 million in combined interest and principal.

John Axe of Axe & Ecklund, a Grosse Pointe Farms attorney who has served as the county’s bond counsel for decades, helped craft the state legislation that permits this type of bonding. He was on hand at the working session to describe the proposal and answer questions. “If you don’t issue the bonds,” Axe said, “you’re going to have horrible budget problems.”

County administrator Verna McDaniel has advocated for this move, in part to make long-term budgeting easier by having predictable bond payments. She raised the proposal publicly for the first time at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting. However, Axe told commissioners that he’d been asked by the county administration to start looking into this possibility in November of 2012. He also met earlier this year with the board in closed session, when labor negotiations were discussed.

During the May 2 working session, several commissioners referred to the fact that the new 10-year labor deals approved earlier this year had been key to moving forward with this bond proposal. Allusions to that connection have been made at previous board meetings, but not directly stated. The crucial point was closing the defined benefit plan to employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. Unless the defined benefit plans were closed, the county would not have been allowed by law to proceed with this type of bonding.

Also a factor are the new accounting standards of GASB 68, which require that unfunded liabilities be included in an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Some commissioners expressed concern that the bonding process, now that it’s public, is being rushed. “If I’m borrowing $350 million, I think we should take our time to ask appropriate questions,” said commissioner Ronnie Peterson. “That’s a lot of money.” He felt it was important to see updated actuarial estimates, but noted that based on the board’s discussion, “it’s like we’ve already made up our minds.”

Dan Smith lobbied to explore more options, rather than just one proposal, and raised the possibility of putting this issue before voters. “What we’re really trying to do is to manage our cash flow,” he noted. Smith also expressed skepticism about projections that the bond proposal would result in more than $100 million in savings for the county over 25 years, compared to the amount that the county would pay for its retiree obligations without bonding.

But Conan Smith argued that the board “set the course” when it approved those labor contracts and voted to close the defined benefit plans earlier this year. He acknowledged concerns about the timing, “but in part it has to move so fast because this board closed the plan, and we’re looking at a $30 million payment in 2014 if we don’t do something. So it was a choice we made willfully and with full knowledge and now we’re designing a fiscal strategy to minimize the severity of the impact on our budget.”

That specific budget impact was not discussed publicly when the board voted on the new labor contracts.

Axe also urged the board to act quickly, saying that the proposal is interest-rate sensitive. The proposal assumes that the county would borrow at an average annual interest rate of 4%, then invest the bond proceeds to earn an average rate of return of 6.5% over the 25-year period.

The proposal calls for the board to take an initial vote at its next meeting, on May 15, followed by final approval to issue a “notice of intent” on June 5. The board would also need to approve a state-mandated comprehensive financial plan in July, setting the amount of the bond issue. The county would then submit an application to the state Dept. of Treasury, which must approve the bond issue.

Some commissioners hope to get more input from experts – faculty at the University of Michigan business school, for example, or the county treasurer – who don’t stand to benefit from this bond issue. Because of these concerns, the county is expected to hire a third-party consultant, Public Financial Management Inc., to review the proposal.

In response to a question from Dan Smith, Axe told the board his firm would earn $485,000 in fees from this bond issue, at his standard rate. The county is also using Municipal Financial Consultants Inc. (MFCI) as the financial consultant on this proposal. Axe & Ecklund provides a 15% discount on its fees if the county hires MFCI as the financial consultant. MFCI president Meredith Shanle attended the May 2 working session. Though it was not mentioned at the meeting, Shanle is Axe’s daughter.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi stressed the importance of community engagement, and outlined plans for getting input – including a public presentation and possibly extra meetings. “Regardless of the decision that we make,” he said, “it’s important that the community is involved in that process.”

Public Commentary

At the start of the May 2 session, three people addressed the board. Wes Prater began by telling commissioners and staff that it was good to see everyone again. [Prater, a Democrat, previously served on the board for 10 years but was defeated by Republican Alicia Ping in November of 2012, following a redistricting that pitted both incumbents against each other in the general election.]

Prater reminded commissioners that when he served on the board, he had raised concerns about the county’s long-term liabilities. He pointed out that at the end of 2011, the county – including the road commission – had long-term liabilities for all types of debt totaling $430 million, up from $379 million in 2007. He urged commissioners to look closely at this increase so that they could determine why it had occurred, and figure out how to take care of it.

Former Washtenaw County commissioner Wes Prater, left, talks with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger at the May 2 working session.

He also asked if the county had responded to a letter sent out at the beginning of 2013 from the state treasurer’s office to each local unit of government, asking for a long-term deficit elimination plan. He said the plan must get approval from the governing board, and must be submitted to the state treasurer as part of the annual audit.

Later in the meeting, Kelly Belknap – the county’s finance director – replied that the plan is only required for local governments that have fund deficits. She said none of the county funds have a deficit, so there’s no requirement to submit a deficit elimination plan to the state.

Doug Gross, a certified financial planner from Saline, cautioned commissioners to think carefully about what business they’re in. The business is to provide services to taxpayers, he said. The county isn’t in the investment business, he said, and it takes a risk in borrowing money to fund an obligation that they should have been paying for all along.

It’s a risk to borrow the money and just hope for a higher rate of return, Gross said. There’s certainly a shot at achieving a higher rate of return, he added, given the low-interest rate environment. But the focus should really be on what can be done to lower employee benefits in the future. Are the benefits comparable to what the general public and taxpayers are getting? He thought the county’s benefits were likely way beyond what others are receiving. People are retiring in their 50s with lifetime pensions and that’s not sustainable, he said. And healthcare is no longer a retirement benefit for almost anyone in society, he added.

Gross suggested the county look at its labor contracts, and over time to stop offering the defined benefit plan. He realized there was an obligation to existing employees, but it doesn’t have to keep accruing.

In responding to Gross, commissioner Yousef Rabhi pointed out that the county reached new 10-year labor contracts earlier this year. [The new contracts were approved by the board on March 20, 2013, prior to the state's right-to-work law taking effect.] Those contracts close the current pension and retirement healthcare benefits for people hired after Jan. 1, 2014. Rabhi noted that the county wouldn’t be allowed to pursue the kind of bonds it’s seeking without closing those retirement defined-benefit plans, “so with the 10-year contract, that’s a step that we took – to cap the growing long-term liability.”

It wouldn’t make sense to borrow money if the plans weren’t capped, Rabhi said, because you wouldn’t know what your total liabilities were. “I don’t think that any of us would be at this stage of the road if we hadn’t gone through the 10-year contract process.” He praised the labor unions for making sacrifices. “What we’re trying here is something that isn’t necessarily being tried in a lot of different places. It’s been tried in a few places, and I think it’s worked relatively well,” he said. “But we are, in the tradition of Washtenaw County, leading the way in terms of how we can make some of these changes.” Rolland Sizemore Jr. replied to Rabhi, saying he’d like to know what places have tried this approach successfully.

At the end of the meeting, after commissioners had clarified that the pension and retirement health care plans will be closed, Gross pointed out that any new employees hired through 2013 will still be eligible for those benefits – so the county hasn’t actually closed those plans yet.

