Comments on: County Commissioners Review Priorities

By: Diane

Diane — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:36:46 +0000

Conan or Leah – Doesn’t the city of Ann Arbor currently have to pay extra funds when they need to use the sherriff dept. for specific events? I might be wrong but I thought the city always had to pay additional funds for special coverage.

If so, my question is: If this new plan is adopted, would the city still have to pay the extra fee for the few times we actually need to use the sherriff department resources or would this now fall under “the sherriff can allocate police resources as needed”?

Also, will there still be the minimum coverage required by law across the county? I don’t understand how this will actually change things.

Does the new plan want to charge EVERYONE in the county more for police coverage but allow the sherriff to only police the high crime areas?

Others must be confused by this also. It would be nice if the county sent out a comparison of the old model vs the new model and explain how it actually differs.

By: Conan Smith

Conan Smith — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:22:20 +0000

Steve, in a couple weeks we will be announcing the dates and locations for a series of public forums (fora?) on the County budget, which I hope the Chronicle will cover intensively! I also you lots of people join us for those conversations. In the meantime, you can reach the board by emailing l-boc@ewashtenaw.org.

Vivienne, the current contracting model with townships is fraught with problems, not the least of which is the inequity in resource distribution that results from our dedicating dollars specifically to individual jurisdictions. What we’re looking at is increasing the flexibility of the sheriff to allocate policing resources in accordance with needs across the county — including in support of those communities that have their own police forces (e.g. Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Chelsea, Saline, and Pittsfield and Northfield Townships).

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:23:47 +0000

Yes, the per diems are only the most “low-hanging fruit”. I hope that Cmr. Gunn can get 6 votes. The County should fund services first.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:04:25 +0000

“We just all have to trust the good people we have elected and let them weigh the issues and make decisions.”

We could also give them constructive input on services that we value. Maybe Mary could provide a link to their contact info in “the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners” in the first sentence of the article.

By: Leah Gunn

Leah Gunn — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:02:55 +0000

Note to Vivienne Armentrout – I have already suggested cutting out per diems, as well as a host of other Commisisoner expenses, amounting to a 23% decrease in our budget. Now, all I need is six votes – we’ll see. The last time I tried this, I was shot down.

By: Dusty Lake

Dusty Lake — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:47:43 +0000

Washtenaw County is like all the other local governments in Michigan. The state has been cutting their budget going back several years and now the property tax revenues are down, the UM bought Pfizer, etc.

We just all have to trust the good people we have elected and let them weigh the issues and make decisions.

Good luck.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:00:12 +0000

I agree with Commissioner Gunn in her statement (as quoted) that commissioners should also cut their expenses. I suggest a simple approach: eliminate per diems. Many Washtenaw County citizens may not be aware that county commissioners receive a payment for each meeting (of listed committees) they attend. Unless it has changed since I served on the BOC, it is $25. Yes, I certainly collected these when it was the practice to do so. But I also observed that some commissioners collect a disproportionately high fraction of these payments, and the practice also means that appointments to committees are a monetary benefit, giving the chair a certain patronage power.

I was confused by Commissioner Smith’s comment that public safety should “move away from the jurisdictional approach to public safety”. Does this mean that he favors disbanding the Ann Arbor Police Department, or simply that he favors having Ann Arbor taxpayers continue subsidizing other jurisdictions’ expenses? (He represents part of Ann Arbor.)

Thanks again for your continuing coverage. You have put Washtenaw County (government) on the map.

By: Leah Gunn

Leah Gunn — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:00:57 +0000

Kudos to Mary Morgan and the Chronicle for a fabulous and detailed report of what we talked about. I have referred everyone to this article, as it reminded me of what we said. Thank you!

To respond to the person who commented – Washtenaw County is on the cutting edge of technology, and we have reduced our work force over the last few years by about 150 permanent positions. My goal is to preserve as many jobs as possible, so we may continue serving our citizens. This is indeed a challenge with falling tax revenues. If you read the priorities(not an agenda)carefully, you will see that most of them have stood the test of time. You should also know that the county cannot raise taxes, and we cannot raise our fees beyond what it costs to deliver a service. We have our work cut out for us.

By: Linda Peck

Linda Peck — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:48:43 +0000

Thank you for publishing this very thorough piece on the County’s retreat. Platitudes abound, but there is some sense of people committed to moving forward in time. In a time of zero growth, it is good to look at the realities–some costs have stayed the same or gone down. People who are in union jobs need to take a look at this. I own a business where the costs have gone down due to digital improvements, and I have not raised fees to clients in over 6 years. That amounts to a net gain. It is not a bad thing to reduce costs including wages in these times, and yes, taxes too. Let’s revise the picture we are looking at. Why go back to 1998 for an agenda?