From left: Washtenaw County equalization director Raman Patel with commissioners Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) at the April 16, 2014 board of commissioners meeting. (Photos by the writer.

The report was presented by Raman Patel, the county’s long-time equalization director. “Washtenaw County is showing improvements in the market,” he told commissioners. “We are slowly regaining our county’s equalized base. It appears that the worst part of the decline in market value is behind us.”

For 2014, taxable value in the county increased 2.02% to $14.18 billion. That’s a greater increase than the 1.68% climb in 2013, and an improvement over declines seen in recent years. Patel cautioned that several factors are impacting revenue for local governments, including the phase-out of personal property taxes, a variety of exemptions, and tax capture from entities like downtown development authorities.

More of the tax burden is also being shifted to residential property owners, he noted, compared to other categories, like commercial property. The category of residential property accounts for 67.34% of total property value in the county. Five years ago, in 2009, it was 63%.

In other action on April 16, commissioners gave initial approval to distribute proceeds from a countywide tax on hotels and other accommodations. For 2013, $472,846 was available for distribution. If the resolution is given final approval, the county will keep 10% ($47,285) to pay for enforcement of the accommodation ordinance. The remainder will be divided between the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau ($319,171) and the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau ($106,390).

During public commentary, Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College, highlighted the union training programs that will be coming to the area this summer. The CVBs have been instrumental in recruiting these kinds of events to Washtenaw County.

Commissioners also gave initial approval to the annual Urban County action plan, which outlines proposed projects funded by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. 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.

Final authorization was given to a two-year pricing proposal – for 2016 and 2017 – to provide police services to local municipalities through contracts with the county sheriff’s office. And commissioners gave final approval to a new brownfield redevelopment plan for the Thompson Block in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town.

In other action, the board passed a resolution declaring April 13-19 as National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week in Washtenaw County. They also honored Dr. Eugene Glysson, who had served on the county’s board of public works (BPW) since 1986, and was its chair since 1996. He died on April 2.

Several issues were raised during public commentary, including concerns about emergency sirens installed by a pasture in Scio Township. The owner told commissioners that the sirens spook his horses, causing a dangerous situation if anyone is riding them or standing nearby. Other topics discussed by the public included the creation of a new group to help end homelessness, called Our 2020 Vision, and efforts by University of Michigan students to reduce the use of plastic bags by imposing a per-bag usage fee. They’re garnering support in part through a MoveOn.org petition.

Equalization Report

The 2014 equalization report was presented by Raman Patel, the county’s long-time equalization director. He began by noting that this was Washtenaw County’s 56th report, and he’s been involved in the process for 43 of those years. [.pdf 2014 equalization report] [.pdf chart of largest county taxpayers]

This year, Patel said, “Washtenaw County is showing improvements in the market. We are slowly regaining our county’s equalized base. It appears that the worst part of the decline in market value is behind us.”

Raman Patel, director of equalization for Washtenaw County.

Equalized (assessed) value is used to calculate taxable value, which determines tax revenues for the county as well as its various municipalities and other entities that rely on taxpayer dollars, including schools, libraries and the Ann Area Arbor Transportation Authority, among others. There are 72 units of government in Washtenaw County that rely on property tax revenues.

For 2014, taxable value in the county increased 2.02% to $14.18 billion. That’s a greater increase than the 1.68% climb in 2013, and an improvement over declines seen in recent years.

It’s also an improvement over projections made when the county administration prepared its 2014 budget. The general fund budget was approved with a projection of $63.79 million in tax revenues. But actual revenues, based on 2014 taxable value, are now estimated at $64.511 million – for an excess in 2014 general fund revenues of $720,486. Patel stressed that at this point, the taxable value is a recommendation and must be approved at the state level.

Patel also presented tentative taxable values for specific jurisdictions. The city of Ann Arbor shows a 2.68% increase in taxable value, while the city of Ypsilanti’s taxable value is an 0.87% increase over 2013. All but three municipalities showed an increase in taxable value. Those municipalities with decreases are the city of Saline (-1.41%), Ypsilanti Township (-0.37%), and the city of Milan (-0.85%).

Properties in the Ann Arbor Public Schools district – which includes the city of Ann Arbor and parts of surrounding townships – will see a 2.37% increase in taxable value. Properties taxed by the Ann Arbor District Library, covering a geographic area that in large part mirrors the AAPS district, increased in value by 2.36%.

Taxable value is determined by a state-mandated formula, and is the lower of two figures: (1) a parcel’s equalized (assessed) value; or (2) a capped value calculated by taking last year’s taxable value minus any losses (such as a building being torn down), multiplied by 5% or the rate of inflation (whichever is lower – this year inflation is 1.6%), plus the value of any additions or new construction.

In 2014, commercial property showed a 3.97% gain in equalized value. Residential property value – the largest classification of property in the county – showed an increase of 5.84%. That’s stronger than last year’s 2.37% increase, which had been the first climb in value since 2007.

Values for developmental property – a relatively small category that covers properties not yet developed – continue to struggle, registering a decrease of 9.54% in equalized value. Industrial property, which dropped 4.78% in equalized value last year, is essentially flat in 2014 at 0.1%. Over the past few years that category has lost significant value, falling from an equalized value of nearly $1 billion in 2007 to this year’s value of $422.146 million.

Some staff of the county’s equalization department.

Countywide, about $400 million is captured by entities like local downtown development authorities (DDAs), local district finance authorities (LDFAs), brownfield tax increment financing, and other entities that are allowed to capture funds from taxing jurisdictions. For taxes levied by Washtenaw County government alone, $2.472 million goes to these other tax-capturing entities that would otherwise be revenues for the county’s general fund. That’s an increase of $67,409 compared to last year.

Patel reported that in 2013, the county had seen new construction valued at $368.14 million. Of that, 30% of that taxable value is capture by DDAs within the county, he said. This year, new construction is valued at $334.18 million, with 26% of that captured by DDAs.

The category of residential property accounts for 67.34% of total property value in the county. Five years ago, in 2009, it was 63%. That means the tax burden is shifting onto residential property owners, Patel said. He noted that residential property values are increasing – from an average sales price of $154,015 in March 2009 to $231,541 this March.

This year, Patel noted that 1,709 appeals were made to the various boards of review – property owners who contested their assessments. That’s significantly lower than last year, when 2,793 appeals were made. Of this year’s appeals, 1,128 appeals were granted, decreasing the total assessed value of property countywide by $21.112 million. In addition, 134 poverty exemptions were granted and 73 parcels were given exemptions for disabled veterans.

Patel highlighted state legislation regarding personal property taxes (PPT) that would affect the overall growth of equalized and taxable value. This year, property valued at up to $40,000 is exempt from the PPT, affecting 5,137 parcels. It’s part of a gradual phase-out of the PPT over the next 10 years, he said. The county’s equalization department is responsible for tracking this process for each unit of local government in Washtenaw County. A referendum on the Aug. 5, 2014 ballot will ask voters to approve a replacement of PPT revenues, directing a portion of the state’s “use tax” to local governments.

In addition, Public Act 161 of 2013 extends the homestead property tax exemption for disabled military veterans to spouses of deceased veterans. These new exemptions and the resulting losses in tax revenues are reflected in the county’s equalized and taxable value, Patel said.

Patel noted that Washtenaw County’s gross tax revenue is further decreased from downtown development authorities (DDAs), local development finance authorities (LDFAs), tax increment finance authorities (TIFAs), brownfield redevelopment authorities, and obsolete property rehabilitation authorities (OPRAs). These are issues that commissioners should be aware of, Patel said.

Equalization Report: Board Discussion

Several commissioners thanked Patel and his staff for their work. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked how the number of appeals granted this year (1,128) compared to last year. Patel replied that last year, more appeals were granted than this year – but in 2013, more appeals were sought as well.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the report gives separate equalized and taxable values for Willow Run and Ypsilanti public school systems. He wondered when the consolidation that took effect last year would be reflected in the equalization report. Patel indicated that the report will continue to list the districts separately for two more years, in case they split up again.

Smith also asked Patel if he could provide more historical information about the shift toward residential property, as a greater percentage of the total property in the county. “I think we need to be more aware of that shift that may be taking place, because it affects a lot of different policies in various ways,” Smith said.

Regarding that percentage, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked if there were an optimal balance to be struck, in Patel’s opinion. Patel replied that 72 units of government rely on the tax base. The only way to increase or decrease that base is through changes in market value, he said. Aside from market value, the base is decreased through legislative exemptions. “And when you reduce your tax base, somebody has to pick up the burden – that’s the bottom line for everybody,” Patel said.

In Washtenaw County, he said, there are 140,161 parcels. Of those, 4,509 parcels are tax-exempt, he noted. Every year, additional parcels go into this category. In 2014, 69 parcels were exempted, with a taxable value of $8.27 million. Those exemptions are issued by townships, cities, the county and other entities. Someone has to pick up the burden, Patel said, adding that “it’s not a small thing.” In addition, a portion of the taxes from certain properties are being captured by entities like DDAs, he noted. “It all adds up.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) referred to information that Patel had provided showing how property tax revenue would have increased if the state’s Headlee Act and Proposal were not in place.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

By way of background, the Headlee Amendment was approved by a voter referendum in 1978 as an amendment to the state constitution (Article IX, Sections 24-34). It limits the growth of property tax revenue by controlling how the maximum authorized millage rate is calculated. The maximum authorized millage rate is “rolled back” when taxable growth is greater than inflation. That limits the increase in tax revenue to the rate of inflation.

In 1994, Michigan voters approved Proposal A, a constitutional amendment that affected Article IX, Sections 3, 5, and 8. Designed to slow the increase of property taxes on individual parcels, it limits the increase in taxable value of each property to either the rate of inflation or 5% annually, whichever is less – even if the state equalized value (SEV) grows at a greater rate. When property is sold or transferred, the taxable value is reset – or “uncapped” – to the SEV.

Smith noted that during a strong economy, Proposal A didn’t have much effect. But when the economy turned down, Smith said “you saw this pretty dramatic skewing of what our revenue could have been from what it is.” In order to keep local governments whole, he said, legislative fixes are needed.

Patel noted that when the market value increases, it doesn’t mean that local governments will see that same growth in tax revenues. He pointed out that this year, equalized value for properties countywide grew 4.7%, but the increase in taxable value is only about 2%.

If Proposal A weren’t in place, the estimated tax revenue in 2014 would be about $87 million for the county’s general fund, Patel reported. Instead, it’s about $65 million.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve the equalization report.

Police Services Contract

A two-year pricing proposal for contracts to provide police services to local municipalities was on the April 16 agenda for final authorization. Initial approval had been granted by the board on April 2, 2014.

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton.

For 2016 and 2017, the police services unit (PSU) price will be $156,709 and $158,276, respectively. An initial vote had been taken on April 2, 2014.

By way of background, on July 6, 2011, commissioners had authorized the price that municipalities would pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015. The price in 2012 – $150,594 per “police services unit” – was unchanged from 2011, but has been rising in subsequent years by about 1% annually. The complex, politically-charged process of arriving at those figures in 2011 involved more than a year of discussion between the sheriff’s office, other county officials and leaders of local municipalities that contract for these services.

The board’s decision in 2011 was based on a recommendation from the police services steering committee. That same group recommended the next pricing changes as well, based on the cost of a police services unit (PSU). The PSU price for 2014 is $153,621. For 2015, the PSU price will be $155,157. In the following two years, the PSU price was proposed to be $156,709 in 2016 and $158,276 in 2017. The pricing for those two years was authorized by the board in its April 16 action.

Those figures are based on a 1% annual increase in direct costs to contracting municipalities. That rate of increase for PSUs is included in revenue projections for the county’s four-year budget, which the county board passed at its Nov. 20, 2013 meeting. The budget runs from 2014-2017, and includes revenue projections based on contracts for 79 PSUs.

According to a staff memo, there will be an addition to the 2016 and 2017 prices for in-car printer replacement, after the total cost of ownership is determined. The memo also notes that the pricing is based on salaries stipulated in current union contracts with the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM). Those contracts run through 2014, and new contracts are currently being negotiated. The memo states that “no assumptions were made for salaries or fringes change in this cost metric in anticipation of any union negotiations.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The county – through the sheriff’s office budget – pays for the difference between the price charged for each PSU, and the actual cost to provide those services. In 2011, that difference was $25,514.

In 2016, the cost per PSU is expected to be $195,104 – a difference of $38,395 compared to the price being charged to municipalities. In 2017, the cost per PSU is estimated at $199,188 – a difference of $40,912. [.pdf of cost estimates]

Discussion during the April 2 meeting included concerns by some commissioners about the financial sustainability of this approach to funding police services, and the need for new revenue sources for public safety. Sheriff Jerry Clayton had been on hand to present the pricing proposal, and supported suggestions to seek new funding for public safety. He characterized the issue of public safety as one that encompasses economic development, human services and other aspects of the community.

There was no discussion on this item during the April 16 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to the police services contract price.

Thompson Block Brownfield

A resolution giving final approval to a brownfield redevelopment plan for the Thompson Block in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town area was on the April 16 agenda. [.pdf of Thompson Block brownfield plan] Commissioners had granted initial approval on April 2, 2014.

This photo of the Sept. 23, 2009 fire on the Thompson Block property was included in the brownfield redevelopment plan packet.

The plan covers 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St., an historic property that has been declared ”functionally obsolete and blighted.” That qualifies the project as a brownfield under the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing act (Public Act 381), which allows the owner to receive reimbursements for eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). Approval also would allow the developer to apply for Michigan Business Tax Credits. The property is currently owned by Thompson Block Partners LLC, led by Stewart Beal of Beal Properties.

Beal plans to create 16 “luxury lofts” in the structure’s second and third floors, and up to 14,000 square feet of commercial space in the remainder of the site. The project is estimated to cost about $7 million.

The resolution considered by the board also ends a previous brownfield plan for part of the same site, which was approved in 2008. A fire in 2009 delayed the project. The new plan now covers the 107 E. Cross, which was not part of the original plan, and includes public infrastructure improvements, such as streetscape enhancements along North River Street.

The Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority approved this plan at its March 6 meeting. Subsequently, the plan was approved by the Ypsilanti city council on March 18. The city council’s action included approving an “Obsolete Properties Rehabilitation” certificate, which freezes local millages at the current, pre-development level for 12 years. Because of that, the project’s TIF capture will apply only to the state’s school taxes.

The project can get up to $271,578 in eligible cost reimbursed over a 12-year period, for activities including brownfield plan and work plan preparation, limited building demolition, selective interior demolition, site preparation and utility work, infrastructure improvements, architectural and engineering design costs, asbestos and lead abatement, and construction oversight.

The intent of the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing is to support the redevelopment of urban sites that will increase the municipality’s tax base. Tax increment financing allows an entity to capture the difference between the taxable value before a project is undertaken, and the value of the property after it is developed.

A public hearing on this proposal was held at the April 2 meeting, when the board also voted to give initial approval to the plan. Only one person – Tyler Weston, representing Thompson Block Partners – spoke, telling the board that it would help the project.

Weston attended the April 16 meeting, but did not formally address the board. There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to the Thompson Block brownfield redevelopment plan.

Accommodation Tax Distribution

A resolution to give initial approval to distribute proceeds from a countywide tax on hotels and other accommodations was on the April 16 agenda.

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College.

For 2013, $472,846 was available for distribution. If the resolution is given final approval, the county will keep 10% ($47,285) to pay for enforcement of the accommodation ordinance. The remainder will be divided between the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau ($319,171) and the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau ($106,390).

A final vote on that distribution is expected on May 7.

The county collects the 5% excise tax from hotels, motels, and bed & breakfasts, which is then distributed to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention & visitors bureaus and used to promote tourism and convention business. The contract calls for the county to retain 10% of that tax to defray the cost of collection and enforcement. (Until 2009, the county had only retained 5% for this purpose.) The remaining funds are split, with 75% going to the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and 25% going to the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau.

In December 2009, the board approved five-year contracts with the CVBs, outlining the distribution arrangement and creating an accommodation ordinance commission to oversee the process. An amendment made in September 2011 addressed the process for distributing excess funds that might accumulate from the county’s 10%, if that amount exceeds the expenses required to administer and enforce compliance with the tax. Beginning in May 2013, the county retained 10% of the tax proceeds, plus 10% of any remaining fund balance. If additional funds accumulate in the fund balance, they are to be returned proportionally to the two convention & visitors bureaus – 75% to Ann Arbor, and 25% to Ypsilanti.

Subsequently an ordinance change was made in October 2012, when the board voted to shift responsibility for collecting and enforcing accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director. The ordinance amendment transferred a 0.7 full-time equivalent accounting job from the treasurer’s office to the county finance department, and amended the accommodation tax policy to clarify that the tax is only assessed against the actual price of a hotel, motel or other rental – not against other amenities that the business might charge its customers, such as Internet access or an extra cot in the room.

Accommodation Tax Distribution: Public Commentary

The specific resolution was not addressed directly during public commentary. But Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College, and Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, attended the meeting to highlight the union training programs that will be coming to the area this summer. The CVBs have been instrumental in recruiting these kinds of events to Washtenaw County.

The United Association (UA) is coming in August, marking the 25th year that UA training has been held at WCC, Morgan said. The ironworkers union will also be training at WCC for the fifth year. The National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (NJATC) National Training Institute for electricians is coming in July.

Morgan said he and Kerr wanted to make sure that the unions know they are appreciated by Washtenaw County and by WCC.

Kerr noted that the NJATC is celebrating its 25th year as a training program, so that milestone – along with the UA anniversary – will be bringing hundreds of additional people to this area. Collectively, the economic impact from these union training programs is $12 million annually in Washtenaw County, she said. That amount includes money spent on hotels, restaurants, entertainment, retail and transportation. “They do have a significant economic impact on the community,” Kerr said. “Our goal is to keep them here. Our goal is to roll out the red carpet and make this not only an educational opportunity for them, but also an entertaining and relaxing one as well.”

Accommodation Tax Distribution: Board Discussion

Several commissioners thanked Morgan and Kerr, and said they supported the economic vitality that unions bring to this community. Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) praised the work of the AACVB, saying that the county had an excellent partnership with them. He requested that Kerr return in the future to talk about the full range of activities that the CVB does. He wanted people to know that sometimes the government works well with the private sector. [.pdf of 2013 AACVB annual report]

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the accommodation tax distribution. Commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) were out of the room when the vote was taken. A final vote is expected on May 7.

Urban County Action Plan

The 2014 Urban County action plan was on the April 16 agenda for initial approval. The plan covers the period from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 and outlines how the Urban County consortium intends to spend federal funding received from the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). [.pdf of draft action plan]

Map of Urban County participants.

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 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. Locally, 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 (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects. For the upcoming year, the Urban County will be receiving $2.914 million, including $1.832 million from CDBG and $925,308 from HOME. That represents a 5% decrease in CDBG compared to the current year, and a 2% increase in HOME funding.

The 2014 plan identifies six overarching goals: (1) increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities; (2) increasing quality, affordable rental housing; (3) improving public facilities and infrastructure; (4) promoting access to public services and resources; (5) supporting homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing services; and (6) enhancing economic development activities.