Gross also wondered whether the bond would be tax-exempt or taxable. If it’s taxable, interest rates will be higher, he noted, so the spread between what the county pays and what it hopes to earn off investments will be narrower. He didn’t think it would be viable as a taxable bond. [The proposed bond issue would be taxable.]

Thomas Partridge urged the board not to take on such high debt, but rather to put their efforts into funding affordable housing.

Bond Proposal: Public Process

Yousef Rabhi, the board’s chair, reported that he and vice chair Alicia Ping had been working to make sure this process is as open to the public as possible. Between this meeting and the May 15 vote, he wanted to make himself, Ping and Felicia Brabec – who chairs the board’s ways & means committee chair – available to the media. They were thinking of scheduling a press conference or informal discussion, he said. A lot of information has been released already to the public, Rabhi said, but Ping has also suggested that the administration develop a brochure about this bond proposal that would be distributed to libraries and other public places to ensure that the public is well informed about the process.

Washtenaw County commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3). They serve as board chair and vice chair, respectively.

He also wants to schedule a public presentation sometime between May 15 and the final vote on June 5, so that the public can come and hear more details about the proposal and get their questions answered. In addition, there will be a formal public hearing at the board’s June 5 meeting. He said it’s an open process, and these outreach measures are a way to ensure that in a more formal way. “There’s an overwhelming sense on this board that we want to engage the public in this process,” he said. “Regardless of the decision that we make, it’s important that the community is involved in that process.”

Rabhi also noted that the county board meetings include opportunity for public commentary, and he encouraged the public to speak during that time.

Ping, the board’s vice chair, noted that the board has had a lot of conversations “touching around what we’re going to do.” Starting with this working session, she said, and in the next few meetings, “we’ll really be able to dive in” and get all questions answered.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed concern about the process. Some commissioners have told him this process has to be completed by July, he said, and that the proposal might have to get initial approval and final approval on the same night. “That is going to be a major problem with me,” he said. [Typically, an initial vote is taken at the ways & means committee – on which all board members serve – followed by a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. For most of the year, the ways & means committee and regular board meetings are held every two weeks, in back-to-back sessions on the same night. During the summer, those meetings are held only once a month.]

Noting that not everyone has a computer, Sizemore encouraged the public to call the county administration office at 734-222-6852 and ask questions.

Ronnie Peterson criticized the speed of the process, noting that one of the public forums was planned to happen after the board’s initial vote on May 15. “If I’m borrowing $350 million, I think we should take our time to ask appropriate questions. That’s a lot of money.”

Bond Proposal: Financial Analysis

Meredith Shanle of MFCI reviewed the documents she had provided to commissioners, showing how the bond proposal would cover the existing obligations for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) – the defined benefit pension and retiree healthcare plans. The information included charts that compared existing debt obligations with the proposed bond payment schedule, as well as an analysis on the bonding’s impact on future borrowing. [.pdf of MFCI overview memo to commissioners] [.pdf of comparative charts on covering VEBA and WCERS obligations] [.pdf of MFCI memo regarding impact on future borrowing] [.pdf of MFCI debt load analysis]

Actuarial reports are being completed – likely available in June – to show the county’s updated obligations for VEBA and WCERS as of Dec. 31, 2012. The most recent actuarial report showed valuations at the end of 2011, when the county had $101.27 million in unfunded liabilities for its defined benefit pension (WCERS), and $148.46 million in unfunded liabilities for its retiree healthcare (VEBA).

However, those figures were based on assumptions that haven’t been updated since 1999. According to draft minutes of a April 16, 2013 special joint meeting of the WCERS and VEBA boards, county finance director Kelly Belknap asked for an expedited “experience review” to be completed by the actuarial Buck Consultants by June 25, 2013. Her request was approved by the boards at that special meeting. The review will focus on investment returns, mortality, wage inflation and core demographics since 2009, with a more in-depth study scheduled for a later time. According to minutes from a Feb. 7, 2013 VEBA meeting, this kind of study is typically conducted every three to five years, in order to inform actuarial valuations.

Until new actuarial reports are completed, MFCI has estimated that the maximum obligation is $340.8 million – $210.5 million for VEBA, and $130.3 million for WCERS. Calling this a “worst case assumption,” MFCI is recommending that the county board authorize a notice of intent to issue up to $345 million in bonds to fully fund both VEBA and WCERS.

Borrowing that amount at an assumed average interest rate of 4%, the county would pay $239 million in interest over the life of the 25-year bond, for a total of $583 million in combined interest and principal.

The annual payments would vary, beginning at $18.558 million in 2014 for interest only. Subsequent years would include both interest and principal payments: $14.110 million in 2015, $15.170 million in 2016, and $16.278 million in 2017. Payments increase incrementally in subsequent years, and starting in 2024 the county would be paying about $26.2 million annually. [.pdf of comparative charts on covering VEBA and WCERS obligations]

MFCI’s analysis assumes that the county would earn an average rate of return from the bond proceeds of 6.5% over the 25-year period of the bond. Proceeds from the bond, held in an intermediate trust, could be used to call the bonds after nine years, if some future event eliminates the WCERS and VEBA liabilities.

The MFCI analysis also states that the county would pay up to $112 million more to cover its VEBA and WCERS obligations if it doesn’t bond, based on the county’s current 27-year estimated debt payment schedule for those two funds. John Axe, the bond attorney used by the county, noted that the annual estimated contributions that the county will be required to make in the next few years – if it doesn’t bond – are considerably higher than the bond payments it would be making if it does bond. [.pdf of charts showing retiree fund payments without bonding]

The reason that most entities don’t want to close their defined benefit plans is that they don’t want to have to start making those annual contributions, Axe said. But Washtenaw County has done the “responsible thing,” he added, and closed its defined benefit plans. The bond proposal would cover the obligations “in an orderly way,” Axe said, by spreading out the debt over 25 years with a fixed-rate obligation, which is estimated to be about 4% on average. If the estimates are different when it comes time to issue the bonds, Axe said, then the proposal would need to be re-evaluated.

“If you don’t issue the bonds,” Axe added, “you’re going to have horrible budget problems.”

Another aspect of the MFCI analysis looked at how the proposed bond would impact the county’s debt limit and ability to bond for other purposes. Assuming that the county bonds for the entire $345 million, its overall debt would total $445.88 million – or 32% of what it is legally allowed to issue. The MFCI memo states:

We do not believe that the issuance of debt at that level will have any negative effect on the County’s ability to maintain its current credit rating or to issue future debt since the County would have in excess of $975,000,000 in additional room to issue debt in the future. Moreover, because the County is issuing this debt for the purpose of funding a debt which it currently owes, we believe the action will be welcomed by both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s.

Bond Proposal: How It Would Work

John Axe of Axe & Ecklund, the bond counsel hired by the county, began his presentation by referring to a memorandum he had sent earlier to commissioners that outlined the process. [.pdf of Axe's process memo]

Axe said the process now being pursued by the county actually began in 2008. At that time, the bond proposal would have covered about half of the amount that’s now proposed, he said, and would have covered only VEBA, the retiree healthcare plan. The idea would have been to issue certificates of participation (COPs), a different type of financing than the bond issue that’s now being proposed.

But the county ultimately didn’t move ahead at that time, because of the economic meltdown that occurred about a month before the COPs would have been issued, Axe said. At that time, Washtenaw County was following the lead of Oakland County, he said, which had issued COPs a year earlier. It wasn’t the best type of borrowing situation, he noted, and bonds would have been preferred.

Axe reported that his firm had prepared legislation in 2006 to allow bonding for these retiree obligations. The legislation was supported by many units of local government statewide – including Washtenaw County – and was passed by the state legislature, but had been vetoed by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Because of that, there was no other alternative except for COPs, he said.

In 2008, the proposal considered by Washtenaw County was to close the retiree healthcare plan at that time, and issue COPs to fully fund the liabilities of that plan for the employees that were covered by it. “What we’re doing today involves exactly the same thing,” Axe said, “except we’re now proposing a bond issue because the Michigan legislature finally approved essentially the same legislation that was proposed back in 2006.”

The legislation passed in 2012 permits this kind of bonding, Axe explained, to fully fund the pension and retiree healthcare plans – but only if those plans have been closed to new employees. “You have done that,” he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), chair of the Washtenaw County board’s working sessions.

Axe said his firm had been asked by the Washtenaw County administration to start working on this proposal in November of 2012. His firm prepared a memorandum on it that was given to commissioners at a working session in February. [There was no working session on this issue in February. It's likely that Axe was instead referring to a closed session that was held during the board's Feb. 20, 2013 meeting to discuss labor negotiations. Axe attended that meeting and participated in the closed session, which was not open to the public.]

Since February, Axe said, his firm and the financial consultant hired by the county have been working hard on this proposal. [This was not mentioned at the meeting, but the financial consultant – Municipal Financial Consultants Inc. (MFCI) – is closely tied with Axe. MFCI's president, Meredith Shanle, who also attended the May 2 working session, is Axe's daughter. And Axe & Ecklund provides a 15% discount on its fees if the county also hires MFCI as the financial consultant on a bond proposal.]

Axe then reviewed the legal steps that are required in this bonding process. He noted that this is a new process, and no one has ever issued these kinds of bonds – because they haven’t previously been permitted until the new law was signed in October of 2012. As of now, no unit of government has received approval from the state department of treasury – that approval is one of the requirements needed to issue these bonds, he noted.

Local units of government can only issue bonds if they’re “qualified,” Axe explained. To get qualified, a certified financial report must be submitted to the state annually, showing a balanced budget. This has been the case since 1982, he said. Before that, the only way to issue bonds was to get prior approval from the state. Axe said he helped draft the legislation passed in 1982 to allow for the qualifying process, noting that Washtenaw County has been qualified every year since then.

But for this new type of bond issue in Michigan, the qualifying process doesn’t apply, Axe said. Instead, each bond issue must be approved by the state department of treasury, after completing a series of steps. [.pdf of Axe memo outlining bonding process] [.pdf of bonding timeline]

Axe then outlined the required steps in this process:

• A notice of intent to issue bonds. This standard notice must be published in a “newspaper of general circulation within the county.” It lets residents know that they have 45 days during which they can circulate petitions to require a vote of the people before any bonds are issued. The notice must include a maximum amount of the bond issue, a maximum interest rate, and a maximum term for the bonds. To do this, the board needs updated actuarial information – but those reports won’t be ready until June, Axe said. So the maximum amounts at this point are estimated by the county’s financial consultant (MCFI) and assume a worst-case scenario. Axe said it’s likely that the bond issuance will be lower than estimated. Expected dates of board votes: initial approval on May 15, 2013, with final approval on June 5, 2013. Assuming board approval, a notice of intent would be published soon after the June 5 vote. Axe’s memo indicates the notice would be published in the Sunday, June 9 printed edition of AnnArbor.com.
• Approval of the bond resolution and “continuing disclosure” resolution. Even though the final amount of the bond won’t be determined, the board will be asked to set a maximum amount for the bond. The continuing disclosure resolution is standard for all bond issues over $1 million, and indicates that the county will provide updated financial information annually during the term of the bond. Expected dates of board votes: initial approval on May 15, 2013, with final approval on June 5, 2013.
• Meeting with credit rating agencies, request for bond ratings. The county currently holds an AA+ rating from Standard & Poor’s and an AA1 rating from Moody’s. The timeline distributed by Axe indicates that these meetings would be held in Chicago, but he did not address this item during his remarks. Expected meeting dates: June 12-13, 2013, with a request for bond ratings made on June 15.
• Actuarial reports approved by VEBA and WCERS boards. There are separate boards for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). Members of these boards are appointed by the county board of commissioners. Both VEBA and WCERS boards will receive updated actuarial reports, as of Dec. 31, 2012, which they will then approve. The information in these reports will indicate the size of the county’s unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities, and thus determine the amount of the bond issuance. Expected date of approval: June 25, 2013.
• Setting of the final amount of the bond issue and approval of the comprehensive financial plan. After the actuarial reports are received, the amount of the bond issue will be set to cover the unfunded liabilities. This amount will be part of a “comprehensive financial plan” that’s required by state law (Public Act 34). It will include a financial analysis of current and future liabilities, an estimated debt service schedule, and a description of the new retiree health care plan. It will also include a comparison of the county’s obligations with and without a bond issue. [.pdf of comprehensive financial plan components] Expected date of board approval: July 10, 2013.
• Receipt of credit rating. One of the requirements for these bonds is that at least one credit-rating agency give the bonds a minimum double-A rating. The best rating possible is triple-A. Expected date of rating: July 24, 2013.
• Expiration of 45-day notice of intent. This bond proposal assumes that petitions won’t be filed for a voter referendum. It also assumes that the notice of intent will be published on June 9. End date of 45-day notice: July 25, 2013.
• Application to state for approval to issue bonds. The application to the Michigan Dept. of Treasury must include several components, including documentation of the requirements listed above. [.pdf of bond application requirements] Expected application date: July 26, 2013.
• Approval from the Michigan Dept. of Treasury. Axe expects it will take about two months to receive approval from the state, which might require additional information. Expected date of approval: Sept. 26, 2013.
• Actions related to bond sale. Assuming that approval is received by the end of September, a notice of sale for the bonds would be published on Oct. 2, 2013, with the bond sale occurring on Oct. 16. Expected date of bond delivery to the county: Oct. 31, 2013.

Axe stressed that until the actuarial reports are completed, the amount of the liabilities – and therefore the amount of the bond issue – can’t be determined. The current estimate of a $345 million maximum amount is a big number, he acknowledged. “It’s on purpose a big number,” he said, “because we don’t want to have to go back and put a new notice [of intent] in the paper later.”

He also noted that this plan couldn’t have been brought forward until the county board approved closing of the current pension and retiree healthcare plans, which was done as part of the new 10-year labor contracts that the board approved in March.