A public hearing on the 2014 plan was previously held on March 19, 2014. A final vote on the plan is expected on May 7.

Urban County Action Plan: Board Discussion

Discussion was brief. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) noted that there was almost a $90,000 decrease in CDBG funding. She asked what that decrease means in terms of the county’s ability to provide services.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, replied that the decrease is “better than we feared.” The staff had been anticipating more of a 7% cut, so a 5% decrease was good news. The $90,000 in cuts won’t affect just one program, she said. So it will result in either fewer projects or scaled-down projects.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the Urban County action plan. Commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) were out of the room when the vote was taken. A final vote is expected on May 7.

Bond Re-Funding

Commissioners were asked to give final authorization to the re-funding of up to $16.5 million in outstanding capital improvement bonds, which were originally issued in 2006 to fund expansion of the county jail. Initial approval had been given at the board’s April 2, 2014 meeting.

According to a staff memo, $16.9 million in principal remains of the original $21.675 million bond sale. The county’s bond counsel, Axe & Ecklund, is advising the re-funding because of lower interest rates, and estimates a net savings of about $869,000 over life of the bond issue. The new issue would be called “County of Washtenaw Capital Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2014.” [.pdf of refunding resolution]

At the board’s April 2 meeting, bond counsel John Axe had told the board that current interest rates are between 4% and 4.3%. He estimated that the re-funding interest rates would be between 2.2% and 3.8%.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave final approval to the bond re-funding proposal.

Honoring Eugene Glysson

Commissioners held a moment of silence for Dr. Eugene Glysson, who had served on the county’s board of public works (BPW) since 1986. He died on April 2. They later passed a resolution of appreciation for his service to Washtenaw County. [.pdf of resolution for Eugene Glysson]

Ned Glysson, son of Eugene Glysson.

Glysson had served as chair of the BPW since 1996, and was considered an expert in solid waste management and planning. He also was a professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Michigan.

The resolution noted several of Glysson’s accomplishments, including his leadership in reviewing and approving an agreement with Washtenaw County’s only active landfill “that has provided long term support for the County’s solid waste program including its household hazardous waste program that has removed tons of hazardous materials from the environment…”

Glysson’s son, Ned Glysson, was on hand to accept the resolution, saying it would have meant a lot to his father. He noted that his father refused to retire from the BPW, and about a month ago he had attended a meeting “and was incredibly rejuvenated by it.” It had given his father something to live for.

Evan Pratt, who as the county’s water resources commissioner also serves as director of public works, said Glysson had been a good chair. Commissioner Yousef Rabhi, who served on the BPW for almost four years, recalled that in the early days he’d been late to a few meetings, and Glysson hadn’t been happy about that. “He told me I wouldn’t be late anymore, and I wasn’t,” Rabhi quipped. Rabhi called Glysson a mentor to him and a great environmental leader.

Rabhi noted that a new member will need to be appointed to the BPW, so he’ll be seeking applicants for that.

Telecommunicator Week

The board passed a resolution declaring April 13-19 as National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of board resolution]

From right: Marc Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency services; commissioner Yousef Rabhi; and Dave Halteman, manager of the county’s dispatch operations.

Marc Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency services, was on hand to receive the resolution. He noted that six or seven dispatchers were working that night just a few blocks away.

Breckenridge introduced Dave Halteman, saying he’s worked with the county for 22 years, starting as a 911 dispatcher. In the mid-1990s, Halteman was promoted to lead the countywide 911 effort. Most recently, Halteman was involved in co-locating and integrating dispatch operations in Washtenaw County.

This month, Halteman was promoted to be manager of the county’s dispatch operations, Breckenridge said.

Halteman thanked the board, saying that the job of dispatcher is very difficult and requires the ability to multi-task.

Communications & Commentary

During the April 16 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Emergency Sirens

Speaking during public commentary, James Richardson of Scio Township told commissioners that there’s a potential life-threatening danger – a new emergency siren that was installed at the edge of his pasture.

James Richardson of Scio Township.

When the county approved the expansion of emergency sirens into the townships, he said, they probably viewed it as an improvement in public safety. But they might not have considered the resulting unintended danger. When he first learned that the siren would be installed, he expressed concern that it would bother his horses. He eventually spoke with Marc Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency services, who assured him that studies show that livestock get used to these types of sounds. “I can assure you that these experts haven’t seen horses very near a siren,” Richardson said.

On Saturday, April 5 at noon, the sirens went off for the first time that he was aware of, Richardson said. He happened to be watching his horses, who reared and bolted, running wildly through the pasture. If someone had been riding a horse at that time or even standing near them, it could have caused serious injury and possibly death, he said. If the horses had been near the north end of the pasture, they might have bolted through the fence and onto Liberty Road.

Richardson said he was appealing to the board to have the siren removed from this location. He doubted that his horses would get used to the sound, especially since the sirens are only tested once a month for 1-2 minutes. “I’m notifying you of this danger, and also notifying you that if you fail to act, the board and the county will assume full responsibility for all and any of the resulting damage or injury to my horses, to my property, or any personal injury resulting from the dangerous situation that the emergency siren creates.”

Commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) urged Breckenridge to explore how the county can protect the interests of landowners as well as public safety. Sometimes those things come into conflict, he added, but it’s worth having a conversation to explore the options. Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he’d like to ensure that someone in the county administration follow up on this issue.

Communications & Commentary: Budget

Responding to a query from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) described the process for this year’s budget affirmation. Although the board passed a four-year budget in late 2013 – for the period of 2014 through 2017 – they also need to vote each year to reaffirm the next year’s budget, with any changes they might make.

Commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) talks with Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management.

As a first step, Brabec said, commissioners authorized the county administrator to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. That authorization took place at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting. That person will help the board work on aligning the budget to support community outcomes that commissioners had identified.

By way of additional background, as part of adopting a four-year budget, the board set up a new strategic model to help it determine where the county’s resources should go. The board set goals as well as outcomes that are intended to measure how those goals are being achieved. The priority areas for investment that were approved by the board in 2013 are: (1) ensure community safety net through health and human services, inclusive of public safety; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for county residents; (4) reduce environmental impact; and (5) ensure internal labor force sustainability and effectiveness.

On April 16, Peterson asked whether there could be a working session to review the goals and outcomes, saying that some things might have changed since those goals were adopted. Brabec replied that those kinds of discussions are being planned. Because of frequent low attendance at working sessions, she wondered whether it might be better for the discussion to occur at a ways & means committee meeting. “The discussion will happen,” she said. “We just need to find the best way for those discussions to happen.”

Communications & Commentary: MPRI

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) spoke at length about the need to support the Michigan Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (MPRI), calling it an unfunded mandate from the state. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) agreed that it was an issue the board needs to tackle. Rabhi noted that he serves on the board of the Religious Action for Affordable Housing (RAAH), which has made the Washtenaw County prisoner re-entry program one of its three top priorities. He thought the county should prioritize it too.

Peterson said he wanted a working session on the topic, including a discussion about how the county allocates its dollars for human services programs in relationship to the coordinated funding approach. “It’s not about stopping coordinated funding,” he said. “It’s about how we address the unmet needs of this community.”

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who chairs the board’s working sessions, said he’d be glad to schedule a session on this topic. He noted that this year, the working sessions had not yet achieved 100% attendance. So he hoped commissioners would attend.

The following week, on April 22, LaBarre emailed commissioners an updated schedule of the next six working sessions:

• May 8: MSU Extension update; and follow-up on road commission expansion
• May 22: Community Health Improvement Plan report; and report on homelessness in Washtenaw County task force
• June 5: Report on Virtual Business Advisor initiative
• July 10: Dog licensing public awareness campaign; and Mental Health Court update
• August 7: ID task force report
• September 4: Prisoner reentry (MPRI)

Communications & Commentary: Smoking

During the time on the agenda to bring up items for current or future discussion, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) pointed out that earlier this year, she’d raised the issue of possibly requiring that new hires be tested to make sure they’re nicotine-free. It’s a policy that’s trending in the private sector, Ping noted, and she’d like to have a broader discussion about it. “It’s an expensive liability to take on people who are purposefully are not contributing to their good health,” Ping said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that staff are looking at a range of wellness issues, including that one.

Communications & Commentary: Homelessness

Elizabeth Kurtz spoke about the Delonis Center homeless shelter’s warming center. She thanked the board for funding an extension of the warming center until April 30. If it had closed on April 6 as previously planned, she said, a lot of people would have been outside during cold weather. She told commissioners that she’s lived on the streets for over a year, and based on the needs that she sees, she’s been working with others to end homelessness.

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

They’ve formed an organization called “Our 2020 Vision,” and are seeking support from local governments and private entities to help end homelessness by the end of this decade. The urgency of this issue will no longer allow it to be placed on the back burner, Kurtz said. Specifically, she called on commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) to help acquire the vacant East Middle School in Ypsilanti for use in this effort, and asked other commissioners to help as well.

Ray Gholston also thanked commissioners for helping extend the warming center through April. The county had provided $35,000 to keep it open, he noted, but he questioned why it would cost so much “just to throw a few mats on the lunchroom floor, say goodnight and turn off the lights.” He said he still has a job and is still trying to figure out where he’ll sleep after this month. He’s part of the Our 2020 Vision effort, calling it a human rights organization that’s focused on the homeless population. The group is requesting a meeting with some or all commissioners, to help deal with the crisis.

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked advocates for the homeless for coming to the meeting, and said he looked forward to the board’s May 7 meeting when a timeline would be presented for addressing an update to the Blueprint to End Homelessness. [At its April 2, 2014 meeting, commissioners had directed county administrator Verna McDaniel to bring forward a plan by May 7 for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was originally adopted in 2004. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014. For board discussion on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: "Homeless Issues Emerge on County Agenda."]

Communications & Commentary: US-23

Yousef Rabhi noted that an environmental assessment is being conducted for MDOT’s proposed expansion of US-23 near Ann Arbor. MDOT is seeking public input, and Rabhi said he intended to express his opposition to the project because of environmental concerns. It would be expanded from M-14 to just north of 8 Mile Road near Whitmore Lake. He encouraged others to provide input as well.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Several University of Michigan students spoke during public commentary. As a class project, they’re working on an initiative to reduce the use of plastic bags in Washtenaw County.

University of Michigan students spoke during public commentary.

Their proposal is based on a model used in Washington D.C. that includes imposing a small usage fee on single-use plastic bags. The goal is to nudge consumers to be more aware of their consumption choices. They’ve spoken with commissioner Yousef Rabhi to explore their options. To gauge possible support, they’ve started a petition on MoveOn.org and have reached out to community groups like Recycle Ann Arbor and the Huron River Watershed Council, as well as student groups at UM, Eastern Michigan University and Washtenaw Community College.

Lefiest Galimore touched on several issues during public commentary. As he has in the past, Galimore argued that the coordinated funding approach tends to prevent African-American organizations from getting funded. If his small organization is given $1,500 and a larger organization is given $35,000, then that larger organization will have more capacity to do its work, he said. So the county needs to look at that. Galimore also said that people with mental illness who get involved in the criminal justice system get labeled as criminals, and it’s then impossible for them to get productive jobs. “We need to look at that as a community.”

Thomas Partridge told commissioners that the agenda needed to give more attention to greater priorities, including efforts to eliminate homelessness by providing true affordable housing and countywide public transportation. He supported the transit tax that’s on the May 6 ballot in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.

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, May 7, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

For 2013, $472,846 was available for distribution. Given initial approval at the board’s April 16, 2014 meeting was a distribution that sees the county keeping 10% ($47,285) to pay for enforcement of the accommodation ordinance. The remainder will be divided between the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau ($319,171) and the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau ($106,390).

A final vote on that distribution is expected on May 7.

The county collects the 5% excise tax from hotels, motels, and bed & breakfasts, which is then distributed to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention & visitors bureaus and used to promote tourism and convention business. The contract calls for the county to retain 10% of that tax to defray the cost of collection and enforcement. (Until 2009, the county had only retained 5% for this purpose.) The remaining funds are split, with 75% going to the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and 25% going to the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau.

In December 2009, the board approved five-year contracts with the CVBs, outlining the distribution arrangement and creating an accommodation ordinance commission to oversee the process. A amendment made in September 2011 addressed the process for distributing excess funds that might accumulate from the county’s 10%, if that amount exceeds the expenses required to administer and enforce compliance with the tax. Beginning in May 2013, the county retained 10% of the tax proceeds, plus 10% of any remaining fund balance. If additional funds accumulate in the fund balance, they are to be returned proportionally to the two convention & visitors bureaus – 75% to Ann Arbor, and 25% to Ypsilanti.

Subsequently an ordinance change was made in October 2012, when the board voted to shift responsibility for collecting and enforcing accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director. The ordinance amendment transferred a 0.7 full-time equivalent accounting job from the treasurer’s office to the county finance department, and amended the accommodation tax policy to clarify that the tax is only assessed against the actual price of a hotel, motel or other rental – not against other amenities that the business might charge its customers, such as Internet access or an extra cot in the room.

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: Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county/city of Ann Arbor office of community & economic development. Both women attended the Oct. 17 meeting of the county board of commissioners to address agenda items. (Photos by the writer.)

But they spent much of their discussion on a topic not on the agenda and not requiring a vote: public transit. It emerged that the county administrator now will be sending out additional notification letters to local jurisdictions about a new transit authority, called The Washtenaw Ride. The AATA had initially sent letters notifying jurisdictions of a 30-day window ending Nov. 2.

The new letters, which will likely be sent in early November and alert municipalities to a second 30-day window for opting out of the new authority, were originally expected to be sent by The Washtenaw Ride. But there’s been a delay in forming the new board, so the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority has asked that the county handle the notification process. The county had filed the articles of incorporation for the new entity in early October, at the AATA’s request.

Some commissioners were concerned about the cost –  because the agreement that lays out the process for forming the Washtenaw Ride indicated the county would not be financially responsible for any expenses. The following day, AATA CEO Michael Ford stated at the AATA board meeting that the county would be reimbursed for its expenses.

Part of the county board’s discussion on public transit also centered on proposed state legislation to set up a regional transit authority (RTA) for Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. Some commissioners wanted more information about Washtenaw County’s involvement, and asked for a working session on the topic.

Added to the agenda during the Oct. 17 meeting was a countywide civil infractions ordinance. It was given initial approval by commissioners – with a final vote and public hearing  scheduled for their Nov. 7 meeting. Currently, criminal misdemeanors are the only penalty that the county can apply for an ordinance violation – for infractions like not having a dog license. The intent of the proposed ordinance is to give the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. The proposed fines would be $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense.

The board also passed a policy to reduce barriers to breastfeeding in Washtenaw County facilities, and gave final approval to an ordinance change that shifts responsibility for the county’s accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director.  The accommodation tax is collected from hotels and motels.

Also approved was a one-year extension for the coordinated funding model that’s been piloted for two years as a way to more effectively fund local human services nonprofits. An evaluation of the program – a partnership between the county, city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation – is expected early next year.

The board received a preliminary apportionment report for Washtenaw County, giving details of the 2012 taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. And commissioner Rob Turner reported that a new actuary has been selected to conduct reports on the status of the county’s employee pension and retirement health care funds. Turner is concerned that the fund balances are too low, leaving the county with unfunded liabilities that need to be addressed.

Speaking during public commentary, John Wagner – a volunteer for Camp Take Notice – urged commissioners to consider providing a county facility for the homeless, as winter approaches. The meeting also included recognitions of work done by SafeHouse Center, a domestic violence shelter, and local cooperatives like the Inter-Cooperative Council (ICC) of the University of Michigan. Gaia Kile, vice president of the board for the People’s Food Co-op, told commissioners that the hope is to turn these types of “highly democratic economic institutions” into the fastest-growing segment of the economy.

Civil Infractions Ordinance

A countywide civil infractions ordinance was placed on the agenda for initial approval at the Oct. 17 meeting. The board has previously discussed the idea of creating such an ordinance, but the item was not on the original published agenda. It was added as a supplemental agenda item during the meeting. [.pdf of proposed ordinance]

Currently, criminal misdemeanors are the only penalty that the county can impose for an ordinance violation. If the proposed ordinance is passed, it would  give the county more flexibility to designate ordinance violations as civil infractions, rather than criminal misdemeanors, which hold the threat of much higher fines and jail. The proposed civil infraction fines would be $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense.

Kirk Tabbey, chief judge of the 14-A District Court.

The issue of a civil infractions ordinance was raised most recently in the context of developing a policy for animal control services. Currently, not having a dog license is a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine. Because the penalty is relatively harsh, enforcement is low. County treasurer Catherine McClary had told the board at a February 2011 meeting that she was interested in developing a civil infractions ordinance for dog licensing, with the goal of increasing licensing compliance as a matter of public safety.

McClary and Kirk Tabbey, chief judge of the 14-A District Court, were on hand at the Oct. 17 meeting and answered questions from commissioners about the effort. The 14-A District Court has developed a collections system that the county hopes to use as a model. The ordinance was researched and written by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, with input from McClary, Tabbey and others.

Other departments – such as the building department, health department and office of the water resources commissioner – are also interested in applying civil infractions. So the ordinance is written in a general way, and not limited to a specific type of violation.

Civil Infractions Ordinance: Board Discussion

Conan Smith asked Kirk Tabbey to talk about the 14-A District Court’s “robust” system built around collections for civil infractions. Tabbey described the various steps that are taken if someone doesn’t pay the fine. The goal is to get the person into the collections cycle, and keep them out of court, if possible. About 1,000 people are currently on payment plans, he said. The easier it is for people to pay – by allowing them to make payments online, for example – the better it is for collecting the fine. He noted that the system more than pays for the staff needed to administer the collections.

Dan Smith asked about the judicial philosophy behind the system. Smith said he understood that the point was to not to tie up the courtroom, but the fact is that punishment as a misdemeanor is a strong deterrent. However, that’s only true if it’s enforced, he noted. Smith also expressed concern that some people might factor in a fine as a cost of doing business.

Tabbey agreed that these are real concerns. No matter how the system is structured, some people will find a way to abuse it, he said.  The intent is to get more compliance upfront, and avoid going to court. The approach meets multiple goals, and gives people a way to solve the problem without involving the court at the start, he said. The only reason for the court to get involved is if someone doesn’t pay.

Dan Smith pointed out that there’s still the threat of incarceration, if fines aren’t paid. But in the current system, the court would immediately be involved.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the civil infraction ordinance. A final vote is expected at the board’s Nov. 7 meeting. The board also set a public hearing on the proposed ordinance for that same meeting.

Public Transit Update

It appears that Washtenaw County will now be the entity sending out an official letter to local municipalities in early November, informing them that the official 30-day “opt out” period for leaving the new Washtenaw Ride transit authority will start at that time. Curtis Hedger – the attorney for Washtenaw County – informed county commissioners of that news at their Oct. 17 meeting, in response to a query from commissioner Wes Prater.

Curt Hedger, right, is the county’s corporation counsel. He was talking with Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office prior to the start of the Oct. 17 meeting. Among other duties, Simms is responsible for taking minutes at the meeting.

Many commissioners expressed surprise at the county’s involvement in this way. Previously, the expectation was that the county would not be involved in the process after filing articles of incorporation – which occurred on Oct. 3 at the request of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The Washtenaw Ride is an Act 196 authority, and is intended to create a much broader transit system than the current AATA. The process of creating a larger transit system has been in the works for more than two years.

There’s been some confusion and differing legal views regarding the process of forming the new transit authority. Letters of notification sent by the AATA in late September to all jurisdictions in the county referred to a statutory 30-day window starting with the filing of the articles of incorporation. But Act 196 also requires that the new transit authority itself notify jurisdictions, which also triggers a 30-day window for opting out. The statute makes clear that it’s the later of the two windows that is relevant. Because the new transit authority does not yet have a seated board, it has not yet acted to notify jurisdictions countywide. For a more detailed report on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “Positions Open: New Transit Authority Board.”

At the county board’s Oct. 17 meeting, Hedger told commissioners that AATA had approached the county, as the incorporator of the new transit authority, and asked the county to send official letters instead of waiting for the new transit board to be formed. The county would do so as soon as the articles of incorporation become operational in early November, he said. That means letters would go out likely by Nov. 8, he said, which would create a 30-day “opt out” window that would close in early December. Jurisdictions are automatically a part of the new authority until their governing bodies take formal action. Since early October several township boards have already voted to opt out. From reports in assorted news outlets, those include the townships of Northfield, Salem, Manchester, Sharon, Superior, York, Dexter, Bridgewater and Augusta.

Hedger said he expects the letter, which hasn’t yet been drafted, will indicate that the new authority will honor the opt-out decisions that have already been made. But it also will inform municipalities that they could change their minds and rejoin the authority until the 30-day window closes in early December, he said.

Commissioners Dan Smith and Rob Turner, who have previously expressed reservations about the process, both noted that the county was not supposed to incur any costs in setting up the new authority – saying its only role was to officially file the articles of incorporation. They noted that this had been laid out in the four-party agreement between the county, AATA, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Now, it appears that staff time and postage costs will be paid by the county, they noted.

This is the relevant section in the four-party agreement:

6. Indemnification. AATA and its successor-in-interest The New TA shall indemnify and hold Washtenaw County, the Cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, their elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against all actions, liabilities, demands, costs and expenses, including court costs and attorney fees, which may arise due to their respective negligent, grossly negligent and/or intentional acts or omissions under this Agreement, and transfer or assumption required under this Agreement once the New TA is operational.

Hedger indicated that he doesn’t expect to spend a significant amount of time on drafting the letter, and will use the previous one sent out by AATA as a template. Commissioner Conan Smith noted that the county had pledged to ensure that municipalities would be notified, and if that simply means sending out 28 letters, then “I think we can foot the bill.”

There was some discussion about the need to notify each elected official individually, rather than just sending a notice to each of the township, village or city clerks in the 28 jurisdictions within Washtenaw County. That would significantly increase the number of letters that would be sent.

Hedger also noted that if the Washtenaw Ride board is appointed by early November, then that entity could take over the notification process. “But it doesn’t look like that will happen at this point,” he said.

Before any AATA assets would be transferred to The Washtenaw Ride, voters would need to approve a funding source – likely a millage that could come as early as May 2013. The requirement of voter approval is part of a four-party agreement – between Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and the AATA – that governs the possible transition to The Washtenaw Ride.

Prater expressed frustration, questioning why the four-party agreement wasn’t being followed. ”Why don’t we just pitch it out? It’s absolutely ridiculous that we do these agreements, then they’re not followed.”

The day following the county board’s Oct. 17 meeting, the AATA board held its regular monthly meeting. Michael Ford, the AATA’s CEO, informed board members that the AATA would be reimbursing the county for any cost incurred from the mailing.

Public Transit Update: Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

Before the discussion about The Washtenaw Ride, Wes Prater had asked for an update about state legislation regarding a proposed regional transit authority (RTA) for southeast Michigan – the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. Prater said he’d heard that board chair Conan Smith was involved, and he felt the board should get an update.

From left: Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director, and county commissioner Wes Prater.

Smith replied that he didn’t have detailed information at hand. The legislature has held several hearings, he said, and there’s strong support for an RTA across the region. But the legislation hasn’t gotten much traction, Smith added. [In late September, Smith had testified at a Michigan House Transportation Committee in support of the RTA. The legislation will likely be picked up again after the Nov. 6 election, in lame duck session.]

Prater felt like he hadn’t received sufficient information about the effort. Since Washtenaw County would be included in the RTA, if it’s formed, he thought the board should be more involved, rather than just one of its members.

Smith said he could send other commissioners information and analysis that he has received about the issue, noting that there have been multiple iterations of the RTA legislation over the past year. He also told Prater that Barbara Bergman and Yousef Rabhi had been appointed to an advocacy group about a year ago. When Prater asked when that had happened, Rabhi said that it had occurred at a board meeting.

By way of background, at its Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, the board unanimously passed a resolution of support for the RTA, but no appointments were made at that time. [.pdf of RTA resolution] From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

The context for the resolution is a Sept. 30 southeast Michigan regional summit that Washtenaw County has been invited to participate in for the first time. In past years, the summit included Detroit and the counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. This year, Washtenaw and St. Clair counties will be included, and the topics will focus on regional cooperation and transportation. Smith and [former District 7 commissioner] Kristin Judge have been participating in the planning stages on Washtenaw County’s behalf.

The resolution cites the benefits and goals of regional transportation, including transit options along the Ann Arbor to Detroit corridor, and connections to Detroit Metro and Willow Run airports. It notes that state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor) – who is married to Conan Smith – has introduced legislation as part of a bipartisan package to create a regional transportation authority.

The main resolved clause of the Washtenaw County resolution states: “Be It Therefore Resolved that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners supports the creation of a new Regional Transportation Authority to enhance interconnectivity among the communities of the southeast Michigan region and urges the participants in the 2011 Southeast Michigan Regional Summit to aggressively pursue work that meets the above outlined goals.”

Responding to an email query from The Chronicle following the Oct. 17 meeting, Smith clarified that he was referring to an advocacy group called R-PATH (Regional Partners Advocating Transit Here). It’s unclear when Rabhi and Bergman were appointed, but they both filed R-PATH meetings – in January and February of 2012 – as part of their “flex account” statements. Each commissioner has $3,500 per year in their account to cover reimbursements for travel, per diem and other approved expenses. [Update: The resolution appointing Rabhi and Bergman was approved as part of the board's overall appointments process in January 2012.]

From left: Commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Yousef Rabhi.

At the end of the discussion at the Oct. 17 meeting, Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he’d like to have a working session on this issue. Smith suggested asking Kirk Profit, a lobbyist for the county, to attend the board’s Nov. 7 meeting and give an update.

Prater reiterated that the board should be informed, and that he didn’t want them to be taken by surprise. If the RTA is established, it’s important to know how it will be funded. The transit authority can’t be created without revenue, he said. “I think we all know that.” He wanted to know what it would cost.

Rabhi said he’d attended a meeting of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) earlier in the day. There, a liaison to SEMCOG – the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments – had given an update on the RTA status. A lot of people are unclear about what’s happening, he said, because it appears that much of the work is occurring behind the scenes. The initial plan put forward by Gov. Rick Snyder had called for vehicle registration fees to fund the RTA, he noted, but it’s not clear what the funding would be at this point.

Outcome: There was no vote – this was not an item on the agenda, and did not require action on the part of the board.

Accommodations Ordinance Change

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to an ordinance change that shifts responsibility for the county’s accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director. A public hearing was also held at the Oct. 17 meeting. Initial approval had been given on Oct. 3, 2012.

The ordinance amendment transfers a 0.7 full-time equivalent accounting job from the treasurer’s office to the county finance department, and amends the accommodation tax policy to clarify that the tax is only assessed against the actual price of a hotel, motel or other rental – not against other amenities that the business might charge its customers, such as Internet access or an extra cot in the room. [.pdf of ordinance amendment] [.pdf of amended accommodation ordinance] [.pdf of amended accommodation policy]

According to a staff memo, the changes are being recommended by the county’s accommodation ordinance commission (AOC), as well as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus, which receive funding from the 5% tax. In 2011, revenues from the tax reached nearly $4 million, and are allocated on a 75/25 percentage split to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti CVBs.

This is the second recent change to the accommodation tax ordinance. At its Aug. 1, 2012 meeting, the board amended the ordinance to exempt cottages and bed & breakfasts with fewer than 14 rooms, as well as individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution. Several owners of bed & breakfasts spoke to the board in favor of that amendment, citing concerns over the increased frequency of audits and general attitude of the treasurer’s staff, which they felt was unnecessarily contentious.

On Oct. 3, two people – both members of the local hotel association – spoke in support of the proposed change. No one spoke at the Oct. 17 public hearing.

Outcome: With no discussion, commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the accommodation ordinance change.

Coordinated Funding Program

A resolution to extend a two-year pilot program using a “coordinated funding” model to support local human services  for a third year was on the Oct. 17 agenda.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach, which aims to leverage the money better that public and private entities allocate to local nonprofits. Other partners are the city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The county board originally approved the two-year pilot at its November 2010 meeting – see Chronicle coverage: “Despite Concerns, Coordinated Funding OK’d.”

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

The total process puts $4.935 million into local human services nonprofits. The extension of the coordinated funding approach for a third year means that nonprofits receiving funding currently would not need to reapply for support. The extension by one year would allow for the evaluation process for the pilot period to finish, likely by early 2013. That evaluation is being funded with $70,000 from a private donor. The extension would also allow a better opportunity to provide the outcome data on the program so far, according to staff.

The Ann Arbor city council approved the one-year extension at its Oct. 15 meeting. A staff memo accompanying the county board’s resolution stated that the United Way of Washtenaw County and Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation have already approved the extension, and the Urban County executive committee is expected to vote on it at its Oct. 23 meeting.

Coordinated Funding Program: Public Commentary

Lily Au told commissioners that she hadn’t seen them in a long time, but she reminded them that she had previously attended their meetings and has been working on the issue of coordinated funding for years – she does not support it. She warned them to pay attention to the reallocation or redirection of funds. Usually, it’s related to someone’s personal benefit, she contended. From the beginning, she hasn’t agreed with the coordinated funding approach. She described it as immoral to take public funds and redirect them to private entities like the United Way. She pointed to what she sees as conflicts of interest – when former county commissioner Mark Ouimet served as president of the United Way board, and when the former president of AnnArbor.com did the same. It’s important to uphold integrity in the community, she concluded.

Coordinated Funding Program: Board Discussion

Dan Smith said he wasn’t thrilled with the one-year extension, but he would support it. He was really looking forward to the report that will be ready early next year.

From left: Commissioners Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson and Rob Turner.

Wes Prater and Ronnie Peterson asked several questions about the process. County administrator Verna McDaniel clarified that the extension runs through June 30 of 2014. The board has already approved funding for 2013 – that happened in late 2011, as part of a two-year budget planning cycle. At that time, the board approved a line item of $1.015 million annually for coordinated funding. However, commissioners must take another vote to affirm the 2013 budget, with any modifications they choose to make. That vote will likely occur at their Nov. 7 meeting.

McDaniel told commissioners that at some point in 2013, they’ll be asked to approve additional funding for the coordinated approach for the period of January through June of 2014. The county’s budget is tied to the calendar year, but the city of Ann Arbor’s budget year runs from June 30 through July 1.

Peterson wanted to know how much funding was being committed by other partners. He felt that information should be part of the board’s deliberations. He said that while the county’s funding was set firmly, he believed support from other partners tended to “move.” [Sitting in the audience, Mary Jo Callan – director of the office of community and economic development, which oversees this process – shook her head no, indicating that this wasn't the case.]

Peterson said he wanted to be clear about what the partnership truly  means. He was comfortable voting for the extension, but said that when the evaluation report is finished, he’ll bring forward some of his other concerns.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave initial approval to a one-year extension of the coordinated funding program for human services. A final vote is expected at the board’s Nov. 7 meeting.

Breastfeeding Policy

A policy to reduce barriers to breastfeeding in Washtenaw County facilities was on the agenda for approval at the Oct. 17 meeting. [.pdf of breastfeeding policy] The board had been briefed on the issue at a Sept. 20 working session.

The policy states: “In all County leased and owned buildings and property, and at all County-sponsored meetings, regardless of location, a mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother and her child are otherwise authorized to be.” There will be ”Breastfeeding Friendly” signs installed to promote the policy.

The goal is to promote “health, nutritional, immunologic, developmental, social and economic benefits for infants, mothers, families and communities” that are associated with breastfeeding, according to a staff memo.

Breastfeeding Policy: Public Commentary

Keleigh Lee of Superior Township introduced herself as a board-certified lactation consultant, and she thanked the board for supporting this breastfeeding policy. She has worked with hundreds of women, and many of them face an uphill battle – it’s hard to get started with breastfeeding, she said. So it’s sad to see many women quit doing it. The percentage of women breastfeeding drops from 80% to 15% within six months. She’s happy to see barriers removed, so that women can feel more comfortable breastfeeding.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved the county’s breastfeeding policy.

Apportionment Report

A preliminary apportionment report for Washtenaw County – giving details of the 2012 taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality – was presented to county commissioners at their Oct. 17 meeting. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. December tax bills will be mailed out to property owners based on these calculations.

Raman Patel, Washtenaw County’s equalization director.

In April, the county’s equalization department produces an annual report describing Washtenaw County’s total equalized (assessed) value of property. The report is part of a state-mandated equalization process, and gives an indication of how much revenue the county will receive from property taxes in the coming year. [See Chronicle coverage: "Report: Better-Than-Expected '12 Tax Revenue"]

Later in the year – in October or November – the equalization and property description department presents an apportionment report. [.pdf file of 2012 preliminary apportionment report] Like the equalization report, the board is required by state law to vote on adoption of the apportionment report.

This year, all the taxing entities in Washtenaw County will be levying in total about $621.687 million in property taxes – a slight drop from $622 million in 2011 and $639 million in 2010. The county alone will levy about $80.578 million this year, compared to roughly $81 million in 2011 and $83 million in 2010.

The amount of money generated for the city of Ann Arbor through its millages will be increasing, due to the slightly increased valuation in Ann Arbor property values – from a total of 4,634,891,157 in 2011 to  $4,683,218,542 in 2012.

Typically, Raman Patel – the county’s long-time equalization director – makes a presentation to commissioners with highlights from the report. He attended the meeting, but was not asked to address the board.

Apportionment Report: Board Discussion

Dan Smith was the only commissioner to comment on the report. He highlighted the graphic on the report’s back cover – which was included in the paper version that was distributed to commissioners, but not in the electronic version. It showed that of the total amount of taxes levied in 2012 countywide, 52.05% was levied for public education. Smith said he just wanted to point out that fact.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to approve the preliminary 2012 apportionment report.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Camp Take Notice

John Wagner of Ann Arbor spoke during public commentary about Camp Take Notice, reporting that he’s been a volunteer for the homeless community for about two years. He reminded commissioners that the camp had been closed this summer. [The camp had been set up on property owned by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, off of Wagner Road near M-14. This summer, MDOT told residents that they couldn't remain on the land, and the group disbanded from the location in June.]

Wagner said that when the group left the site, there were about 70 members. Of those, about 35 have found housing, and that’s great, he said. But homelessness remains a significant problem, both statewide and in this community. As individuals, people who are homeless feel isolated. There are also safety issues, he noted. The alienation that people feel contributes to chronic homelessness, and doesn’t help an individual get reintegrated into the community. Winter is approaching, Wagner noted, and times are tough. He hoped the county would consider helping find a site – perhaps a county-owned facility – that Camp Take Notice could use to help people through this troublesome time.

Commissioner Rob Turner responded to Wagner’s comments, referencing a recent meeting that he had attended with camp residents at the University of Michigan. [Turner had described this meeting in more detail at the board's Sept. 5, 2012 meeting.] He reported that some commissioners – including Leah Gunn, Yousef Rabhi and himself – had met with camp members and volunteers, county staff and nonprofits that are involved in addressing homelessness, including the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. There was not uniform agreement about an approach, he noted, because the camp’s philosophy differs in some ways from other groups. But there are some areas of agreement, he added, and they’ll be meeting again in November. He described the county board as strong advocates to help the homeless.

Communications & Commentary: Retirement Funds

Rob Turner reported news related to the county’s two retirement benefits boards – for the Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System (WCERS) and the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA), which handles retiree health benefits. The WCERS and VEBA boards had a joint meeting recently to review responses to a request for proposals (RFP) for actuarial services. The two finalists were the current actuary – Gabriel Roeder Smith & Co. (GRS) – and Buck Consultants. Turner said that the Buck proposal was far superior, promising to be more pro-active and aggressive in reporting out the conditions of the funds. It was a unanimous decision, he said.

Commissioners Dan Smith and Alicia Ping.

Turner expressed concern about the fund balances, and looked forward to the county getting into a healthier position.

Wes Prater asked whether the county had received actuarial reports on WCERS and VEBA. County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that GRS had completed a report for WCERS, but the report for VEBA wasn’t yet finished – though it had been due “quite some time ago,” she said. [During a first-quarter budget update to the board in May 2012, Tina Gavalier – the county’s finance analyst – told commissioners that the reports would be completed by summer.] WCERS was 65% funded at the end of 2011.

Turner said the boards were concerned about the unfunded liabilities. He noted that if this were a plan in the private sector, they’d be required to address it. But because it’s a government plan, he said, the rules are different. It’s a big concern, he concluded, and the county needs to get its unfunded liabilities back in line.

Alicia Ping, who was chairing the Oct. 17 meeting, said that Yousef Rabhi would plan a working session on the topic in early 2013 – assuming that he would be re-elected as chair of the working session, she noted. The board elects its officers at its first meeting of 2013.

Communications & Commentary: Sylvan Recount

Rob Turner reported that he had attended the court-ordered recount of a ballot proposal vote for Sylvan Township earlier in the week. The vote ballot question – which was on the Aug. 7 primary ballot – was a proposal for a 20-year, 4.4 mill tax to repay debt on water and sewer bonds. [For more background, see Chronicle coverage: "County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract."]

A recount had been requested following the narrow passage of the millage – 480 yes votes (50.37%) compared to 473 (49.63%) no votes. But during the recount on Sept. 4, the county board of canvassers determined that the ballot seal had not been appropriate and the recount didn’t proceed. That decision was appealed, and on Oct. 3 judge Archie Brown of the 22nd circuit court ruled that a recount could move forward within 21 days. The recount took place on the morning of Oct. 16.

Turner described it as a very interesting process, with no change in the outcome. He said he fully supported the recount, because the issue was festering. Several of his constituents have told him they feel relieved, Turner said, and it looks like the millage will be levied starting with the December 2012 tax bills.