There has been only one other government entity so far to apply to the state for this type of bond issue, Axe said. Saginaw County applied in February. [.pdf of Saginaw County comprehensive financial plan related to its pension bond issue]

The state has not yet approved that application. Axe said he knows there are other governmental units that are in the process of applying, but no one else has submitted an application yet. He also noted that the more entities that apply, the slower the process will likely be. State government has downsized, he said, so there are fewer people to handle these requests.

Board Deliberations

The board’s discussion covered a wide range of issues related to the bond proposal, including many clarificational questions. This report presents a summary of the discussion, organized thematically – with the recognition that there is considerable overlap among these issues. Topics included the timing of the proposal, risks, investment-related issues, bond types, fees, credit ratings, a possible voter referendum, alternative options, and the need to seek additional advice and input.

Board Deliberations: Timing

Ronnie Peterson asked why the board was being asked to take an initial vote on the bond resolution prior to receiving the updated actuarial reports. John Axe replied that it’s simply to publish the notice of intent as early as possible, to start the 45-day clock for the possible voter referendum. If the board waits until its July 10 meeting to vote on the notice of intent, Axe said, then other applications to the state will likely be submitted ahead of Washtenaw County, thus delaying the process.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Peterson said he was disturbed that so much of the board action took place prior to public input. He wondered why the board couldn’t wait until the actuarial reports are seen. Axe explained that even though the board will be asked to approve the bond resolution – initially on May 15, with a final vote on June 5 – it won’t take effect until the rest of the process is completed. If the board doesn’t approve the comprehensive financial plan on July 10, for example, then “we stop,” Axe said.

Peterson again wondered why the board is rushing, noting that the state legislation doesn’t sunset until Dec. 31, 2014.

“Remember this – this is interest-rate sensitive,” Axe said. “The interest rates today are at good levels. No one can tell you for certain what the interest rates are going to be. We don’t think they’re going to go up, but we don’t know.” All of the assumptions are based on interest rates today, he added. If interest rates go way up, he’d likely advise the county to wait before issuing the bond. “We don’t want to sit around and wait the extra 45 days if we don’t have to,” Axe said.

Peterson didn’t appear to be persuaded. “In our conversation, it’s like we’ve already made up our minds,” he said. It seems like the board should have more information. There are three crucial documents – the actuarial reports for VEBA and WCERS, and the comprehensive financial plan showing how the bonds will be retired – that the board and the public won’t have before commissioners vote on the initial authorization for this bond proposal, Peterson said.

The board has another year and a half to work with this bond program, Peterson noted, so he hoped they would take more time to consider the impact of this proposed indebtedness.

Kent Martinez-Kratz asked what would happen if the county waited until after 2014 to make the bond issue. Axe replied that for the current type of bond, the law sunsets on Dec. 31, 2014, so the county wouldn’t have that option. It would be possible to issue certificates of participation (COPs), like Oakland County did in 2007. Martinez-Kratz alluded to a discussion that the board had with a representative of Oakland County on this issue. [This apparently occurred during a closed session – as there has not been a public presentation by any Oakland County official.]

Yousef Rabhi asked a series of clarificational questions about the proposed timeline. He noted that when the actuarial reports are provided in June and the information is not what the board expected, “we can pull the ‘off switch’ then.” Axe replied that the board isn’t committed to do anything until the comprehensive financial plan is approved, which can’t possibly occur until July at the earliest. And the county can’t issue the bonds until receiving state approval. The June 5 board vote simply authorizes the notice of intent and sets a maximum possible bond amount, Axe said.

Rabhi indicated that he’d be open to having an additional meeting in July, given the feedback he’s heard from other commissioners about having only one meeting, on July 10, to give both initial and final approval of the comprehensive financial plan.

Alicia Ping pointed out that the only reason the initial and final approval would be scheduled on July 10 is because the board traditionally only has one meeting in July. “I don’t think the intent here is to push anything through,” she said.

Board Deliberations: Interest Rates, Investments

Dan Smith asked Axe to elaborate on why this bond issue is time sensitive, regarding interest rates. Axe replied that no one can know the future. All of the financial analysis is based on current interest rates. The only reason to vote early is to “get the 45-day notice of intent out of the way,” Axe said. His advice is that unless there’s some good reason for waiting, the board should proceed.

D. Smith wondered why the county should be concerned about the interest rate, given the nature of this bond issue. It’s a bond issue unlike any other, he noted. It’s not for a capital project. Rather, in this case the proceeds will be directly invested back into the market.

It matters, Axe replied, because all of the financial analysis is done based on prevailing interest rates. The analysis is very conservative, and a 45-day wait probably won’t matter, he said. But unless there’s some reason, he wouldn’t advise waiting. All of the steps are interrelated, he added.

The analysis is based on paying an estimated average 4% interest rate for the bond over 25 years, Axe said, with the expectation of investing the proceeds of the bond sale and getting a 6.5% average rate of return on that investment over that period. The proceeds won’t be invested exclusively in other municipal bonds, Axe said. Proceeds will be held in an intermediate trust and managed by investment advisors hired by the county, with an estimated worst-case return of 6.5%.

Interest rates on the bond aren’t likely to go down much lower, Axe said – right now, they’re in the range of rates last seen in the 1930s. Axe added that this approach – borrowing at 4% and investing to get a 6.5% return – is an element of the plan, but it’s not the only element.

Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

D. Smith drew an analogy to taking out a mortgage on a house at 4%. So 100% of his house would be leveraged, and he owes the entire amount of his house. “I should take that money and go invest it in the stock market, because the stock market is going like gangbusters right now, and I could make 6-7% difference on that.” Axe replied that he wasn’t suggesting this is the same thing as Smith had described. The interest differential is only one aspect, Axe said. “I think you ought to hear the complete plan.”

Felicia Brabec asked about the investment strategy – hiring another company to invest the bond proceeds, and assuming that there would be rate of return higher than the interest on the bond payments. If there was a surplus from the investments, can that surplus be used to pay down the debt at a higher rate without a penalty?

Yes, Axe replied. The 25-year bonds would be callable in nine years – meaning that the bonds could be paid off fully or partially at that time, if the county decided to do that. The county could also choose to re-fund those bonds, if interest rates are lower in nine years.

Axe responded to a written question asking if the county is essentially gambling on market performance. The answer, he said, is that all investments – including those made currently by VEBA and WCERS financial advisors – are made by professional advisors. The estimated rate of return is calculated over a long period and is based on past experience, he said. The county is using an estimated rate of return that’s substantially below the current actuarial estimate, as well as below what the county has actually been getting from its VEBA and WCERS investments, he noted.

The most important thing is that you hire good people to make the investments, Axe said. Oakland County, for example, is in much better shape now than before they issued their bond, he said.

Andy LaBarre asked about a hypothetical situation in which the investments made “are bad from the start. Even the best investment management can lead us astray,” he said. “Are we really being as prudent as possible, and are we incurring any risks that we normally wouldn’t through any sort of investment?”

Axe replied that “you already owe the money” and are already relying on the market to provide returns for VEBA and WCERS funds. The board’s main responsibility is to hire the best possible investment managers. The county would want to do that anyway, he said, regardless of the bond proposal – because there is already a huge amount of money that’s currently being invested. “I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think this process would work,” he said.

Board Deliberations: “Saving” Money

In response to a written question, Axe explained how the county will be saving money with this proposal. First, he said, the county has closed its VEBA and WCERS plans. That means the county now will know what its obligations are for employees who are currently in the plan. [Employees hired through Dec. 31, 2013 will still be eligible for these plans. And the obligations are based on actuarial estimates – for example, estimating how long retirees would be expected to live, on average.]

This bond will be paid off over 25 years, Axe said. In contrast, the county’s estimated actuarial liability has been calculated over a period of 27 years – so the county is actually shortening the period of its pension and retiree healthcare obligations.

When the bond proceeds are invested by the trustees – the managers of the intermediate trusts for VEBA and WCERS – the estimated average return is 6.5% He noted that the county’s current actuarial estimates call for 7.75% and 7.5% returns for VEBA and WCERS, respectively. So the estimated percentage return for the investments of the bond proceeds is more conservative than current actuarial estimates.

Conan Smith pointed out that the 7.75% is a policy target. The actual 10-year trailing return is 6.75%, he said.

Axe noted that the county already owes the money for its unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities. “You’re not borrowing more than you already owe.” Instead of owing it to everyone who’s entitled to receive the benefits in the future, he said, “you’re going to owe it to the bond holders. That’s the only difference.”

C. Smith pointed to the MFCI estimate that the county would save $112 million because of the bond issue. When the bond is paid off in 2039 and if the estimate is accurate, he said, “we’re sitting on $100 million. What could we do with that money?” He wanted to know if the excess funds were restricted in any way.

Axe replied that the money would be coming to the county over a long period of time, and most of it would be seen in the early years of the bond schedule. If there was money left in the intermediate trust after VEBA and WCERS obligations were fully met, then that money could be returned to the county for other purposes, Axe said.

C. Smith observed that if the earnings from the bond are saved and invested, after the retiree obligations are met, that money would become general operating funds that a future board of commissioners can allocate in any way.

In light of the estimated $100 million-plus in savings, Ronnie Peterson wondered if the county is borrowing too much money. He felt the county would be better served by breaking close to even on this bond issue. He said he wasn’t troubled that there would be savings, but he was troubled by the large amount.

Dan Smith asked if the $112 million “savings” was largely due to “playing the spread” between the average 4% interest rate paid on the bond and the anticipated 6.5% earned from investing the bond proceeds. Yes, Axe said, that’s a large part of it. The restructuring also allows the county to avoid paying a “huge” amount upfront, he added. The county has closed its defined benefit plans, so it must make contributions to VEBA and WCERS, Axe said. “This is simply one of the ways that you can do it.”

After identifying a typo in MFCI’s report that resulted in a $10 million under-reporting of the total VEBA/WCERS estimated obligations, D. Smith addressed the issue of estimated contributions. He pointed out that MFCI had used a conservative estimate of the county’s total contributions – without bonding – which made the option of bonding appear more favorable. He said his understanding is that without bonding, contributions to VEBA and WCERS will spike in the next few years. [Estimates provided by MFCI call for roughly $30 million annual contributions for the next five years, without bonding.] But after that there could be a tapering off, he said. That’s why he’s interested in seeing the new actuarial projection, which might provide a different scenario.

Board Deliberations: Bond Types

Responding to a written question from the board, Axe explained the difference between a bond issue that’s authorized by the county board, and bonds based on approval by voters.

Bonds issued based on approval of the county board are called general obligation limited tax bonds. The word “limited” is critical, he said. It means that the only money that can be used to pay those bonds is money that comes into the county already – through taxes, state funding or other means. “You cannot levy any extra tax above the amount of tax that you can levy for operating purposes.” He noted that the county currently levies the maximum rate that it can. [That millage rate for 2013 will be set by the board by June. The 2012 county general operating millage rate was 4.5493 mills.]

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

In contrast, if the county gets voter approval for a bond issue, that gives the county the power to levy an extra tax in any amount – and there’s no limit to the rate or amount, Axe said. [At this point Conan Smith raised his arms in a gesture of enthusiasm, which elicited laughs from other commissioners.]

Axe then fielded another written question: What’s the chance of defaulting on a limited tax bond issue, compared to an unlimited tax bond issue? Washtenaw County has always been very careful about its bond issues and has paid everything on time, Axe said. The county has substantial reserves and is very conservative in its approach. “You don’t go out and issue a lot of bonds for wild purposes,” he said. The county always has a plan for allocating specific funds to make bond payments over many years. Axe said he’s been doing bond issues for Washtenaw County for decades, and in that time the county has never had any difficulty making bond payments.

Dan Smith followed up on the question about the default risk. He noted that Axe’s written response to this question had indicated that there’s no difference in default risk between limited and unlimited tax bonds. Axe replied that this is the judgment of the credit rating agencies. Washtenaw County bonds sell almost at the triple-A level, he said, because people are satisfied with the county’s history. The county is much more stable than other counties because of its demographics, Axe added. Specifically, the University of Michigan and other colleges and universities are located here, and the county has been on a growth path, although that growth has slowed in recent years.

D. Smith replied that there are still considerable differences in the way that limited and unlimited tax bonds are funded. It’s highly improbable, he said, but the county could go bankrupt in 15 years – how would that affect the situation? Axe replied that the county could go bankrupt regardless of whether these bonds are issued. If the county failed to make its obligations, it would go under emergency management.

Meredith Shanle of MFCI clarified that in general, there is a large difference between limited and unlimited tax bonds. But in the specific case of Washtenaw County, those types of bonds are basically the same, she said. With unlimited tax bonds, the county could keep raising the millage rate to cover those bond payments, she noted.

D. Smith observed that in the case of General Motors, no one thought that GM would ever default on its bonds, but it did. So it’s not reasonable to say that a default could never, ever happen – even in Washtenaw County, he said.

Responding to a question about whether the county would have a harder time issuing a limited tax bond if voters turned down an unlimited tax bond, Axe said no. That’s because the county has excellent credit rating, he said, and any action by voters wouldn’t have any bearing on that credit rating.

Regarding a voter-approved bond, Axe noted that the ballot question can’t be put forward until there’s an election, and the next time the county could do that would be at the November general election. He also pointed out that the county doesn’t plan to levy any additional tax as part of this bond proposal.

Axe was also asked about the experience of other government entities. He noted that Detroit had issued pension obligation certificates of participation (COPs), but failed to close its defined benefit plan. That meant that the liabilities were open-ended. In addition, when the city made an estimate of its unfunded pension liability, the estimate undershot the actual amount by $300 million, he said. “Even if everything had worked out brilliantly, they were still not going to be fully funded,” Axe said. “That was a catastrophe.”