Communications & Commentary:  WATS

Yousef Rabhi gave an update as the board’s liaison to the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS). The board had previously been briefed – at a Sept. 20, 2012 working session – about a WATS policy committee that was looking at the possibility of WATS becoming its own metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Currently, it is part of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) MPO. The committee had decided not to move forward with separation from SEMCOG, he said, so that issue is off the table. He felt it had been productive to discuss, because it had led to progress in capturing SEMCOG’s attention regarding problems that need to be addressed. The county’s concerns will be better represented on a regional scale, he believed.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary. He introduced himself as a write-in candidate for state representative in District 53, which covers Ann Arbor. [Partridge had lost the Aug. 7 Democratic primary to incumbent Jeff Irwin, pulling in 11.53% of the vote.] Partridge advocated for support of affordable and accessible housing, transportation, health care and education, especially for the move vulnerable residents.

Recognitions

There were several formal recognitions made at the Oct. 17 meeting. Here are some highlights.

Barbara Niess May, executive director of the SafeHouse Center.

Recognitions: Domestic Violence Awareness

Felicia Brabec read a resolution that declared October as domestic violence awareness month and recognized SafeHouse Center for its work to help survivors of domestic violence. [.pdf of resolution] The nonprofit’s executive director, Barbara Niess May, was on hand and gave some brief remarks, thanking the board and others who have supported SafeHouse over the years. She told them that the work saves lives, but there are more people that they aren’t yet reaching. She reported that local law enforcement leaders would be convening to unveil a new effort that would improve the response to domestic violence countywide.

Recognitions: Cooperatives

Yousef Rabhi presented a resolution recognizing 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives. The resolution noted that there are several cooperative businesses in the county, including the Inter-Cooperative Council (ICC) of the University of Michigan; Forest Hills Cooperative Housing; Arrowwood Hills Cooperative Housing; Colonial Square Cooperative; Pinelake Village Cooperative; Ann Arbor Cooperative Preschool; Stone School Cooperative Nursery; First United Methodist Cooperative Nursery; University of Michigan Credit Union; Ypsilanti Food Co-op; and the People’s Food Co-op in Ann Arbor.

Gaia Kile, vice president of the board for the People’s Food Co-op, spoke to the board briefly. Cooperatives have been recognized by the United Nations for playing an important role in economic development and in meeting human needs, he said. Because this type of business is values-based and focused on meeting the needs of its members, he said, they are “highly democratic economic institutions.” The hope is to turn cooperatives into the fastest-growing segment of the economy, Kile added, and he thanked the board for the recognition.

Rabhi noted that he used to live in cooperative housing. It changed his life, he said, and because it led him to run for office, he joked that it had changed the lives of other commissioners, too.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Barbara Bergman.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle 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 ordinance amendment approved by commissioners transfers a 0.7 full-time equivalent accounting job from the treasurer’s office to the county finance department, and amends the accommodation tax policy to clarify that the tax is only assessed against the actual price of a hotel, motel or other rental – not against other amenities that the business might charge its customers, such as Internet access or an extra cot in the room. [.pdf of ordinance amendment] [.pdf of amended accommodation ordinance] [.pdf of amended accommodation policy]

According to a staff memo, the changes are being recommended by the county’s accommodation ordinance commission (AOC), as well as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus, which receive funding from the 5% tax. In 2011, revenues from the tax reached nearly $4 million, and are allocated on a 75/25 percentage split to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti CVBs.

This is the second recent change to the accommodation tax ordinance. At its Aug. 1, 2012 meeting, the board amended the ordinance to exempt cottages and bed & breakfasts with fewer than 14 rooms, as well as individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution. Several owners of bed & breakfasts spoke to the board in favor of that amendment, citing concerns over the increased frequency of audits and general attitude of the treasurer’s staff, which they felt was unnecessarily contentious.

On Oct. 3, two people – both members of the local hotel association – spoke in support of the proposed change. No one spoke at the Oct. 17 public hearing.

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

Janis Bobrin, Washtenaw County’s water resources commissioner, attended the Oct. 3, 2012 county board meeting to present environmental excellence awards. She received a standing ovation from commissioners. She is not running for re-election, and will leave office later this year after more than two decades in that position. (Photos by the writer.)

The board is authorized to levy the tax under Act 88 of 1913 – and it does not require a voter referendum. Voting against the increase were commissioners Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rob Turner. They cited several objections, including the timing of a tax increase while many taxpayers are struggling because of the economy, and the unlikelihood that the tax will be lowered in the future, when economic conditions improve. Peterson also felt that the Act 88 funds aren’t being used for their original purpose – to leverage matching dollars for economic development – and instead are being diverted to support county operations.” It was never meant to be a piggy bank for county government,” he said.

The final vote to levy the increased tax passed 8-3, with Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater and Dan Smith voting against it. Alicia Ping has in the past also voted against the Act 88 tax, but supported it this time – though she voted against the amendment to increase the rate. She hoped commissioners would consider reallocating some funding for the western side of the county, pointing out that there are economic development needs there too, including a lack of decent Internet access.

Far less contentious was an initial vote to move control over administering the county’s 5% accommodation tax from the county treasurer’s office to the finance director. Two members of the Washtenaw County Hotel/Motel Association spoke in support of changing the accommodation ordinance in this way. The vote by commissioners was unanimous, though Dan Smith noted that this is the second time this year that the ordinance has been revised, and he hoped it would be the last. He also expressed some concern that all hoteliers aren’t being treated equitably. A final vote and public hearing on the change is set for Oct. 17.

Commissioners also approved a set of recommendations to guide county administrator Verna McDaniel in her negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for animal control services. The current contract with HSHV ends on Dec. 31. An accompanying report from a policy task force was discussed only briefly – in part because the final version had been sent to commissioners only that day and there had been little time to digest it, and in part because some commissioners wanted to adjourn so that they could watch the first presidential debate, which began at 9 p.m. The board plans to continue discussion of the issue at a future date.

During the meeting, board chair Conan Smith told commissioners that a caucus would be held immediately prior to the next board meeting – on Nov. 7, at 5:30 p.m. – to discuss appointments to various county boards, commissions and committees. Such appointment caucuses are open to the public. [A listing of all vacancies is found on this website. An online application to apply for an opening can be found here.] The news prompted Ronnie Peterson to criticize the process, which he felt was not sufficiently transparent.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax

On the agenda was a resolution to authorize levying the Act 88 tax to support agriculture and economic development, as well as an amendment that would raise the rate to 0.06 mills, an increase from the current 0.05 mills. A public hearing was also held on this item.

The board was on track to approve the tax last month at the 0.05 mill rate. But after a public hearing, board chair Conan Smith proposed an amendment to raise the rate to 0.06 mills – an idea he’d informally floated at the board’s Sept. 5 meeting. Some commissioners objected to making a change after the public hearing, which led the board to postpone action until Oct. 3, when another public hearing was scheduled.

Smith’s proposal also gave the office of community and economic development (OCED) the authority to distribute the millage funds.

The millage is authorized under the state’s Act 88 of 1913, and has been levied by the board since 2009. That year, it was levied at 0.04 mills. It was raised to 0.043 in 2010 and 0.05 in 2011. Because the Michigan statute that authorizes this millage predates the state’s Headlee Amendment, the board can levy it without a voter referendum.

The rate of 0.06 mills would generate about $838,578 and cost $6 for each $100,000 of a home’s taxable value. It would generate about $145,483 more than the rate of 0.05 mills. The millage proceeds were proposed to be allocated to the following local entities in 2013, with generally the same amounts that the groups received this year: Ann Arbor SPARK ($200,000), SPARK East ($50,000), the county’s dept. of community & economic development ($140, 331), Eastern Leaders Group ($100,000), promotion of heritage tourism ($65,264), Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP – $15,000), Washtenaw 4-H ($82,500), Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show ($15,000), and MSU Extension, to support economic development in the local food system ($15,000).

Smith proposed that the additional funds from the increase would be used for the Detroit Region Aerotropolis ($50,000), with any remaining balance – about $95,000 – be allocated to the office of community & economic development, for activities related to those authorized by Act 88. It’s likely that the amount would include additional staff for that office.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Public Hearing/Commentary

Shawn Letwin of Webster Township spoke briefly during the first opportunity for public commentary. He noted that when the increase has been discussed, some people have talked about the fact that incomes in the county are increasing. He said that his income has increased about 300% – because he was downsized three times and made only $10,000 last year, compared to about $30,000 this year. There just isn’t the money now for a tax increase, he said. Letwin told commissioners that he has about $200,000 in debt and will have to finance about $68,000 for his child’s college education. He couldn’t afford the tax increase, and hoped the board would be prudent in their decision.

Two people spoke during the official public hearing on the Act 88 tax. Thomas Partridge said he endorsed the tax but didn’t think the board had leveled with the community. These kinds of taxes are relics of the 18th century, he said. Special interest millages like Act 88 should be replaced by progressive business and personal income taxes, he said. Partridge wanted the board to explain how this tax would contribute to the advancement of agriculture, economic development and tourism. The county needs a prominent site for an agricultural, industrial and scientific fair, he said, as well as a convention center and a large indoor/outdoor theater.

Matt Shane introduced himself as MSU extension director for the district that includes Washtenaw County. He described highlights of how Act 88 revenues benefit the MSU Extension and the 4-H programs that it operates, including some that focus on entrepreneurship and consumer horticulture. 4-H has impacted about 4,500 youth between the ages of 5-19, he said.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Board Discussion – Amendment

The discussion began with a brief overview by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, who reviewed what had happened at the Sept. 19 meeting. Now, he said, the board first would be considering Conan Smith’s amendment to raise the millage rate from 0.05 mills to 0.06 mills. After they deliberated and voted on that amendment, they would then vote on the resolution to levy the Act 88 millage.

Dan Smith noted that the proposal calls for a 20% increase from the current rate, and he wouldn’t support it.

Ronnie Peterson said there’s no question that the real estate market has taken a hit, especially on the county’s east side, where tax and mortgage foreclosures are high. He described his stance toward economic development as aggressive, saying that Act 88 revenues are appropriate to support the services they’ve funded in the past. But he wondered what the rationale is for raising the rate – when would the board see a plan? He felt the increase should be justified before the board acts on it.

Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Conan Smith reviewed how he had introduced the proposed increase at the board’s Sept. 5 meeting, and had passed out a memo to commissioners the next night, at their working session. [.pdf of Smith's Act 88 memo] [Peterson had been absent from that working session.]

Smith said the intent is to maintain current funding levels in the face of declining property values, and to provide additional support to the Detroit Region Aerotropolis. The aerotropolis, which includes Willow Run airport, is currently funded through the county’s general fund. The change would free up general fund money for other uses. Finally, Smith said there’s currently inadequate staff – 1.5 full-time-equivalent positions – to manage the county’s economic development activities. Additional staffing would allow the county to use its economic development funds more efficiently, he said.

Peterson then spoke at length about his concerns, noting that he was one of the people who originally supported the Act 88 millage. He gave credit to Bob Guenzel, the county administrator at the time, as well as former board chair Jeff Irwin and former commissioner Ken Schwartz, who first identified Act 88 as a potential way to raise revenues without seeking voter approval.

It was the first time that the county had been aggressive in addressing economic development needs, Peterson said. The tax was intended to providing matching funds for grants and partners in the community that were doing this work. The need was especially great on the county’s east side. But the millage proceeds were not intended to subsidize county operations, Peterson said. If that’s what the board wants, they should go to the voters and ask. ”It was never meant to be a piggy bank for county government,” Peterson said. He wondered if the proposed tax increase was a way to protect key employees or managers – and if that’s the case, the board should know, he said.

Conan Smith replied that the board hasn’t empowered the county administration to add jobs yet. The current resolution would only authorize an increased levy to create additional funding. If that’s approved, then the board would eventually have to amend the budget and approve any additional jobs.

Peterson objected to not having more details before they vote. There wasn’t a plan for the use of proceeds, he said. He cited several other taxes that would be coming before county residents, including a possible transportation tax and renewal for parks and recreation. It’s ridiculous to ask his constituents to pay more, Peterson said.

Rob Turner also expressed concern about raising the amount. He understood that property values were declining and that meant fewer revenues would be collected if the rate stays the same. But he felt that when property values start increasing again, the rate won’t be decreased. “It’ll be a tax increase forever,” he said.

Saying he respected everyone’s opinions, Yousef Rabhi spoke in favor of the increase. It’s a troubled economy, but how should they help rebuild it? By investing, he said. Funding organizations like Ann Arbor SPARK, the Eastern Leaders Group and others is helping create a stronger economy, he said, and it shows.

Rabhi noted that although other commissioners refer to a 20% increase, that’s really just a $1 increase for a home with a taxable value of $100,000 – from $5 to $6 annually. What’s more, they’re well below the half-mill limit that the county is allowed to levy under Act 88, he said.

Rabhi also disputed Turner’s point about the difficulty of lowering taxes. In fact, everyone loves lowering taxes, Rabhi said – it’s more difficult to raise taxes, and requires the board to take leadership. It’s the right thing to do at the right time, and he hoped commissioners would support the increase.

Leah Gunn said she’d been involved with the Eastern Leaders Group, at Peterson’s invitation, and knew they did a wonderful job. She felt the Act 88 increase was very small and reasonable. She’d be willing to pay more, even though much of the funding is going to the east side of the county. [Gunn is one of four Ann Arbor commissioners.]

County commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

Alicia Ping – who represents District 3, covering southern and southwest parts of the county – wondered when the board would talk about how the Act 88 funds are allocated for economic development in other parts of the county, not just the eastern side. There are needs in the west, too, she said – some people can only get dial-up Internet access, for example. That means they can’t work from home if they need to use the Internet, and have to go to somewhere else to get it. “You can’t do business without that sort of access,” she said. Ping indicated support for an approach that didn’t simply fund the same organizations year after year. It’s important to look at the whole county, she said, not just Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

Felicia Brabec said she agreed with many of the comments made, especially by Gunn and Rabhi. To her, this feels like a solid plan for economic growth. She shared Ping’s view about the need for strategic planning countywide, and felt that additional staff would help with that effort. It would help in being more tactical to address the county’s needs.

Peterson repeated his point that the Act 88 funds weren’t meant to support jobs within the county organization. Responding to the contention that the increase is small, he said that if your home is in foreclosure, “every dime counts.” He also noted that no elected officials in his district, or any constituents, had asked him to support the increase.

Barbara Bergman called the question. This parliamentary move – designed to end discussion and force a vote on the item – requires a two-thirds majority to pass. That equates to eight votes on the 11-member board.

Wes Prater objected, saying he hadn’t had the opportunity to speak yet. Hedger clarified that the board rule allowing each commissioner to speak before a vote is taken applies only to committee meetings, not the regular board meeting. The question had been called properly, and a vote on it could proceed.

Often calling the question is approved on a voice vote. However, because there seemed to be division on the board, the clerk took a roll-call vote.

Outcome on calling the question: The motion failed on a 5-6 vote. Voting against it were Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rob Turner.

The discussion resumed, and Prater took his speaking turn. He was bothered that they’re using an act that’s nearly 100 years old, and that had been dormant until recently. Somebody “found” it, he said, so the county started levying this tax. If commissioners want this money for economic development, they should put it on the ballot for voters to decide, he argued. “If it’s good stuff, they’ll approve it,” he said.

Saying he’s supportive of Act 88, Rob Turner did not think an increase was appropriate. In fact, taxes aren’t easy to roll back after they’ve been raised, he said. Some commissioners argue that it’s only a one-dollar increase, but things add up. He compared it to his own family’s phone bill, which started out modestly but over the years has grown because so many things have been added to it. “At some time, you have to stop,” he said. It’s not wise to go above 0.05 mills.

Yousef Rabhi clarified with the administration that the allocations for the Act 88 proceeds aren’t limited to the amounts and organizations that are currently designated to receive the funding. The board has the authority to change that, he said. But this amendment is simply raising the amount of the millage, he said. If someone isn’t happy with supporting Ann Arbor SPARK, then they can lobby against funding it. The point isn’t to steal people’s money, he said. By way of analogy, Rabhi said he can spend a dollar on soda at the corner store. But if everyone pools their dollars, then it’s possible to create jobs and build the community. “Together, we can do more than as individuals,” he said – that’s the point.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he planned to support the increase. Responding to Ping’s comments, he said that commissioners work hard on the east side of the county. [Sizemore, who represents District 5, lives in Ypsilanti Township.] He said one of his goals is to expand the Act 88-funded efforts countywide. But it’s the byproducts of the Act 88 funding that are really important, he added. For example, Kalitta Air has invested millions in expanding at the Willow Run airport, he said, and the Wolfpack – a conservancy group co-founded by attorney and former Clinton advisor Paul Dimond and retired Ford executive Ray Pittman – is interested in supporting the proposed recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti, near the Huron River.

County commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Sizemore described Ypsilanti as a jewel that just needed more polishing. He noted that University of Michigan faculty who are helping design the rec center were surprised when they visited the city. Downtown Ypsilanti can be transformed like Dexter, he said, but people just need to get working on it. [The village of Dexter had been highlighted earlier in the meeting as a recipient of the county's overall environmental excellence award.]

Sizemore characterized the work of Ann Arbor SPARK as “trickle down” regarding job creation, but the community also needs a “trickle up” approach. He felt he’d be “beaten up for it,” but he was supporting the millage increase, though he wasn’t happy with the way in which it had been brought forward.

Prater pointed out that the Ann Arbor District Library has a $65 million bond proposal on the ballot that could mean new taxes, raising money for a new downtown library. And there could be another millage soon for countywide transportation, he noted. Commissioners need to take a hard look at what’s happening and stop this foolishness, he said. They need to start acting like they’re concerned for the taxpaying public. The increase isn’t a lot of money, but it’s the principle, Prater concluded.

Peterson reiterated that he was fine with the 0.05 mill rate, but didn’t want to raise it. His concern is that they’re steering away from its original purpose. He said he totally disagreed with Sizemore – saying this tax increase isn’t about Ypsilanti. The city of Ypsilanti had been doing just fine before Sizemore decided to visit, Petersen said.

Peterson contended that the tax increase is designed to fund an internal program within county government, and he objected to that. If commissioners want more revenue for county operations, they should ask the voters. This is why people don’t trust elected officials, he said. If the board wants to create an economic development department, commissioners should sit around the table and talk about that.

Barbara Bergman called the question. This time, support for that action was unanimous and the clerk called the role for a vote on the amendment.

Outcome on amendment: The amendment to increase the tax passed on a 6-5 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith, Ronnie Peterson, Rob Turner, Wes Prater and Alicia Ping.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Board Discussion – Main Resolution

Dan Smith noted that he’s heard the term “economic development” used during the board’s deliberations, but in fact, Act 88 of 1913 doesn’t mention it. The act’s title is “Advertisement of Agricultural Advantages,” he said, with a subtitle that states: ”Advertisement of state or county agricultural, industrial, trade or tourist advantages; tax levy or appropriation by board of supervisors.” While economic development is being used as a catchall phrase in these discussions, it’s actually a distortion of the original act, he said.

Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith.

Wes Prater asked the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, to respond to Smith’s comment. Hedger noted that the act was passed nearly 100 years ago, and that while it doesn’t mention economic development directly, it does refer to trade and industry. He thought that it does cover economic development.

Indicating that she had been especially persuaded by Yousef Rabhi’s “passionate” speech, Alicia Ping told her fellow commissioners: “Don’t fall over, but I think I’m going to vote yes on this.” [Previously, Ping had voted against levying the Act 88 millage.] She doesn’t agree with everything it involves, but hoped that the funds could be reallocated in the future to benefit other parts of the county. The resolution would pass regardless of how she voted, Ping acknowledged, but she hoped that other commissioners would remember that she voted yes, the next time they decide how to spend the proceeds.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. agreed with Ping, saying they needed more people working on economic development, and more ideas. They needed to spread out the funding so that a larger part of the county benefits. ”The whole dang county needs help, to be honest with you,” he concluded.

Barbara Bergman again called the question, and received unanimous support to move ahead with the vote on the main resolution.

Outcome on main resolution: The resolution passed on an 8-3 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith, Ronnie Peterson and Wes Prater.

Accommodation Ordinance

The board was asked to consider initial approval of a change to Washtenaw County’s accommodation ordinance that would shift control for administering and enforcing the accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director.

The ordinance amendment also would shift a 0.7 full-time equivalent accounting job from the treasurer’s office to the county finance department, and amend the accommodation tax policy to clarify that the tax is only assessed against the actual price of a hotel, motel or other rental – not against other amenities that the business might charge its customers, such as Internet access or an extra cot in the room. [.pdf of ordinance amendment] [.pdf of amended accommodation ordinance] [.pdf of amended accommodation policy]

According to a staff memo, the changes are being recommended by the county’s accommodation ordinance commission (AOC), as well as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus, which receive funding from the 5% tax. In 2011, revenues from the tax reached nearly $4 million, and are allocated on a 75%/25% split to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti CVBs.

This is the second recent change to the accommodation tax ordinance. At its Aug. 1, 2012 meeting, the board amended the ordinance to exempt cottages and bed & breakfasts with fewer than 14 rooms, as well as individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution. Several owners of bed & breakfasts spoke to the board in favor of that amendment at the Aug. 1 meeting, citing concerns over the increased frequency of audits and general attitude of the treasurer’s staff, which they felt was unnecessarily contentious.

Accommodation Tax Ordinance: Public Commentary

Two representatives of the Washtenaw County Hotel/Motel Association addressed the board about the ordinance changes. Joe Sefcovic, general manager of the Holiday Inn on Plymouth Road, is president of the association. He thanked commissioners for bringing forward the ordinance change, and urged them to support it.

John Staples began by telling the board that he’d worked at Weber’s Inn since 1943 – but then laughed and said he’d meant to say he’d worked there for 43 years. [Staples is general manager at Weber's.] He said he’s treasurer of the hotel/motel association, and has been involved in that organization since its inception. Ever since the accommodation tax was first instituted, it has never been collected on anything except room revenue, he said. Staples supported the proposed ordinance changes.

Accommodation Tax Ordinance: Board Discussion

Dan Smith noted that this is the second accommodation ordinance change in less than a year. It sounded like the AOC had taken its time and evaluated this proposal, but he hoped there wouldn’t be more changes anytime soon. Smith said his other concern is that the ordinance isn’t treating all hoteliers the same. There are full-service hotels/motels on the one hand, but also a la carte establishments that charge extra for things like Internet access, a rollaway bed and breakfast. He said he understood the intent of the ordinance, but wasn’t sure it resulted in equitable treatment.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the accommodation ordinance amendments. A final vote is expected on Oct. 17. The board also set a public hearing for that meeting, to seek input on the proposed changes.

Animal Control Services

At their Oct. 3 meeting, commissioners considered a resolution outlining a general set of recommendations for animal control services, put forward by a policy task force that’s been meeting since May. It was an item brought forward during the meeting by Barbara Bergman, and had not been part of the published agenda. [.pdf of Bergman's resolution] The commissioners also received a more detailed report from the task force. [.pdf of policy task force report]

County commissioner Barbara Bergman.

The recommendations are intended to work in concert with a directive already passed by the board at its Sept. 19 meeting. At that meeting, commissioners approved a resolution also brought forward by Bergman that directed county administrator Verna McDaniel to begin negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley toward a new contract for animal control services. The resolution also stated that if McDaniel doesn’t believe sufficient progress is being made by Oct. 30, then she’s authorized to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to seek bids from other organizations.

The issue of how to handle animal control services – including state-mandated services as well as non-mandated services – dates back to budget cuts proposed in 2011. The county now has a contract with HSHV through the end of 2012. Early this year, the board formed a policy task force and a separate work group, led by Sheriff Jerry Clayton, to analyze costs for services that HSHV now provides. For the most recent Chronicle coverage of this effort, see: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”

At the board’s Sept. 19 meeting, much of the debate centered on the fact that formal recommendations from the task force hadn’t yet been presented to the board. Those recommendations are intended to guide negotiations with HSHV, and to serve as the foundation for a possible RFP. There were also questions over how much flexibility McDaniel would have in her negotiations. The current 2013 budget has allocated $250,000 for animal control services. This year, the county is paying $415,000 to HSHV, down from $500,000 in 2011. Commissioners expect that the final amount negotiated for 2013 will be higher than the budgeted $250,000 – and if that’s the case, the board will need to amend the budget.

The service recommendations described in the Oct. 3 resolution include: (1) licensing all dogs at the point of adoption or recovery; (2) holding all stray animals for only the minimum number of days required by state law; (3) providing animal cruelty investigations; (4) holding animals for bite quarantine or other court-mandated reasons for the minimum time required by state law; (5) specifying by contract the required holding period, medical attention and basic humane care for animals; (6) posting information on the county website regarding animals that are available for adoption or recovery; (7) supporting county policies for registration and licensing of animals; and (8) establishing a monthly report for the county board of commissioners regarding animal control operating metrics.

HSHV board vice president Mark Heusel attended the Oct. 3 meeting, but did not formally address the board.

Animal Control Services: Board Discussion

Barbara Bergman began by thanking everyone who’d worked on this project. The recommendations warrant further discussion, she said, but not that night – the first presidential debate was being held later in the evening, and people wanted to get home to watch it, she said. But county administrator Verna McDaniel needed more than “fluff” to begin negotiations, Bergman said. The recommendations are intended to provide guidelines for those talks.

From left: Mark Heusel of the Humane Society of Huron Valley board talks with county commissioner Yousef Rabhi before the Oct. 3, 2012 county board.

When some commissioners started asking about items in the task force report, Bergman reminded them that the motion on the floor related to her resolution of recommendations – not the report. Rob Turner asked a question about process: Is this just a starting point for a fuller discussion about animal control policy?

Conan Smith replied that the board will need to take a series of steps. The first thing is for McDaniel to negotiate with HSHV, based on the set of recommendations that the board would be voting on that night.

Dan Smith made a series of comparisons intended to put the cost of animal services in context. The HSHV has estimated that the total cost of housing an animal is $53.13 per day, he noted. If you do a Priceline.com search, you can find hotel rooms in the Ann Arbor area for $50 a night. Or multiplying that amount by 30 days, you can find a pretty nice apartment in the area for $1,500 per month, he said. And if you use it as a monthly mortgage payment, that would get you a $333,860 house based on 4% interest and a standard 30-year mortgage.

Turner pointed out that this task force report was sent to commissioners at a late date. What’s more, some of the information is incorrect, he said, and as a task force member, he wanted to go over it and make sure it accurately reflects the group’s work. He agreed with Bergman that it wasn’t the right time to discuss the report. They need more time to review it before bringing back questions and comments.

Leah Gunn noted that the resolution before the board gave direction to McDaniel. Time is of the essence, she said. The county needs to find out whether it can negotiate a deal with HSHV. If not, the county needs to take other steps, she said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the recommendations related to animal control services.

Future discussions about this issue will likely prove contentious. In an email sent to the board and HSHV representatives on Oct. 2, Gunn outlined her position this way:

Since the Board has instructed the County Administrator to negotiate with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, I would suggest that we vote to accept the report as prepared by Conan, and then vote on the resolution presented by Barbara. Her resolution is more succinct, is in resolution format, and contains language saying that we (the BOC) authorize the “purchase of the listed services” to be provided by a vendor. These are the minimum required by law. As part of this process, Verna has already suggested that she talk with those jurisdictions which have animal control ordinances. I would leave this in her good hands.

The other parts of the report are merely for reference, and I simply do not agree with the numbers that were provided to the Sheriff’s Dept. We are still in the dark about exactly how many dogs are our responsibility. I emphasize the we are NOT responsible for people’s pet dogs. If someone owns a dog, that is their responsibility, not that of the taxpayers’ of Washtenaw County.

As long as one child in Washtenaw County goes to bed hungry, I am not much interested in dogs.

Environmental Awards

Four environmental excellence awards were given out by the Washtenaw County commissioners at their Oct. 3 meeting. The awards ”honor local businesses and non-profit organizations who provide exceptional leadership in environmental protection during National Pollution Prevention Week.” The winners were chosen by the county’s environmental health division and the office of the water resources commissioner.

The University of Michigan’s Radrick Farms Golf Course received the 2012 Excellence in Water Quality Protection Award for its “innovative water and energy conservation measures, environmental stewardship programs, and stormwater management systems.” The 2012 Excellence in Waste Reduction and Recycling Award was given to Wylie Elementary School of Dexter, for its “extensive recycling program, purchasing of recycled products, and educating their students in waste reduction and conservation ethics.” And The Trenton Corp. of Ann Arbor received the 2012 Excellence in Pollution Prevention Award for “reducing the use of toxic substances and preventing pollution before it is produced.”

The overall winner, covering all three categories, was the village of Dexter. Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, gave the award, which was accepted by village manager Donna Dettling.

After the presentations, Bobrin received a standing ovation from the board and audience. She had noted that this will be her last time presenting the awards – she did not run for re-election, and will leave office later this year.

Misc. Communications

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Misc. Communications: Appointments Caucus

Board chair Conan Smith announced that there are a number of appointments to be made to various county boards, commissions and committees, so there will be an appointments caucus on Wednesday, Nov. 7 starting at 5:30 p.m. in the conference room of the county administration building. [The building, where board meetings are held, is located at 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor. The caucus meetings are open to the public.]

Commissioners will meet in caucus to review applications, he said. For the appointments on which there’s consensus, those names will be brought forward to the board at its meeting that same evening. The rest would be considered at the board’s Dec. 5 meeting. He noted that in November, there will be only one meeting of the board.

A listing of all vacancies, as well as an online application to apply for an opening, can be found on the county’s website.

Wes Prater noted that there are two vacancies on the veterans affairs committee. He wondered if those vacancies have been posted. Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office reported that he’d spoken with Michael Smith, director of the county department of veterans affairs, and that the positions would be posted in the Washtenaw Legal News. He also confirmed that all of the VFW posts in the county would be contacted.

Ronnie Peterson then asked where exactly the caucus would be held. When Smith repeated the location, Peterson replied that it’s important for citizens to know the appointments process. Smith explained that as board chair, he is responsible for making nominations to the board for their approval, but before he does, he solicits feedback from commissioners. It’s not a necessary part of the process, he said – that is, the caucus isn’t required. The required public part happens at the board meetings, when nominations are put forward and commissioners vote on them.

Peterson contended that he didn’t know that appointment caucuses were being held. Why are some people appointed and others aren’t? It’s important to do this work in the public eye, he said. Peterson was sure that some commissioners already had lined up votes for the candidates they wanted to appoint, but he said he doesn’t do those kind of deals.

Leah Gunn observed that notices about the appointments caucus meetings are posted and the meetings are open to the public and attended by the press. [Since late 2008, The Chronicle has attended most of those caucuses, which typically occur twice a year.] Gunn pointed out that some appointments require specific qualifications, which means that not everyone who applies is qualified. She described it as a fair, open process.

Peterson reiterated his complaints about making deals in back rooms. [Peterson periodically raises this issue. He objects to holding any meeting outside the main boardroom where proceedings are televised.]

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle 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 ordinance amendment passed by commissioners also shifts a 0.7 full-time equivalent accounting job from the treasurer’s office to the county finance department, and amends the accommodation tax policy to clarify that the tax is only assessed against the actual price of a hotel, motel or other rental – not against other amenities that the business might charge its customers, such as Internet access or an extra cot in the room. [.pdf of ordinance amendment] [.pdf of amended accommodation ordinance] [.pdf of amended accommodation policy]

According to a staff memo, the changes are being recommended by the county’s accommodation ordinance commission (AOC), as well as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus, which receive funding from the 5% tax. In 2011, revenues from the tax reached nearly $4 million, and are allocated on a 75%/25% split to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti CVBs.

This is the second recent change to the accommodation tax ordinance. At its Aug. 1, 2012 meeting, the board amended the ordinance to exempt cottages and bed & breakfasts with fewer than 14 rooms, as well as individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution. Several owners of bed & breakfasts spoke to the board in favor of that amendment, citing concerns over the increased frequency of audits and general attitude of the treasurer’s staff, which they felt was unnecessarily contentious.

On Oct. 3, two people – both members of the local hotel association – spoke in support of the proposed change.

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

Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, left, talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Leah Gunn prior to the start of the Aug. 1, 2012 board of commissioners meeting. Gryniewicz is community outreach coordinator for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. (Photos by the writer.)

Because the articles were amended, they will need to be reconsidered by the other three parties in the agreement: the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is spearheading this effort. Those governing bodies are expected to take up the issue at meetings later this month. It will be on the Ann Arbor city council agenda for its Aug. 9 meeting.

Before the county board’s Aug. 1 vote, about a dozen people spoke during a public hearing on the issue, the majority of them in support of the agreement and of expanded public transit in general.

Although amendments had been considered and voted down at the board’s July 11 meeting, on Aug. 1 Rob Turner proposed a new amendment to the articles of incorporation. The original draft stipulated that a two-thirds majority of the new authority’s board would be required to amend the articles of incorporation. Turner’s amendment would have stipulated that a unanimous vote by the new authority’s board would be needed to make such changes. Leah Gunn offered a compromise – a four-fifths majority, or 12 of the new authority’s 15 board members. That amendment to Turner’s amendment passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent from Turner, Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec and Wes Prater. The vote on the amended amendment itself – requiring the four-fifths majority – passed unanimously.

Turner felt his original amendment offered safeguards for smaller communities. It’s possible for communities to decide to join the new transit authority, only to have the articles of incorporation – the “rules of the game” – changed after they’ve joined, he said. If his amendment had been approved, Turner said he would have supported the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. He said it no longer seemed like a countywide authority – it seemed like an Ann Arbor system that others could join. That saddened him, he said.

Joining Turner in his final vote against the overall agreement and articles of incorporation were Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.

A range of other items were on the Aug. 1 agenda. Commissioners suspended the county’s use of Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreements, responding to a change in state law. They also gave final approval to a change in the county’s accommodations ordinance, exempting bed & breakfasts, cottages and individuals who occasionally lease out rooms from the 5% accommodations tax. And addressing a need for veterans, the board authorized the county clerk to offer photo IDs that can be used to redeem discounts offered at local businesses.

On an 8-2 vote, commissioners also approved a brownfield financing plan for a $39 million residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor. Before the board’s vote, both Felicia Brabec and Yousef Rabhi praised the development, but said they were voting against it because of concerns about affordability. They did not feel that most young professionals would be able to afford living there, and stressed the importance of having more affordable housing in the downtown area.

The board also heard a report from the county treasurer, and got a second-quarter financial update from staff. Commissioners then approved a $1,263,994 mid-year adjustment to its 2012 general fund budget, bringing the 2012 general fund budget to $101,162,770.

In one of the least controversial items of the meeting, commissioners passed a resolution commending the Washtenaw Community Concert Band – formerly the Ypsilanti Community Band – on its 35th season. Dan Smith, who plays the trumpet, is a member of that group.

Countywide Transportation

Commissioners were asked to approve a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation for a new public transit entity tentatively called the Washtenaw Ride Transportation Authority.

The other parties in the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which both would contribute existing millages to the new authority, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which would shift its assets to the new entity. The governing bodies of those three parties had previously approved the transit documents, after going through their own amendment process. [.pdf of pre-amended four-party agreement and articles of incorporation]

The county board had given initial approval at its July 11 meeting, after a lengthy debate and a split 7-4 vote with dissent by Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rob Turner and Dan Smith. At that meeting, several amendments proposed by commissioner Dan Smith were discussed, but none of the amendments secured enough votes to pass. Those amendments had been similar to proposed changes that Smith had put forward at a three hour working session on June 14.

The county would not be contributing assets or a millage to the new authority. Nor would the county board be asked to put a countywide millage request on the ballot. Rather, the county’s role would be for the county clerk to file articles of incorporation with the state – an action to create a transit authority under Michigan Act 196. When formed, the Act 196 board would have authority to put a funding proposal on the ballot for voters to consider. A financial advisory group that’s been working on this effort has suggested that revenues equivalent to a 0.5 mill tax would be needed to cover the cost of expanded services for the first five years. [.pdf of financial advisory group report]

For other general Chronicle coverage of transit issues, see: “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”

Countywide Transportation: Public Commentary

Speakers addressed the board on the topic of countywide transit during general public commentary as well as during a public hearing specifically on the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. Several other transit supporters attended the meeting but did not formally address the board. Joel Batterman of Partners for Transit, who had sent out an email urging people to attend the meeting, was on hand to pass out stickers that stated support for expanded public transportation.

Here’s a summary of remarks made during public commentary and the public hearing on Aug. 1.

Thomas Partridge told commissioners that he’s a Democratic candidate for state representative in District 53, and he supported the countywide transit agreement. The county’s most vulnerable residents, including senior citizens and the disabled, need better access to affordable public transit, he said.

Jim Mogensen reminded the board that although people talk about the Ann Arbor public transit system starting in the 1970s, in fact the first time a local public transit system was proposed happened in the late 1950s. At that time, however, voters didn’t support the formation of a system. An alternative approach was passed in the 1970s, including a millage to support the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. He referred to the current effort at expansion as a Pandora’s box, and likened it to a previous effort to pass a millage for a county jail expansion. That was a very complicated process, but voters ultimately rejected the bond proposal for it, he said. The jail eventually did expand, but in a different way, he noted. Now, the same dynamics are happening with public transit. Mogensen urged commissioners to take a step back, listen to concerns, then take leadership to move the county forward in a constructive way.

Joel Levitt said he’s been a resident of Ann Arbor for 40 years, and now his daughter, her husband and one-year-old grandchild are also living here. The health of the county depends on the health of Ann Arbor, he said. The city is the center for industry, commerce, health services and culture. For that to continue, the city can’t have poor and overcrowded roads and inadequate parking. There must be a superior public transit system from the city to every corner of the county, and improved services within the city as well.

Charlie Nielsen told commissioners that he’s the former Scio Township supervisor. He remembers the day when his son used to take the bus – when AATA used to provide service to Scio Township. It was invaluable in helping his son attend classes at Washtenaw Community College, he said. But Scio Township later couldn’t pay for the service, so it stopped. Nielsen noted that he serves on the advisory committee for the current countywide transit effort, and supports serving the whole county. One of the reasons he’s proud to live in this county is because of the human services that are provided, and countywide transit is in that same spirit. He noted that he’s president of the homeowners association for Scio Farms Estates, where many of the residents are getting older and could benefit from a public transit system. He urged commissioners to support it.