Axe also responded to a written question about the Water Street project in Ypsilanti. The city of Ypsilanti had been working with a developer who was interested in redeveloping an area near downtown. The developer had told the city that the city needed to buy the property, remediate it, and put in public services, then the developer would put in housing there. The city agreed and issued a roughly $13 million bond to cover its costs. But remediation cost more than expected, Axe said, and worse than that, the developer backed out. Now, those bonds have been re-funded with a $15.74 million issue, he said. Axe indicated that it was a different situation than what the county is facing.

Board Deliberations: Risks

Felicia Brabec asked about possible pitfalls. She noted that Axe had mentioned the fact that Detroit hadn’t closed its defined benefit plan. That was one possible problem, but Washtenaw County had addressed it already, she noted. What other things should the board be concerned about?

So far, Axe replied, he hadn’t seen anything in the county’s approach that was inappropriate. He stressed that he’s had a lot of experience with this issue, dating back to his work on the state legislation in 2006. “You’ve done what you need to do,” he said, adding that he had confidence in the board that they would pick a strong investment manager and monitor the performance closely.

Brabec also wondered what the board could learn from Detroit’s experience, including the fact that Detroit’s defined benefit plan had been underfunded by $300 million. Underestimating the liabilities is one of her biggest concerns, she said. Axe replied that the board should pay very close attention to the actuaries. He noted that the actuaries are also making a projection. “They’re telling you how many people [they] think are going to live, and how long.” In the case of Detroit, he said, the actuarial reports were “terrible.” That’s how the city ended up with a $300 million underfunding.

Commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith told his board colleagues that the bond itself “is not the thing that should scare anyone.” The bond is the most stable, predictable part of the entire formula, he said. The county will borrow a certain amount of money at a set interest rate, and with set payments over a certain period.

Rather, the “calculus of risk” for the county, C. Smith said, is on the return on investment from the bond proceeds, and whether that return will be sufficient to make the county’s actuarially-required contributions. Also unknown is what those contributions will actually be. If cancer is cured and people suddenly live 15-20 years longer, he noted, that will affect the actuarial projections dramatically, “and we will not have prepared for that with this bond.” But those extra costs would be incurred even if the county didn’t bond, he added. The bond is “a good, smart, stabilizing plan,” C. Smith said, and it ensures as much predictability in the budget as possible.

There are a lot of things out of the board’s control, he noted, including the market and how long people will live. “We’ll have to deal with those variables one way or the other.”

The other risk-tolerance question can be seen using Dan Smith’s house analogy, C. Smith said. If he could mortgage his house and get $200,000 in cash at 3%, then invest it in the market and earn 6%, “why wouldn’t I do that?” The question is how much risk are you willing to tolerate? he said. The board can look at the entire earnings history of the VEBA and WCERS funds, and use that as a fairly reliable measure of return on investment. “It’s just a question of how much confidence we as a board have in those figures.”

The board needs to assess if the bonding lessens the risk somewhat, C. Smith added. “My own personal assessment is that it lessens our risk.” The actuarial projections might change and the market might shift up or down, he said. But at the very least the bonding provides a foundation that the county can work from, to deal with the volatility between the bond payments and the market return, rather than the volatility for the VEBA and WCERS funds as a whole.

Dan Smith referred to communications from Axe that characterized the bond as “fully funding” the county’s VEBA and WCERS systems. He noted that it would really only be fully funded at the moment that the bonds are issued, “because everything in the future is dependent on the actuarial reports.” It’s possible that the bonds will overshoot or undershoot the actual amount needed. “Five years into this, we could be back in the same position,” D. Smith said.

Axe replied that there’s no guarantee about what will happen in the future. It’s not allowed under the law to borrow more than the fully funded amount, he said. That amount might change if people live longer. At least for future hires, the county is protected because the defined benefit plan is closed, Axe noted. But if people who are currently covered by the plan live an extra 10 years beyond the actuarial projections, “it will mess up the actuarial reports something fierce, there’s no doubt,” Axe said.

Axe added that all actuarial reports are based on history, but people are living longer than they used to live. He noted that when the federal Social Security system was set up in 1935, it was based on people beginning to collect benefits when they were 65. But the life expectancy at the time was 63.

D. Smith observed that it appears people have forgotten about recent history, and what dismal years there have been in the economy, especially in Michigan. To make long-term assumptions, using the past as a predictor of the future, is a scary approach, he said. In 2000 or 2001, no one except doomsday extremists would have predicted a housing market bubble. Basing the future on the past “is a little dicey,” D. Smith said.

Board Deliberations: Advice from Others

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wanted to get input from experts at the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University business schools. It bothered him that the county would be paying a third-party advisor to look into this proposal. “We’ll be paying out a ton of money to get the bonding, and we’re going to pay out a ton of money to figure out if it’s right.” He also asked for the opinion of the county treasurer, Catherine McClary, as well as the county’s current actuaries for the VEBA and WCERS funds, and the local state senator and representatives. [The state senator representing the Ann Arbor area is Rebekah Warren, who is married to county commissioner Conan Smith. The state representative for the district covering Ann Arbor is Jeff Irwin, a former Washtenaw County commissioner.]

Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary talks with county commissioner Dan Smith after the May 2 working session.

Sizemore was concerned that the board seems to be pushing this through, without time to get outside advice.

Yousef Rabhi responded, saying he felt those concerns are valid. As a reaction to some concerns he’d heard from other commissioners, Rabhi said a third-party firm that’s not affiliated with Axe & Ecklund could be hired to review the process. That firm would be paid by the county. “We certainly don’t have to do that,” Rabhi said. But he’d recommended it, because he’s heard from others that another set of eyes is needed.

[That third-party firm is Public Financial Management Inc., with offices in Ann Arbor. Both PFM and Axe & Ecklund are part of the county's bond and financial consultants pool. For this project, PFM has not yet provided an estimate of their fees, which will be based on the number of hours needed to review the bond proposal. (.pdf of PFM's general consultant proposal, including the firm's fee structure)]

Rabhi agreed with Sizemore that the county is lucky to have others in the community who are qualified to look at this, and it would be great to have their input. He offered to work with Sizemore and the administration to find out the best way to engage these people.

Sizemore said that in his experience, when a consultant is hired, that consultant can be swayed to present the kind of response that the client wants. That wouldn’t be the case with a university expert, he said.

Dan Smith wanted to see a study that “paints the absolute worst-case scenario.” Looking at the markets today, predictions are “all over the place.” At this point, the board is getting only one opinion, he noted.

Board Deliberations: Axe & Ecklund, MFCI

Ronnie Peterson asked about the financial obligations that the county would have toward Axe & Ecklund. Axe replied that there are no financial obligations if the bond proposal doesn’t go through.

Axe also responded to written questions related to his firm. He was asked how the board can be assured that his advice is sound, when he stands to benefit from this proposal. Axe said that this question could be asked any time his firm gives advice on a bond issue. He noted that “we’re the lawyers, we’re not the financial advisors.” [The financial advisor used in this and many other county bond deals, MFCI, is led by Axe's daughter, Meredith Shanle.]