Waleed Howrani said he’d been a resident of Ann Arbor for 37 years. He finds it hard to believe that people aren’t doing more to save the environment. Resources should be used wisely, not recklessly. The auto industry doesn’t care about how many natural resources are dug up to build their cars, or about emissions from those vehicles. Howrani said he’s proud of the AATA. He’s taken public transportation in over 30 states, and no other system as as clean, efficient, and friendly. Although he does use Amtrak, he feels helpless when he needs to travel to neighboring towns and states. He loves that he can read on the bus and leave the driving to others. He noted that every bus can eliminate 50 cars from the road, and saves many lives as well.

Tad Wysor said he’s passionate about community organizing and mass transit. He lives in Ypsilanti Township and works in Ann Arbor, and said he’s blessed to have dependable buses on both ends of his commute, with bike racks. But for most folks, it’s not that easy. With residents struggling because of the economy, now is a great time to pull together, focus on common values, he said, and greatly improve mass transit in the county and beyond. He said he’s involved in a new coalition on the east side of the county involving clergy, labor and other community leaders. They haven’t yet decided how they’ll focus their efforts, but expanding and improving mass transit is one possible area. It’s hard for him to imagine an issue that would be more effective in helping the economy, he said. It could help connect employers and employees, get people to medical appointments and places of worship, and keep senior citizens more engaged in the community. Now’s the time to pull together and make it happen.

David Sponseller said there’s probably no one in the room who did more to help launch AATA than he did. In 1969, he spoke up to urge government leaders to support the public transit system. He encouraged his son to help promote it and urge residents to vote in favor of the millage. But that was a huge mistake, he said. He had no idea that although the system would grow, it would fail to win people over to use it. Less than 5% of people in Ann Arbor ride the bus, he said. People still love the convenience of their cars. Public transit is successful in areas that have high density – places like Toronto, Chicago and New York. But that’s not the case in Ann Arbor. Sponseller wondered how they can expect people in less dense parts of the county to embrace public transit, when Ann Arbor residents haven’t been won over. He argued that more energy is spent on fueling buses that have only one or two riders, than on cars. For the sake of avoiding costs that his grandchildren would have to pay, he urged the board to not support the project.

Larry Krieg of Ypsilanti Township said he was there to speak in favor of the agreement. For anyone who thinks the buses are empty, he urged them to ride one – it’s not the case that they’re empty, he said. Krieg, a retired faculty member at Washtenaw Community College, said he observed that if a WCC student’s car fails, then that student is likely to fail. Education is important for the entire county, as well as for individuals. Reliance on auto transportation also locks people out of the economic system, because many jobs require that you have a car, he said.

Countywide public transit will give people who don’t live in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti the chance to participate in the economic system, he continued. Krieg said he also supports expanded public transit because of his grandchildren. One of his children went to the east coast for a job, and another went to the west coast for the same reason, because the economy is more prosperous there. He’d prefer that his grandchildren wouldn’t have to make that choice, and could stay in Washtenaw County. The county needs a solid public transit system.

Nancy Kaplan talks with Joel Batterman of Partners in Transit before the start of the Aug. 1 county board of commissioners meeting. Kaplan, a member of the Ann Arbor District Library board, raised concerns about the proposed governance of a countywide transit authority.

Nancy Kaplan of Ann Arbor described expanded public transit as a great idea, but said she had several concerns about the proposed process. Some of those concerns relate to the board for the new authority. Board members aren’t required to be residents of the county, she noted, and there’s no real oversight of the board – it’s questionable representation without accountability, she said. Kaplan noted that several services outlined in the five-year transit plan have already been implemented by AATA, which shows that these services can be provided under the current system. The services include commuter bus from Ann Arbor to Chelsea and Canton, but she wondered why Ann Arbor pays for that, without contributions from the other two communities.

Why not test out interest in service levels by signing five-year point-of-service agreements with other communities? asked Kaplan. That would let people see if residents of those communities are willing to fund transit services, and if they’re satisfied with the service they get, she said. There are many other unknowns regarding process, scope and fare increases, Kaplan said. She asked commissioners to test it out for several years before committing to a new transit authority.

Jan Wright of Pittsfield Townshp supported the agreement. She lives two miles from the nearest bus line. She just turned 70 and is doing great, she said, but she knows that won’t always be the case. She’s not the only person in this situation. As the population ages, there are a lot of people who won’t want to be stuck in their homes or forced to move, she said. Wright also has strong concerns about climate change, especially after the strange weather we’ve been having over the past year. Public transit is a way to have sustainable transportation, she said. Gas prices will probably increase, and that’s another reason to support public transit.

Matthew Braman of Milan also supports expanded public transit. He grew up in this county, attended a state-funded public university here, but is continuing his professional career in New York City – in large part because he can’t continue to live in Milan and work in Ann Arbor. He described how his car broke down earlier this year, and he had to rent a car from a friend. He’s been working with the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI), and noted that ex-prisoners on parole are trying to find work and the community needs to find ways to help them succeed. Public transit would open up job opportunities in other communities.

Sayan Bhattacharyya told the board that he’s a graduate student at the University of Michigan. No one in his family had ever owned a car, and coming to Ann Arbor was the first time he’d seen snow. He’s afraid to drive in the winter, and that’s one reason why public transit is important. There are a lot of people like him, he said. When he graduates next year, he’ll be looking for a job, and part of the decision will be based on transportation choices. Bhattacharyya also said that he loves Ann Arbor because of its cultural offerings, but it’s frustrating that he can’t go to cultural events in places like Chelsea or Dexter unless he rents a Zipcar. He noted that he’s not a U.S. citizen so he can’t vote for them – a comment that elicited laughter from commissioners. He said he’d never been to a public forum like this, and had previously only read about democracy in action.

Robert Klingler said that about 18 months ago, he slipped on black ice and tore the tendon off his knee. It’s been humiliating, and he’s had to depend on services offered by AATA, including RideConnect. He lives just outside the Ann Arbor city limits, and taking the bus to work can take 45 minutes one way. It would be nice to catch a bus to go downtown, to restaurants, to church. If public transit were expanded, more people would come to Ann Arbor, he said. Klingler concluded by noting that the city and county are praised as good places to retire, but we’re not ready to accommodate retirees.

Countywide Transportation: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi, a Democrat who represents District 11 in Ann Arbor, began by thanking everyone who spoke during public commentary. He’s very much in favor of countywide transit – it’s desperately needed, and should have been expanded a while ago. He wanted to respond to some of the comments made during the public hearing. The idea that just because people love cars means that the community should give up public transit is like saying that because people like nicotine, we should give up on trying to quit smoking. We shouldn’t give up on public transit, he said. We should work to make it better.

Regarding empty buses, Rabhi said he used to regularly ride the Route 2 bus and during the winter, buses would be so packed that they would have to pass by people who were waiting at bus stops. There was no room for additional passengers. That’s not the case on all lines, but it’s not true that buses are empty. He noted that ridership is up on Route 4, between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, after AATA increased the frequency of bus service.

This is not the perfect plan, Rabhi continued, but you can’t expect perfection. It’s the start of the process, and moves the county in the right direction. It will make an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. He noted that he shared some concerns raised by Nancy Kaplan – saying he agreed that the AATA shouldn’t be providing service to Chelsea and Canton unless those communities are willing to pay for it. This new transit proposal does give Chelsea residents the opportunity to pay, he said, and he’ll continue to lobby AATA and ask them not to serve areas that don’t pay. But that’s not what the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation are about.

Today, the board will be creating a new entity, he said, and that entity will choose whether to put a proposal on the ballot for voters to decide. “This is direct democracy, folks,” Rabhi said. If Ann Arbor voters reject a funding proposal, then the broader public transit won’t happen. He said he supported the resolution before the board, and thinks it should move forward.

Rob Turner also thanked the public speakers. He’s been hearing from people in his district who are both for and against the proposal. [Turner, a Republican, represents District 1, which covers a large portion of western Washtenaw County, including Chelsea and Dexter.] Public transportation is important – it will help the county grow and prosper, and help people who are struggling to find jobs, he said.

Countywide Transportation: Board Discussion – Amendment

But Turner said he did have a major concern, and that’s why he was proposing an amendment to the articles of incorporation. [A written text of the amendment had been circulated by Conan Smith before the meeting started.] The original draft stipulated that a two-thirds majority of the new authority’s board would be required to amend the articles of incorporation. Turner’s amendment struck the two-thirds majority, and stipulated that a unanimous vote by the new authority’s board would be needed to make such changes. The amendment was seconded by Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Rob Turner, a Republican representing District 1 – covering the western part of Washtenaw County – was unable to convince a majority of his fellow commissioners to adopt an amendment he put forward for the articles of incorporation of a new transit authority.

Turner said that the directors of the new authority’s board could change the structure of the authority – so it could become something different than communities originally opted into, he said. His amendment would provide a safeguard against that, he said. Otherwise, he couldn’t support the articles of incorporation or four-party agreement.

Leah Gunn responded, saying the board has gone over and over these documents, and had given initial approval at their July meeting without amendments. The problem with amending it now is that it would then need to go back to the other three parties for re-approval, she said. Gunn also felt it was unfair to require unanimity. That’s a high bar, she noted, and it means that one jurisdiction could “destroy” everything. Ann Arbor is passing over a huge amount of assets to the new entity, she said, and Ann Arbor needs as much protection as other jurisdictions. [Gunn, a Democrat, represents District 9 in Ann Arbor.]

Gunn then proposed amending Turner’s amendment – striking “unanimous” and inserting “4/5 (12 out of 15) vote of the directors seated and serving.” Four-fifths is a very strong majority, she said. Her amendment was seconded by Rabhi.

Barbara Bergman said she agreed with Gunn. She also wondered if requiring unanimity was legal, and asked Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, for his opinion. He said he hadn’t had the chance to look at the question, but in general, whatever the four parties agreed to would be legal – though unanimity might make it more cumbersome to get things done.

Bergman said that one person could be easily swayed by a contractor, for example, and unanimity would make board members of the new authority extremely vulnerable to that kind of pressure. She said it scared her to think of the amount of capital that had been paid for with her tax dollars riding on the whim of one person.

Rabhi also supported Gunn’s amendment. As a practical matter, not every jurisdiction will opt in to the Act 7 districts that form the basis for the new authority, he said. So in some cases, it might be only one township that represents a district. If a unanimous vote of the authority’s board is required, that means that action could be blocked by just one small township, he said. Certainly the bar to change the articles of incorporation should be high, Rabhi said. Two-thirds is high, and four-fifths is even higher. He encouraged commissioners to support Gunn’s amendment.

Ping said she’d support Gunn’s amendment, but she wouldn’t be supporting the overall agreement. [Ping had voted against it at the July 11 meeting.] But she thought the agreement would pass, and a four-fifths majority would be the best option for the entire county.

Turner said he didn’t understand why Gunn could argue against his original amendment, saying that it would have to go back to the other three parties. Her amendment would also require that action, he noted. He shared the concern that Rabhi had mentioned – that one township could block a vote. But in his part of the county, one of the Act 7 districts comprises eight townships. That means that eight townships would be represented by only one director on the new authority’s board.

Any amendment to the articles of incorporation would change the structure of the new authority, Turner said. He added that this is the only instance in which he’s pushing for unanimity, because it’s an important safeguard. It’s a safeguard that might make the difference between a local entity joining the authority or not.

Wes Prater weighed in, saying these articles of incorporation should last a long time. Everyone should be on board, or it shouldn’t be done. The need for a unanimous vote might never come into play, he noted, or it might be very rare. He wanted to reject Gunn’s amendment and keep Turner’s.

Ronnie Peterson, a Democrat who represents District 6 in Ypsilanti and a portion of Ypsilanti Township, said he wanted to see the out-county jurisdictions participate in the new authority. But he found it difficult to see how unanimity could work effectively. On the other hand, he could see the difficulty of having rules change in midstream. Overall, he just hoped they could get this bus rolling.

Conan Smith said that the articles of incorporation only include five articles that state the board “shall do” certain things. The rest of the articles are characterized as “may do.” So the “shall do” items cause the greatest concern, he said. The first relates to jurisdictional boundaries and of the districts within the new authority, he said. Two other items have impact on the board makeup: Board qualifications that require a director to be a Washtenaw County resident, which the commissioners previously debated, and the board members’ terms and compensation.

Directors will serve without compensation, and people want to protect that, Smith said. [Smith did not mention this, but the articles of incorporation allow the residency requirement to be waived – that was an element of debate at the board's July 11 meeting.]

Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

The fourth “shall” is the right of employees to collective bargaining, Smith said, and the fifth one provides pension protections to AATA employees who move to the new transit authority. On balance, the rest of the articles say “may do” or “may not do,” Smith contended. So the “shall” items are just those that would be impacted by a vote of the new authority’s board to change the articles of incorporation, he said. Setting the bar to require unanimity seems fair and reasonable, he added. Smith noted that he has served on boards that operate on a consensus basis. In cases like this new transit authority, it’s not too much to ask to make it as inclusive as possible and make sure everyone in the county has a fair say.

Gunn responded, saying she had no idea what Smith was talking about – his speech obfuscated the whole issue. The amendment being considered doesn’t apply to any specific article of incorporation. It would apply to all of them. She also noted that the idea of fairness works both ways. It’s important to be fair to the smaller communities, but also to larger communities that have “paid and paid and paid” – that’s the community she represents, Gunn said. A four-fifths majority should work.

Responding to Turner’s comment, Gunn said of course she was concerned that her amendment will also require that the documents be reconsidered by the other three parties. But she was trying to compromise, she said, because unanimity won’t work.

Directing his comments to Gunn, Prater said it’s true that Ann Arbor has paid and is contributing its assets, but it’s been Ann Arbor residents who have primarily used the AATA over these years. The AATA has also received a lot of state and federal grants, and that’s partly his tax dollars, Prater said. [Prater, a Democrat from York Township, represents District 4 covering the southeast side of the county.] He again urged support for Turner’s original amendment.

Bergman then called the question on Gunn’s amendment, a parliamentary move that forces a vote.

Outcome on Leah Gunn’s amendment to Rob Turner’s amendment: It passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent by Turner, Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec and Wes Prater.

Countywide Transportation: Board Discussion – Amended Documents

Peterson asked for clarification – the new authority’s board can amend the articles of incorporation at any time? That’s right, Hedger said. So the authority’s board could change any of this in the future? he asked. Yes, Hedger replied.

Felicia Brabec clarified with Hedger that the vote before them was to accept the amendment requiring a four-fifths majority to alter the articles of incorporation, or to keep the original two-thirds majority requirement, which has already been approved by the other three parties. She said she appreciated Gunn’s attempt to compromise, but she was struggling with it. She generally likes to compromise, but would have preferred Turner’s original amendment. She’d support the four-fifths compromise, because she didn’t agree at all with requiring just a two-thirds majority.

Turner said he’d support the amendment, because it will provide additional safeguards for the articles of incorporation, which he felt the board would ultimately approve. But he said he’d now be voting against the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, when it came for a vote later in the meeting.

Outcome on vote to amend the articles of incorporation: Commissioners unanimously passed the amendment requiring a four-fifths majority to change the articles of incorporation.

Later in the meeting, the board considered the resolution to approve the four-party agreement and the amended articles of incorporation. Dan Smith said he had applauded the AATA for taking a leadership role in this effort. He noted that he has no problem with the notion of public transit – he used it when he lived in the Netherlands and in Germany. The role that the county board is being asked to play puts them in the middle of this process, he noted, and it’s largely a ministerial role. They are being asked to adopt articles of incorporation that will last a very long time. He didn’t see the board’s role as saying public transit is good or bad, or as lobbying for or against it, or as determining the services that a new entity might provide. Commissioners’ role is to put a new authority in place so that the authority’s board can make those decisions.

Smith said he wasn’t satisfied about the articles of incorporation for reasons that he had elaborated on at the July 11 meeting and the previous working session. For those reasons, he said, he’d be voting no.

From left: County commissioner Wes Prater and Charlie Nielsen, former Scio Township supervisor.

Wes Prater read a one-page statement about the process. He stated that as of today, the AATA was not in compliance with the section of the four-party agreement that requires the AATA to publish details about the new entity’s service and funding plan in local newspapers. Until that happens, he said, the board shouldn’t approve the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. “Without the details,” he said, “it’s like buying a pig in a poke.”

He noted that the articles of incorporation don’t state a date for the new authority to become operative and for the articles of incorporation to take effect. Not setting that date is a violation of state statute, he contended. This information is critical for local governments to know as they decide whether to opt out or participate in the new authority. He also argued that the sections in the articles of incorporation that provide ways to dissolve the authority should be removed, because these methods of dissolving the authority have no standing under Act 196. He cited a December 1998 opinion issued by former attorney general Frank Kelly to support that fact.

All of these issues should be resolved before the county board adopts the four-party agreement or articles of incorporation, Prater said.

Rob Turner described it as a difficult situation. All he hears from Leah Gunn is how much Ann Arbor has contributed and how much Ann Arbor would be sacrificing. It doesn’t sound like a countywide authority, he said. It sounds like an Ann Arbor authority that’s allowing other local governments to join. He said he’d be voting no, and that it breaks his heart. He hopes that the new authority will be more inclusive in the future. He’ll now have to go to the governing entities in his district and make sure they know the dangers. People in his district had told him that it would be an Ann Arbor authority, and he had told them it would be countywide. Now that will be thrown in his face, Turner said. He thought his amendment would pass, but he now believes it will be an Ann Arbor authority – he’s afraid those people were right.

Barbara Bergman said she was sorry for Turner’s sad heart, but she’s been paying taxes in Ann Arbor for the last 32 years, and that’s been a fairly substantial amount. She’ll be paying even more, if voters approve an additional transit tax. But everyone has skin in the game, she said – this isn’t just an Ann Arbor system.

Conan Smith observed that a different governance model would have guaranteed other things, but they would have to trust that directors of the new authority will do what’s best.

Felicia Brabec said she’d been reassured by AATA leadership about concerns she’d raised regarding her district of Pittsfield Township. People in her district were excited about expanded transit. She hoped Turner’s concerns would be laid to rest as the process unfolds.

Prater said he wanted to get another two cents in. It doesn’t matter what the county board does, he said – as soon as the new authority’s board is in place, that board can do whatever it wants. ”We can wail about it all we want to, but they can.”

At that point, Yousef Rabhi called the question.

Outcome: On a 6-4 vote, commissioners gave final approval to the four-party agreement and amended articles of incorporation that set the foundation to form a new transit authority. Voting against the resolution were Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rob Turner and Dan Smith. The documents will now need to be reconsidered by the other three parties – the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the AATA board.

2nd Quarter Financial Update

Tina Gavalier, Washtenaw County’s finance analyst, gave a second-quarter financial update that showed an improved outlook from her first-quarter presentation to the board in mid-May. The county’s fiscal year is based on a calendar year – the update covered the first six months of 2012, through June. [.pdf of chart showing general fund projections]

As she did for the first-quarter update, county administrator Verna McDaniel again introduced the presentation by saying that the main message is still “stay the course.”