Axe said that if there’s any indication of a problem with a bond issue, “we would naturally bring it to your attention.” The firm has represented Washtenaw County on 131 bond issues since 1973. Since 1981, that amount has totaled $668 million. There’s never been a problem or legal challenge, he said. As bond counsel, his firm has the legal responsibility to defend the bonds for the life of the bonds. Over the years, he said, his firm has issued a lot of legal opinions on behalf of Washtenaw County.

Andy LaBarre asked if it was correct to say that as bond counsel, “you’re on the hook for 25 years?” Yes, Axe replied. “Absolutely.” He added that he valued the county’s business, and it’s his firm’s responsibility to point out any problems. Axe also noted that his firm is not being paid any extra to work on this particular bond issue. “We’re being paid the regular rate that’s already established in the contract we have.” [.pdf of Axe & Ecklund professional services contract with Washtenaw County]

Axe did not discuss details of his fees during the working session. Responding to a request from The Chronicle, the county administration provided that information. For bonds less than $500,000, the firm is paid $5,000. For amounts higher than that, the firm is paid a combination of flat rate and percentage of the bond issue. For amounts over $2 million, the flat rate is $12,500 plus .0025% (one quarter of 1%) of the amount in excess of $2 million. Additional fees and expenses may also be incurred, according to the fee schedule. [.pdf of Axe & Ecklund fee schedule]

The fees for this bond issue fall under Axe & Ecklund’s fee schedule for capital improvement bonds, because the state legislature amended the capital improvement bond statute to permit governmental entities to bond for their unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL). In addition, Axe & Ecklund’s bond counsel fees are reduced by 15% when the county also hires MFCI as a financial consultant.

In response to a direct question from Dan Smith, Axe replied that his firm’s fee for this bond issue would be about $485,000.

Board Deliberations: Voter Referendum

Dan Smith noted that Axe, as bond counsel, didn’t see any reason to take this issue to the voters. However, as an elected official, Smith said, increasing the taxpayers’ debt load by about $700 per person sounds like a really good reason to ask them for their opinion, “whether we have to or not.” Smith said he understands that the county isn’t required to get voter approval.

Responding to a follow-up question from Andy LaBarre, Meredith Shanle of MFCI clarified that from an historical perspective, if the proposed bond issue takes place, the debt load would be 410% (about four times) higher than the debt that the county carried 30 years ago. During the same period, the county’s taxable value increased 445%.

Andy LaBarre, right, talks with former county commissioner Wes Prater.

Alicia Ping ventured that the county would not be increasing the debt load but simply recognizing it. When Shanle confirmed this assessment, Ping stated that the county is actually reducing its future liability with this approach.

Ping said she initially agreed with Dan Smith about taking this to the voters. Then she was informed that if the county did that, certain commissioners – like Conan Smith, she noted – could advocate to increase the millage rate and use the extra money for other purposes. So she felt that by not going to the voters, the board would be limiting its power to further tax the county’s residents. Shanle said that was correct.

Ronnie Peterson pointed out that the voters could be asked whether this approach – the one being proposed by Axe – is acceptable, capped at a certain amount to cover the VEBA and WCERS liabilities. That is, a voter referendum would not need to be only for an unlimited tax bond. A referendum could be put before voters for the exact proposal that’s now being considered by the board. “That’s not an open-ended bonding proposal,” Peterson said. “I don’t want the public to be mislead by the answer to that last question.”

Axe said that Peterson was correct, and noted that there is no proposal now to levy an additional tax. The proposal, however, “would certainly free up a huge amount of money to use for other projects,” Axe added.

That’s not the question, Peterson replied. The question, he said, is whether voters could have a choice to make this decision – to retire the debt obligation for VEBA and WCERS. And the answer is that they can.

Dan Smith said he wasn’t currently proposing that the proposal be put to voters, but rather he was exploring the board’s options. If commissioners did decide to put a question on the ballot, they’d likely ask voters to levy considerably less than the current proposal, he said. The amount of a new levy plus the bond proceeds would equal the amount required to retire the debt, he said.

In this approach, voters would be asked to approve levying a millage to cover a smaller bond issue, and the county would continue to contribute a portion of the retiree obligations from its general fund. “That keeps those general fund dollars from being directed toward something else,” D. Smith said.

Axe explained that if there’s a voter referendum for a general bond issue, then voters have given the board the power, over the life of the bond, to levy an unlimited tax in any year to pay the debt service due on that bond issue. The current proposal was made, without a recommendation for voter approval, because it’s well within the county’s ability to pay these bonds without levying a tax, Axe said.

On the other hand, if you put a specific millage on the ballot to pay for the bond, Axe said, that’s a different approach and one that wasn’t considered by his firm.

D. Smith reiterated that in the approach he described, the county wouldn’t issue bonds in an amount to cover the entire VEBA and WCERS liability. The bond issue would only be in an amount to manage the county’s current “cash flow crunch,” and the board would be getting the voters’ approval to do that.

Ping gave an analogy of having a $10 budget, and using $2 of that each year to pay back the bonds. If the board decides to do other projects and can afford to only pay back $1, would it be possible to levy a new millage to pay back the additional dollar? Axe replied that this would be possible if the voters approved the bond issue. Ping then stated that under this scenario, the board could spent $9 – knowing that there was a $2 debt obligation – and levy a tax for that additional $1. Axe replied that if the voters approved a bond issue, the board would have the flexibility to do that for the next 25 years.

Ping clarified that if voters don’t approve the bond issue, the board would always be required to make the $2 bond payment from existing funds, without an extra tax. “You got it,” Axe replied.

Yousef Rabhi continued Ping’s analogy, saying that right now, out of a $10 budget the county has a liability of $1.75 for its retiree obligations. Next year that amount could be $2, and $2.10 the following year. But by borrowing to cover those liabilities with a limited tax bond, the variations in those payments will be minimal. It’s money that the county would have spent out of its general fund anyway, he said. “But instead of paying off those liabilities, we’re paying off the bond,” Rabhi said.

With a voter-approved unlimited tax bond, the amount that’s borrowed could be covered in full or in part by an additional millage, Rabhi said. So if the general fund is only paying $1 and the millage is covering the other $1, then an extra $1 has been freed up from the general fund for other uses, he said. That approach would “actually expand the realm of revenue to pay off the bond.” So the potential would be there for taxpayers to end up paying more, he concluded.

At this point, Conan Smith observed that commissioners were blending two different things. “The only person in this room who is at all interested in an unlimited tax bond is me,” he joked. No one is proposing putting an unlimited tax bond on the ballot, he said. Rather, he said, Dan Smith and Ronnie Peterson are asking whether the board would voluntarily put the general obligation bond up for voter approval.

D. Smith and Peterson indicated that this was a correct assessment of their views.

Board Deliberations: Credit Rating

Andy LaBarre asked if the proposed savings anticipated with this bond issue – savings estimated by MFCI to be more than $100 million – would positively affect the county’s general credit rating, possibly getting it to a triple-A status.