Second-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Revenues

Revenues for the general fund are now projected to be about $2.085 million more than budgeted – due primarily to about $2.5 million more in property tax revenues than originally anticipated. Total revenues for the 2012 general fund are expected to reach $100.83 million. [The board had received the news about the higher property tax revenues at its April 18, 2012 meeting, when the county equalization report was presented.]

Gavalier reviewed some of the revenue variances for specific units. Revenues for the sheriff’s office are projected to be about $835,116 less than budgeted. Much of that amount is caused primarily by delayed implementation of the county’s dispatch consolidation with the city of Ann Arbor. [At its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a $759,089 annual contract with the county, which was supposed to start in March of 2012. Hiring is underway, but the consolidation hasn't yet happened.] Other items that contributed to the shortfall include no revenue so far for towing contract administration fees (contract amendments are in progress) and lower-than-projected concessions revenue for the corrections service center lobby coffee shop and other food venues.

Projected revenues for the Washtenaw County Trial Court also are falling short of budgeted amounts by about $208,000, primarily because of lower-than-budgeted court equity funds that are disbursed by the state. A projected shortfall of about $114,000 in the 14A District Court is due to lower court fees and fines, attributed to a declining trend in case filings.

Second-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Expenditures

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

Chart showing Washtenaw County general fund projection as of June 30, 2012.

Regarding overall expenditures, Gavalier reported that expenses are $808,251 more than budgeted for the general fund. That’s due in part to higher-than-expected costs in the sheriff’s office from greater use of part‐time temporary workers and overtime, operating supplies, and jail medical/food contracts.

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

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

The 2012 budget had anticipated a surplus of $1.889 million, but the administration is projecting a surplus of $1,277,318 – a significant increase from the $272,238 that had been projected in the first quarter. That surplus is intended to carry over into the 2013 fund balance. The county faces a $612,065 shortfall in the amount it had budgeted for the fund balance contribution.

Second-Quarter Budget Update: Non-General Fund Items

Gavalier also reviewed several county operations that are not supported by general fund revenues. Units that are projected to show a surplus include child care, facilities management, Friend of the Court (due to trial court consolidation and cost containment efforts), public/environmental health, building inspection, and risk management units. Units that are on budget include the office of community & economic development, the prosecuting attorney’s office, and the office of veteran’s relief.

One unit – programs supported by the Act 88 millage, related to economic development – is projecting a shortfall, but had budgeted to use its fund balance in 2012 to cover the overage, Gavalier said.

Second-Quarter Budget Update: Issues to Watch

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

Another area to watch relates to state revenue-sharing and the state’s new economic vitality incentive program, intended as a replacement to revenue sharing. Gavalier reminded commissioners that the county’s revenue-sharing reserve fund will be depleted in 2013. The state’s adopted budget includes a partial allocation to Washtenaw County in 2013 of $1,177,601, if the county meets three specific areas of compliance incentives: (1) accountability and transparency; (2) consolidation of services; and (3) employee compensation with defined eligibility requirements outlined for each area.

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

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

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

2nd Quarter Financial Update: Board Discussion

Barbara Bergman referred back to the budget adjustments that had been made earlier this year, and pointed out that the adjustment of an additional $165,000 for animal control services was higher than the additional $128,538 for human services. She wanted other commissioners to think about that. She noted that most public employees choose their jobs not because of large salaries, but because of the satisfaction it gives them to be public servants. Bergman expressed concern that people might no longer be able to afford that choice, if they’re asked for more labor concessions. She indicated that’s the context in which the board should consider its allocation for animal control services. [For recent background on that issue, see Chronicle coverage: "Revenue Options Eyed for Animal Control."]

In response to a question from Conan Smith, Gavalier reported that individual budget item adjustments of less than $100,000 were not reflected in her presentation. For amounts less than $100,000, county administrator Verna McDaniel has the authority to approve those adjustments.

Rob Turner told Gavalier that after her first-quarter update, he had been concerned about the county’s ability to reach the surplus they needed to carry over into 2013. Now, the projection is much better and he feels more comfortable that they can attain that amount, he said. Gavalier indicated that the finance staff feels better about it, too.

Leah Gunn thanked Gavalier for the clarity of her presentation. The increase in property values is good news, she said.

Alicia Ping asked about the shortfall for Act 88 programs. Conan Smith explained that there had been a budgeting error when the county allocated $15,000 to the Food System Economic Partnership. That’s now being handled by tapping the Act 88 fund balance to cover the $15,000 allocation. Ping didn’t feel that was a great answer – because only the revenues coming from the Act 88 millage should be expended.

Wes Prater clarified with Gavalier that although there’s currently a general fund surplus, the amount of that surplus is less than the county had budgeted to carry over into 2013.

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

Mid-Year Budget Adjustment

Commissioners were asked to approve a $1,263,994 mid-year adjustment to its 2012 general fund budget, bringing the 2012 general fund budget to $101,162,770.

The adjustment includes equal increases in revenues and expenditures. The additional revenues come primarily from higher-than-projected property tax revenues of $2,417,690. The main increase in expenditures comes from an increase in personnel costs over the budgeted amount for 2012. The original budget had anticipated labor savings of $2,481,008 – but the bulk of those reductions have not yet materialized. The county did realize more than $1 million in reduced labor costs due to 118 retirements in 2011. However, that savings has been offset by increased part-time temporary costs and increased fringe benefits costs related to medical claims made during the last six months of 2011, which are being paid in 2012.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the recommended mid-year budget adjustments.

Treasurer’s Report

Catherine McClary, Washtenaw County treasurer, presented an annual foreclosure report as well as a mid-year investment update.

She told commissioners that her major goal is to protect and safeguard public funds. Through June 30, 2012, her office has brought in $5.268 million in revenues. Sources include investment earnings ($415,309), delinquent taxes and fees ($3,307,004), accommodation tax ($1,497,340), dog licenses ($33,872) and tax searches ($14,656). She’s projecting revenues of about $10.5 million for the full year.

McClary said she manages about $154 million for the county, diversified by investment type, institution and maturity date. Cash and investments are allocated in the following way: CDs, CDARs, money market accounts ($59.833 million); commercial paper ($3 million); treasuries and agencies ($16.5 million); Michigan municipal bonds ($52.7 million); and bank accounts ($22.172 million).

McClary noted that in previous years, investments were laddered out over five to seven years. But with investment rates lower, she’d now taking a “barbell” approach, with shorter-term and longer-term investments. Although the average weighted yield of the county’s investment is below 1% – at 0.526% – she noted that it is well above the three-month Treasury benchmark of 0.09%.

Last year, McClary recalled, she had told the board that she expected interest rates to remain low, and that her strategy would be to increase safety and flexibility while reducing expenses. She noted that Congress authorized unlimited FDIC insurance on certain bank accounts through the end of 2012, so the county is taking advantage of that. By maintaining cash reserves in an insured account, the county is foregoing interest earnings in favor of an “earnings credit” that covers all of the county’s bank fees. This approach has saved the county’s general fund more than $80,000 annually, she said.

Conan Smith asked if McClary benchmarked Washtenaw County’s investment performance to other counties. McClary said that the county board’s investment policy had prioritized safety, and she didn’t know if that was true for other counties.

Treasurer’s Report: Foreclosures

McClary also gave her annual report on foreclosures, as required by state law. She noted that her office has been able to prevent many foreclosures through its tax and mortgage foreclosure prevention programs. Her report focused on tax foreclosures, because the county treasurer’s office is the governmental entity tasked with administering the tax foreclosure process.

The report shows a lag – because it reflects properties with unpaid taxes from 2007 that were auctioned in 2010, with excess proceeds reported as of May 31, 2012. This process is required by state law, to allow time for complete closure on the properties, McClary said.

For unpaid 2007 taxes, the process generally worked like this (the process is the same for any given year):

• 2007 taxes in any local jurisdiction in Washtenaw County that were unpaid by March 1, 2008, were declared delinquent. The county treasurer was then responsible for those taxes. A 4% administrative fee was added to the taxes, and interest started to accrue at 12% per year (1% per month). On Oct. 1, 2008 a $15 fee was added.
• On Nov. 1, 2008 the property was added to a preliminary forfeiture list. If taxes were still unpaid by Feb. 1, 2009, then mortgage lenders and banks could be notified.
• On March 1, 2009, a minimum of $205 in fees could be added to each property, and the properties were forfeited to the county treasurer. The interest rate was increased to 18% per year, retroactive to March 1, 2008.
• In June 2009, the treasurer filed foreclosure petitions in the 22nd Circuit Court.
• Between June 1, 2009 and Jan. 31, 2010, title research was conducted to identify owners and lienholders. In some cases, a personal visit was made to the forfeited property. Mortgage lenders, banks and other lienholders were notified.
• In early 2010, a show cause hearing was held. That led to a court hearing in February 2010 when the circuit court judge signed foreclosure orders. By March 31, 2010, redemption rights expire if taxes aren’t paid, and the property ownership transfers to the county treasurer.
• Property was sold at action in July 2010. The prior owner doesn’t receive any proceeds.

After two years of being unable to recover costs at tax foreclosure auctions, McClary reported net positive proceeds from 2010 of $102,746. That amount is available this year for transfer to the county’s general fund.

Interest on these properties goes into the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund. After delinquent tax notes are matured and paid off, any leftover funds are transferred to the county’s capital projects fund and used to pay the debt service of other bonds committed by the board of commissioners. In 2010 and 2011, a total of $11.2 million was transferred from the delinquent tax revolving funds to the capital projects fund. These amounts are counter-cyclical, McClary noted – they are higher when the economy is bad, and lower when the economy improves and fewer properties go into tax foreclosure.

McClary said the county is seeing better times, and appears to be pulling out of its economic trough. A leading indicator of that is delinquent taxes, which are down 20% this year, she said.

McClary also reported that the first tax foreclosure auction of 2012 went well, with 45% of the properties sold. About 80% of the buyers listed zip codes in Washtenaw County, she said, noting that it’s a positive for our neighborhoods when the buyers are local.

Treasurer’s Report: Foreclosures – Board Discussion

Dan Smith observed that the nearly $103,000 in net proceeds is a mixed bag. While it’s good for the county’s general fund, it still reflects the fact that some people lost their properties through foreclosure. McClary said that’s why she’s proud of her office’s tax foreclosure prevention program, which helps people avoid that end result.

Ronnie Peterson said he knew that McClary had prevented a lot of tax foreclosures in his district, but activity was still very high there. Over the past few years, hundreds of homes had been lost to foreclosure. [Peterson represents District 6, which covers primarily the city of Ypsilanti.] Houses sold at auction were extremely reasonable for the market, he said – some selling as low as a few thousand dollars. He wondered how the county might partner with another agency to secure some of these properties for housing families in need.

McClary said she’d like to pursue the idea of a revolving loan fund. She’d be willing to sit down with her staff and do an analysis of properties that have been sold at auction over the last few years. The city of Ypsilanti had approached her office and partnered to have open houses of the properties before auction, she reported. This year there were 10 open houses – it’s a way of encouraging local people to buy, she said. McClary noted that the county and city recently received an award for the project from the National Association of Counties.

Peterson observed that some of his business colleagues get concerned when the government gets involved in the housing market. But he noted that the government already is involved – by funding the homeless shelter. If families can be put in housing, it would help stabilize neighborhoods and bring prosperity to the community, he said.

CUB Agreements Suspended

For the second time in the past 12 months, commissioners were asked to suspend the county’s use of Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreements.

CUB agreements are a type of project labor agreements (PLA), negotiated between local trade unions and contractors. CUB agreements require that contractors who sign the agreement abide by terms of collective bargaining agreements for the duration of the construction project. In return, the trade unions agree that they will not strike, engage in work slow-downs, set up separate work entrances at the job site or take any other adverse action against the contractor.

The county board first suspended its CUB policy in September 2011, pending the outcome of litigation that’s challenging the validity of the state’s Public Act 98 of 2011. That law, which took effect on July 19, 2011, prohibited municipalities from including as a requirement in a construction contract anything that would either require or prohibit contractors from entering into agreements with collective bargaining organizations. The act also prohibited discrimination against contractors based on willingness or non-willingness to enter into such agreements.

The law was challenged in federal court by the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO and the Genesee, Lapeer, Shiawassee Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. They sought to rule the law invalid, contending that it was pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act.

The county board’s September 2011 resolution suspending its CUB also also stated that if the state law was overturned by a state or federal Court, the county would automatically reinstate its CUB agreement policy. That happened in March of 2012, when the judge for the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the state law was unenforceable. At that time, the county’s CUB immediately was reinstated, without additional action by the county board.

Instead of appealing that decision, the state legislature made revisions to the law, which took effect on June 29, 2012 as Public Act 238 of 2012. The new law revised several aspects of the previous version, but generally prohibits the use of CUB agreements.

According to a staff memo, the unions that filed the initial lawsuit seeking to invalidate the original version of the law are expected to file suit again to have the revised version invalidated. Meanwhile, the new law led the county board again to suspend its CUB agreement. The resolution on the Aug. 1 agenda was nearly identical to the one passed by the board in September of 2011. It suspends the county’s CUB requirement pending the outcome of any litigation challenging the validity of the new state law.

The city of Ann Arbor has taken similar action related to CUB agreements, most recently at the city council’s July 16, 2012 meeting.

CUB Agreements Suspended: Board Discussion

Dan Smith said he would reluctantly support the resolution. There were a couple of the resolved clauses that he didn’t like – Smith didn’t specify which ones – but based on the advice of the county’s corporation counsel [Curtis Hedger], he’d support it.

Rob Turner confirmed with Hedger that this resolution suspending the CUB agreements is similar to the previous one that the board discussed and passed in September 2011. Yes, Hedger replied, it’s almost identical – a temporary suspension until state or federal courts find the new law invalid.

Turner noted that suspending the agreements temporarily will prevent the county from legal entanglements. The building trades were planning to take the government to court on this, he said. Turner added that he liked the section of the board’s resolution that stated the county supports these labor agreements and will reinstate them if possible.

Yousef Rabhi agreed, saying he very much supported CUB agreements and he doesn’t agree with the state law. The only reason he could support this resolution was because it included a resolved clause similar to the one that he had proposed through an amendment at the September 2011 meeting. [That resolved clause states that "upon such time as it is permitted under State and/or Federal law or otherwise ruled legal by a State and/or Federal Court, it is understood that the County will immediately reinstate its CUB Agreement policy."]

Felicia Brabec said she echoed Rabhi’s sentiments. She asked Hedger what’s to stop the legislature from repeating this cycle? Hedger replied that the current legislature is determined to remove this type of agreement. He assumed the unions would sue again. It’s difficult for the county, Hedger said, because many projects are in the process of soliciting bids. The county must follow the law. “I don’t know if there’s an easy answer,” he said.

Wes Prater said he also believed the building trades would be challenging this law in court – as the new law is very similar to the one that was struck down in court, he noted. Probably the same process will happen again and again, until Gov. Rick Snyder gets tired of signing legislation that the courts rule is unconstitutional and “stops this silliness.”

Outcome: On an 8-2 vote, commissioners voted to suspend the county’s use of CUB agreements, with dissent from Alicia Ping and Ronnie Peterson. Neither stated their objection to the resolution. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.

Change to Accommodations Ordinance

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a change in the county’s accommodations ordinance, exempting bed & breakfasts and cottages from the 5% accommodations tax. In addition to exempting cottages and bed & breakfasts with less than 14 rooms, the change also exempts individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

According to the county treasurer’s report to the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, in 2011 the county collected $3.99 million in accommodation taxes. The money is primarily distributed to the county’s two convention & visitors bureaus (CVBs) – in Ann Arbor ($2.69 million in 2011) and Ypsilanti ($898,563). The county treasurer retains 10% of the tax to cover collection and enforcement expenses.

The ordinance changes received initial approval by the county board at their July 11, 2012 meeting, and several B&B owners spoke in support of the proposal.

The changes had been recommended for approval by the accommodation ordinance commission (AOC) in June. A staff memo states that the AOC had recently reviewed enforcement and administrative costs, and did not believe it was cost effective to enforce the ordinance with these smaller establishments. The staff memo also states that the local CVBs support this change, in part because the CVBs do not actively market these establishments.

No one spoke at a public hearing on the ordinance change. Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, attended the meeting but did not formally address to the board.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the accommodations ordinance change. 

Photo IDs for Veterans

The county board was asked to approve a proposal from county clerk Larry Kestenbaum that allows the clerk’s office to issue veteran photo ID cards for a $10 fee.

County commissioner Barbara Bergman.

According to a staff memo, county clerks in Michigan are permitted to record military discharge certificates for veterans. Those certificates – called DD-214s – are bulky and can’t be carried around easily. A veteran’s ID card would serve the same purpose, allowing veterans to show more easily a proof of service – to take advantage of discounts for veterans offered by businesses. The memo notes that $10 photo IDs are currently offered in Livingston, Oakland and Macomb counties.

The $10 fee would cover the cost of printing the card, which would be handled by the clerk’s vital records division. Start-up costs are estimated at $100. The county clerk/register of deeds office is located at 200 N. Main in downtown Ann Arbor.

Photo IDs for Veterans: Board Discussion

Barbara Bergman recalled that in the past, the clerk’s office offered ID cards at little or no cost to people who needed the cards to get certain government benefits. She wondered if that program was extant – if it wasn’t, she hoped it could be re-instituted. County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d check with the county clerk and report back to the board.

Yousef Rabhi asked whether veterans could use the photo IDs as voter identification. Michael Smith, director of veteran services for the county, replied that this ID primarily could be used for discounts at private businesses, but not as a voter ID. Companies like Lowe’s, Home Depot and restaurants often offered discounts to veterans, but require proof of service, he said. The U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs doesn’t offer an ID card of this type – discharge papers are used in order to obtain government benefits, but there’s nothing that can be used conveniently to show proof of service for other reasons.

There’s a need, Smith said, and this service fills that need, while also bringing in a little revenue to the county. He thanked the clerk’s office for taking the initiative on this.

Smith also said the board had been very brave in authorizing an 0.025-mill tax to pay for services for indigent veterans. If veterans were unable to afford the $10 fee for the photo ID, Smith said his office would be happy to cover that cost. He offered to work with the clerk to come up with a waiver, if needed.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to allow the county clerk’s office to issue veteran photo ID cards.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan

Commissioners were asked to approve a brownfield financing plan for a $39 million residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of brownfield plan]

Previously approved by the Ann Arbor city council on June 18, the project’s brownfield tax increment finance (TIF) plan works in conjunction with a $650,000 TIF grant (paid over a period of four years) awarded by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board at its June 6, 2012.

Dan Ketelaar, developer of 618 S. Main, a proposed 7-story apartment complex in downtown Ann Arbor.

Both the brownfield TIF and the DDA grant work in a similar way – in that the developer must build the project and pay the new taxes on the project, in order to receive the financial benefit. The brownfield plan includes developer reimbursements of $3.7 million over 26 years. Also during that period, the plan includes $462,864 of tax capture for administrative fees to support the operation of the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority. An additional $457,741 of tax increment proceeds will be contributed to the Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund.