Meredith Shanle of MFCI said rating agencies have indicated generally that they’d lower credit ratings if government entities don’t address their pension and retiree healthcare obligations. As far as increasing the county’s credit rating, she said the bond proposal might have a positive impact but that’s difficult to say. It certainly wouldn’t hurt the county, she said. “It will help you.”

From left: Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie talks with county commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Conan Smith noted that the county doesn’t have control over the process of moving its credit from a double-A to a triple-A rating. Over the last six months, there have been a number of bonds issued in Michigan – by Oakland County, for example – that have received a triple-A rating. What have those entities done that Washtenaw County could do to get a triple-A rating for this bond issue? he asked. C. Smith also noted that when Axe spoke to the board several months ago, he had indicated that the maximum difference between a double-A and triple-A rating, in terms of the interest rate that could be secured, was one-sixteenth of a percent.

Shanle replied that she could look into specific examples, but in general rating agencies want an entity to be conservative. In the case of Oakland County, she said, they operate on a three-year budget planning cycle. They’ve made cuts in their budgets – rating agencies like that, she said. Agencies also look at the fund balance as a percentage of expenditures, she noted.

C. Smith said his line of questioning was aimed at budgetary policy. The county administrator, Verna McDaniel, came to the board with a scan of the county’s financial situation, he said. She had proposed increasing the county’s fund balance up to 20% of total expenditures. He said he was skeptical of that move, because it takes away hard dollars from the county’s ability to spend that money on programs and services.

If the county is able to win triple-A rating, C. Smith said, and the interest rate that the county pays on its bond issue drops by one-sixteenth of a percent because of that, then it would take an “awfully big” bond offering to make it a worthwhile investment – one that could result in adding $4 million a year to the fund balance. “Well now, we have an awfully big bond offering,” he said, which might allow for moves like that to make fiscal sense. It would stabilize the long-term prospects of the organization, he said, and allow for more cash-on-hand to spend on programs and services. “This is why I’m keenly interested in that calculation,” he said, and keenly interested in what the county can do quickly to improve its credit rating.

He noted that on May 1, the board authorized McDaniel to develop a four-year budget process, and he hoped that would help the credit rating. He asked Shanle to run an analysis on the interest-rate differential if the county secures a higher credit rating. He also asked for other recommendations for things the county can do over the next several months to increase their chances of a better rating.

Board Deliberations: Unfunded Liabilities

Ronnie Peterson criticized the fact that the board hadn’t been paying sufficient attention to the unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities over the years.

Conan Smith responded to that complaint, saying that the county didn’t deliberately underfund the system. The county has always made its actuarial contributions to the retirement system. There were two contributing factors to the current situation, he said. The most impactful, he said, was that the county re-opened WCERS after it had been closed in the 1990s. “It was a closed plan. We opened it back up. We brought a lot of employees in, and now they’re ready to retire,” he said. “There’s been no time to develop a fund sizable enough to cover those liabilities.” [The decision to re-open WCERS was a board decision.]

The second factor was that in 2008 and 2009, the county lost a lot of money because of the market crash, he said. “It’s only 2013 – we haven’t had enough time to recoup those funds in the market.” It’s not the irresponsibility of government that has led to this point, C. Smith continued. “I want to make that absolutely clear – we have always been fiscally responsible.”

Board Deliberations: Other Options?

Ronnie Peterson asked if Axe and Shanle had looked at other options, such as transferring WCERS to the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System (MERS). Only a small subset of county employees are currently enrolled in MERS. Peterson wondered if it would be possible to do the transfer, and if it would change the county’s contribution for retiree obligations.

Conan Smith said he found Peterson’s suggestion really creative, but added that his gut feeling is there won’t be any savings from it. “We’re not going to be allowed to balance our costs on other people’s incoming employees.” He guessed the costs would remain about the same.

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, told the board that the new 10-year collective bargaining agreements specifically call for existing employees to use WCERS as the defined benefit plan. The only thing that the county could explore would be to use MERS for new hires starting in 2014, she said.

She also noted that any changes would require the county to re-open those labor agreements, which would “trigger all of the other issues that we’ve talked about.” [The new contracts, approved by the board on March 20, aimed to protect unions before Michigan’s right-to-work law took effect on March 28, and to cut legacy costs for the county. All but one of the new agreements run for more than 10 years, through Dec. 31, 2023. If the contracts are re-opened before that time, then the right-to-work law would take effect for county employees.]

Dan Smith noted that the board hasn’t been presented with other options, “and we’ve been put under incredible pressure to do this now.” He didn’t put a lot of stock in the argument about interest-rate sensitivity – saying he thought the county would end up borrowing at about the same interest rate that they would get from investing the bond proceeds. He’d like to investigate other options, rather than proceeding “headstrong” down this path. Given the law’s sunset date of Dec. 31, 2014, the board has about another year to look at this, he said.

“This truly is a restructuring of our debt,” D. Smith said. “What we’re really trying to do is to manage our cash flow.” The main concern is how to deal with the roughly $30 million annual contribution that the county would need to make to VEBA and WCERS, if the county didn’t bond. He equated it to refinancing into a 10-year interest-only mortgage. For the first 10 years, the payments are substantially less, but those payments increase when you start paying principal as well as interest.

Conan Smith said it’s important to remember that the board “set the course” when it approved those contracts and closed the define benefit plans earlier this year. He acknowledged concerns about the timing, “but in part it has to move so fast because this board closed the plan, and we’re looking at a $30 million payment in 2014, if we don’t do something.” He continued:

So it was a choice we made willfully and with full knowledge and now we’re designing a fiscal strategy to minimize the severity of the impact on our budget. That’s why we need to move fast, and I think we should move fast. I don’t want to see us taking that full amount out of the 2014 general fund. So let’s find some other way to do it. That’s critically important.”

Public Commentary, Part II

At the end of the meeting, Wes Prater spoke again and cautioned commissioners about the “visions of sugar plums” they were seeing from projected savings. He noted they were operating in a global economy, pointing to the ongoing financial crisis in Greece. All of the assumptions could change “with the line of a pencil,” Prater said. He indicated that the board was moving too fast, with not enough scrutiny and too many unanswered questions. Structural changes need to be made, he said, and the county needs to tighten its belt. He said he planned to be part of the process to help do that.

Doug Gross also spoke a second time, noting that to satisfy current employees, the county is discriminating against younger people, who won’t have access to the defined benefit plan. At a certain point, those new employees will want a better plan and the board might reverse itself and decide to re-open the defined benefit plan again. That’s what happened in 2008, when the board re-opened WCERS and pulled a lot of employees into the plan – when it had previously been closed in the 1990s. “You’re basically laying the groundwork to do the exact same thing all over again,” Gross said. The county needs a sustainable plan it can actually afford.

Thomas Partridge criticized the working session for being an unbalanced, single-issue meeting, even though the residents face multiple other issues, like homelessness, affordable housing, public transportation and health care.

Responding to the public commentary, Andy LaBarre – who chairs the board’s working sessions – said that the purpose of this meeting had been to discuss a single issue, and to have a policy discussion about the bond proposal. At this point, he said, this proposal is a possibility, not a certainty. “The die has not been cast.”

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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