Work covered by the brownfield plan includes: site investigations for characterization of soils and dewatering if water is encountered during excavation; disposal of soils; demolition of buildings and removal of existing site improvements; lead and asbestos abatement; infrastructure improvements like water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer upgrades, street repair and improvements to streets; and site preparation like staking, geotechnical engineering, clearing and grubbing.

According to a staff memo, the project will create 80-100 temporary construction jobs, and 4-5 full-time, and 6 or more part-time, permanent jobs. Taxes from the Washtenaw County annual millage will increase from about $2,028 to $69,614 after the tax increment financing period is completed.

The 7-story building will include 190 units – which will be marketed to young professionals – plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan: Public Hearing

The only speaker at the public hearing was the project’s developer, Dan Ketelaar. He described various aspects of the project, noting that his team has been working on it since November of 2010. The Ann Arbor planning commission had approved the development in January of 2012, followed by city council approval in June. The market niche for young professionals isn’t being addressed in downtown Ann Arbor, Ketelaar said, and this project will satisfy that need. He described it as a gateway project, close to a highway yet walkable to downtown and the University of Michigan campus.

When the three minutes for his speaking turn ended, board chair Conan Smith asked if there were any objections to allowing Ketelaar to continue. There weren’t any, and Ketelaar spoke for a few more minutes.

Ketelaar told commissioners that he had met with several local groups, including the Old West Side Association and the city’s design review board. In response to neighbors’ concerns about parking, the project doubled the number of parking space on site, he said. The project and related streetscape improvements will improve the pedestrian experience in that part of town, Ketelaar said, and encourage redevelopment of other property. He urged the board to support the plan.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked whether the development included any affordable housing. Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager at the office of community & economic development, replied that there would be no subsidized or public housing – most of the units would be priced around the range that’s considered affordable for the area median income. [Median income for one person in metro Ann Arbor – a region covering all of Washtenaw County – is $60,500. For a two-person household, the area median income is $69,100.] Lenart noted that the city of Ann Arbor’s site plan approval for this project did not have an affordable housing requirement.

Brabec called it an amazing project, but was concerned that young professionals couldn’t live there because the rent would be too high. When she moved to this area 10 years ago, she would have loved to live in a development like this, but with student loans, it would not have been possible. She said she’s not alone in that.

Dan Smith said he’d support the plan, but he still had the same concerns that the board had discussed at previous meetings and working sessions regarding brownfields and downtown development authorities. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Packard Square Brownfield Project Debated."] He noted that county taxes would be diverted because of the brownfield TIF financing. And although the plan requires approval by the Ann Arbor city council and county board, Smith pointed out that other taxing entities – including the Washtenaw Community College, Ann Arbor District Library and Washtenaw Intermediate School District – would also see a portion of their taxes diverted, yet their governing bodies have no say in the matter. The same is true of public school districts, indirectly.

Yousef Rabhi thanked Ketelaar for his work, and praised the project’s outreach efforts, green amenities, and the fact that it was adding needed housing to the downtown area. He also thanked the Ann Arbor DDA, for contributing to public upgrades related to the project. He wished Ketelaar good luck and success, and he hoped the project would bring energy to the downtown. But his concern comes from his heart, Rabhi said – the issue of accessible, affordable housing. The issue “should have been thrown into the batter before the cake was in the oven,” he said. At this point, all he could do is voice his opinion in the form of a no vote.

Rabhi said he’d be working proactively with county staff on this type of project to ensure that the downtown is accessible to all income levels. He concluded by saying that his vote isn’t a no-confidence vote against the process, but rather a vote that reflected his other concerns.

Outcome: On an 8-2 vote, the board approved the brownfield plan for 618 S. Main in Ann Arbor, with dissent from Felicia Brabec and Yousef Rabhi. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.

Weatherization Grant

On the Aug. 1 agenda was a resolution to accept $289,800 in additional federal funds for the county’s weatherization program. The funds will allow the county to weatherized 26 housing units for low-income residents.

The money is available through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as the federal stimulus program. It’s a redistribution of funding that had previously been awarded to other communities but was not used. In total since 2009, Washtenaw County has received $5,053,338 in ARRA funding for its weatherization program, and has served 721 housing units. The program is administered through the office of community and economic development, a joint county/city of Ann Arbor department.

According to a staff memo, weatherization services include “outreach and intake, pre-inspection of homes, air leakage testing, health and safety evaluations, furnace assessments, refrigerator efficiency testing, post-inspection of the completed work and consumer education on how to keep one’s home weatherized and energy efficient. Licensed and approved contractors provide procurement and installation of weatherization materials including attic and wall insulation, air sealing, window repairs, furnace tune-ups and high efficiency furnace installations.”

To be eligible for the program, residents must have an income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, or 60% of the state median income (whichever is lower). That translates to annual incomes less than $22,911 for a single person or $44,700 for a family of four. Residents who receive federal Supplemental Security Income, state disability assistance or who are part of the Family Independence Program are automatically eligible for the weatherization program.

Weatherization Grant: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked about indirect costs – the staff memo indicated that indirect costs for this grant were not included in the budget. Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager at the office of community & economic development, told Brabec that because it will be part of a program that the county already runs, there would be no indirect costs to increase the program’s budget.

Wes Prater said he hoped the grant would fund weatherization in owner-occupied homes, rather than rental properties. Lenart indicated that the “vast majority” of the projects would occur in owner-occupied homes.

Outcome: The resolution related to weatherization funding passed unanimously.

Public Commentary

In addition to the public commentary and public hearings reported above, Joel Levitt of Ann Arbor spoke during general public commentary about the need for a graduated, progressive income tax that would replace excise taxes in Michigan. He noted that last year, the state Democratic convention adopted a resolution to work to change the state constitution so that such a tax could be instituted. Property taxes made sense long ago, when property was the basis for wealth, he said. But that’s not the case today. Excise taxes on products like gasoline make it even more difficult for struggling families. He urged commissioners to pass a resolution supporting an improved financing system for the state, and said he planned to ask the Ann Arbor city council to do the same.

Responding to his commentary, Barbara Bergman said she agreed with his premise, but that the county board isn’t the forum for this kind of resolution. They generally don’t take up “political” resolutions, she said, but that didn’t mean his comments had fallen on deaf ears. She said she personally supported it.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle 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!

In addition to exempting cottages and bed & breakfasts with less than 14 rooms, the change also exempts individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

According to the county treasurer’s report to the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, in 2011 the county collected $3.99 million in accommodation taxes. The money is primarily distributed to the county’s two convention & visitors bureaus (CVBs) – in Ann Arbor ($2.69 million in 2011) and Ypsilanti ($898,563). The county treasurer retains 10% of the tax to cover collection and enforcement expenses.

The ordinance changes received initial approval by the county board at their July 11, 2012 meeting, and several B&B owners spoke in support of the proposal. No one spoke at the Aug. 1 public hearing.

The changes had been recommended for approval by the accommodation ordinance commission (AOC) in June. A staff memo states that the AOC had recently reviewed enforcement and administrative costs, and did not believe it was cost effective to enforce the ordinance with these smaller establishments. The staff memo also states that the local CVBs support this change, in part because the CVBs do not actively market these establishments.

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

From left: Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator; and Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith. Smith proposed several amendments to the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, which form the foundation for a new county public transit authority. All of the amendments were defeated. (Photos by the writer.)

After a 2.5-hour debate, county commissioners on a 7-4 vote gave initial approval to a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation that lay the foundation for a broader public transit authority in this area – tentatively called the Washtenaw Ride Transportation Authority. Voting against the agreement and articles of incorporation were Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rob Turner. The board also set an Aug. 1 public hearing to gather feedback on the agreement. A final vote is expected to take place at that Aug. 1 meeting.

The other parties in the agreement include the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which both would contribute existing millages to the new authority. The fourth party to the agreement is the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is spearheading this effort and would shift about $200 million in assets to the new entity. The governing bodies of those three parties have already approved the transit documents. [.pdf of four-party agreement and articles of incorporation]

The board debated several amendments put forward by Dan Smith, but none of the amendments secured enough votes to pass. One of the main arguments against making any changes came repeatedly from Leah Gunn, who noted that amendments made by the county board would require that the other three parties reconsider the documents. She called it a “foolish waste of time.”

Smith argued that this was the first time that formal, representative input has been heard from communities outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The amendments were intended to make the new transit authority more attractive to smaller municipalities, who’ll have the option of opting out. Smith raised concerns that the current governance structure doesn’t provide the best possible representation for taxpayers.

Another issue drawing heated discussion related to Head Start, which provides pre-school services to 561 local children, ages 3-5, and their families. Last year, the board voted to relinquish its 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.

On July 11, the county board was asked to approve changes to the program from Aug. 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013 – as part of authorizing a federal grant application for the program. Ronnie Peterson cast the sole vote against the changes, and objected strenuously to any program cuts. He voiced his concerns at length, and asked – as he has in the past – that independent experts be brought in to discuss how the changes will impact the children. He also vowed to try to keep Head Start under the county’s administration, rather than relinquishing control. The issue will be addressed at an Aug. 2 working session, but it’s unlikely that the board will reverse its decision to cut ties with Head Start.

Other commissioners objected to Peterson’s contention that they didn’t care about poor children. Rob Turner urged board chair Conan Smith to form a coalition of local educators and government leaders to tackle the problem of educational disparities within the county.

Separately, the board passed a resolution supporting the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District as the next local Head Start administrator. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

In other action, commissioners heard public commentary and gave initial approval to exempt bed & breakfasts and cottages from Washtenaw County’s 5% accommodations tax. In a separate vote, the board set a public hearing for Aug. 1 to seek input on the proposed ordinance change. A final vote on the resolution is expected at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting.

That Aug. 1 meeting will also include a public hearing and vote on a brownfield financing plan for a residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The apartment complex is located at the site of the former Fox Tent and Awning, north of Mosley between Main and Ashley, and is being put forward by Dan Ketelaar’s Urban Group Development Co.

In another development-related matter, the board authorized a contract with Sylvan Township related to debt repayment on bonds issued 11 years ago for a water and wastewater treatment plant. It’s another attempt to establish an arrangement under which Sylvan Township will repay the county for covering bond payments – contingent on Sylvan Township voters approving a 20-year, 4.4 mill tax that’s on the Aug. 7 ballot.

Countywide Transit

The long, complex process to develop a countywide transportation system inched forward last week, with the county board’s initial consideration of a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation for a broader public transit authority based on Act 196 of 1986.

The effort has been led by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Representatives from AATA – including CEO Michael Ford and board chair Jesse Bernstein – attended the county board’s July 11 meeting.

The county would not be contributing assets or a millage to a new authority. Nor would the county board be asked to put a countywide millage request on the ballot. Rather, the county’s role would be for the county clerk to file articles of incorporation with the state – an action to create a transit authority under Michigan Act 196. When formed, the Act 196 board would have authority to put a funding proposal on the ballot for voters to consider. A financial advisory group that’s been working on this effort has suggested that revenues equivalent to a 0.5 mill tax would be needed to cover the cost of expanded services for the first five years. [.pdf of financial advisory group report]

For recent general Chronicle coverage of this transit effort, see “Differences on Countywide Transit Debated,” ”County Board Updated on Public Transit Plans,” “Ann Arbor Council Re-OKs Transit Docs” and “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”] Additional information is also available on the Moving You Forward website devoted to the expanded transit effort.

Countywide Transit: Public Commentary

Two people – both of them candidates for the Michigan House of Representatives in District 53 – spoke in support of expanded public transit.

State Rep. Jeff Irwin of Ann Arbor, a former county commissioner who is running for his second two-year term representing District 53. He faces Thomas Partridge in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary. In the foreground is Jesse Bernstein, chair of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board.

Jeff Irwin, a former county commissioner from Ann Arbor who is running for re-election as state representative for District 53, told the board that it was nice to see so many friends. He urged them to deeply consider the countywide transit plan, as a way for communities to come together. If you look at the proposed service plan, he said, the services line up well with the amount of funding that various communities will be providing. It’s important that financial contributions are commensurate with services.

Irwin noted that there might be questions about legislation in Lansing that could affect aspects of the county plan, but he urged the board not to hold up the plan by waiting for action at the state or federal level. It’s time for the county to control its own destiny, he said. Irwin doesn’t believe there will be any changes in Lansing regarding revenue options from gas or sales taxes, although he said he’d continue to work to provide other options for public transit. He also didn’t believe legislation setting up a regional transit authority (RTA) would be passed this year. And even if it does pass, Irwin didn’t think it would include Washtenaw County. More likely it will address issues related to the tri-county area of Oakland, Macomb and Wayne counties. Including Washtenaw would add a layer of complication, he said.

Irwin concluded by saying he’d love for Lansing to get it right, but this is an important issue and the county should move forward on its own.

Thomas Partridge, a frequent speaker at various local government meetings, addressed the board during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary. He described himself as a long-time advocate for affordable transportation, and he urged the county board and the AATA to bring a millage proposal to voters as soon as possible, to get tax revenue for public transit. He said he’s running for state representative because he’s dissatisfied with the current leadership in Lansing. It’s time for significant improvements in transportation of all kinds, he said.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion

Before the discussion began in earnest, Conan Smith jokingly “called the question” on the resolution – a parliamentary move that essentially means “Let’s vote now.” It was a move that would be repeated seriously by other commissioners multiple times throughout the debate, in an effort to push forward the item.

The bulk of the 2.5-hour discussion focused on several amendments brought forward by Dan Smith. He had circulated the amendments before the meeting, and earlier versions had been discussed at the board’s June 14 working session. In very general terms, the amendments centered on the following topics: issues of local versus regional control; the process by which local communities could opt-out or opt-in to the new transit authority; parity between Ann Arbor and other municipalities; and how details of the service and funding plan would be communicated.

This report organizes the discussion thematically, summarizing the comments and concerns raised by commissioners.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – General Comments

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he hoped the documents would be approved that evening. He noted that Pete Murdock, an Ypsilanti city councilmember, was attending the meeting, and that two Ann Arbor city councilmembers [Sabra Briere and Jane Lumm] had attended the June 14 working session. Other than that, no elected officials had come to the county board about this issue, he said, so he didn’t want to hear any whining from them after it passed.

Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock attended the July 11 meeting of the county board, but did not formally address commissioners.

Ronnie Peterson clarified that the agreement is costing the county “zero dollars.” He asked whether the documents have been available for any citizen or organization to review. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that the documents have certainly been reviewed by the four parties involved in the four-party agreement, and have been available as part of public agendas.

Peterson also asked what the county’s obligations and responsibilities are, after the board approves the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. The main obligation, Hedger said, is to file the articles of incorporation after hearing from AATA that all the conditions of the four-party agreement have been met. At that point, the Act 196 authority is a separate legal entity, and the county has little to do with it unless it is dissolved. The county would have no financial obligation, Hedger said. There could be a liaison from the county to the Act 196 board, but there would be no formal role in governance.

Noting that the county doesn’t have a dime committed to this venture, Peterson praised AATA staff and said they’ve done a marvelous job of putting this together. He’s been advocating for an expanded public transit system for 20 years, and it’s a great thing for the county.

Wes Prater commented on the transparency of the process so far. It’s true that the four parties have been involved, he said, but this meeting was the first time that the board had seen these documents. And of the 28 municipalities in the county, Prater believed only six had seen the documents.

Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator, clarified that the information had been sent out to all communities in the county. When the staff began developing details of the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, they worked with a committee with representatives of the four parties as well as the unincorporated U196 board.

Dan Smith noted that the board’s action in approving the documents “sucks in” the townships, because after the articles of incorporation are filed, it requires action by the local governing bodies to opt out of the transit authority. The township boards haven’t formally weighed in on the articles of incorporation, he said. This county board meeting is the first time that formal, representative input has been heard from communities outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, he said.

City councils for Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti both amended the documents, D. Smith observed. And since it appears that a millage vote won’t be on the ballot until 2013, there’s time for the county board to amend the documents as well. Municipalities will be making decisions about whether to opt out based on the articles of incorporation, he said. His amendments were intended to make it more attractive for municipalities outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti to participate.

Felicia Brabec asked if AATA had followed up on some concerns she’s raised at the June 14 working session, about coordinating transit service plans with Pittsfield Township officials. Ford said they’re still working on it, and AATA staff is working closely with the Pittsfield Township supervisor [Mandy Grewal].

Wes Prater objected to seeing continued changes that have just “popped up” in the documents. He cited the question of whether portions of a municipality can opt out – at the precinct level, for example. Originally, commissioners had been told that only the entire jurisdiction could opt in or out. But AATA staff had recently given them a response to questions, he noted, which stated that individual precincts could opt in or out.

From left: Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Jesse Bernstein, and Michael Ford of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

Jesse Bernstein, chair of the AATA board, responded to Prater. As soon as the staff realized that the Act 196 legislation allowed for individual precincts to opt in or out, the AATA provided that information. It gives individual units of government more flexibility.

Prater wondered why this had come to light only recently, even though AATA has been working on this effort for two years. He also noted that Washtenaw County is creating this new transit authority, so why doesn’t the county have the right to determine how the authority operates? And how does the county opt out?

Prater also objected to the fact that communities that have already decided to opt out of the initial planning phase will have to formally opt out again, after the articles of incorporation are filed.

Bernstein stated that the AATA has been in contact with communities throughout the county. ”We are not going to surprise anybody with this,” he said. The plan won’t move ahead until there’s consensus on services and on how to pay for expanded service. If there’s no agreement about how to fund the new authority, the AATA will continue to operate as it has, he said, and continue to expand services as it can.

Some commissioners, including Rob Turner, stated that they did not want to give the documents final approval that evening. [Resolutions are considered and voted on first at ways & means, a committee on which all commissioners serve and which meets immediately prior to the regular board meetings. Typically resolutions are considered for a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. However, the board only meets once a month during the summer, so it's often the practice that resolutions will be given both initial and final votes on the same night. If an item isn't put on both the ways & means and the board agendas before the meeting, it takes eight votes for the board to push forward a resolution from ways & means to be considered for a final vote that same night at the board meeting.]

Turner said he wanted the time until the final Aug. 1 vote for municipalities in his district to review the documents.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Qualifications)

Dan Smith’s first amendment to the articles of incorporation would ensure that people appointed to the Act 196 board are residents of Washtenaw County. [Throughout this report, deletions are indicated with strike-through; additions are in bold italics.]

SECTION 4.07: BOARD QUALIFICATIONS

All Authority directors shall be residents of Washtenaw County and at least eighteen years old, shall be representative of public transportation interests as they exist in the County and other qualifications as detailed in the Bylaws of the Authority. Notwithstanding the above, any of these requirements may be waived by a governing body authorized to appoint directors under section 4.01 by resolution concurred in by not less than 2/3rds of that governing body’s directors. Directors may not hold office in violation of Michigan’s Incompatible Offices Act, MCLA 15.181-.185, or other similar law.

Wes Prater supported the amendment, saying it simplified the qualifications and made sure the appointees are residents of the county.

Felicia Brabec wondered why this amendment was needed. D. Smith replied that as they’d discussed at the June 14 working session, the Act 196 board will have taxing authority, so it’s important for the leadership requirements to be strong. He had originally advocated for even stricter requirements – that the directors should be residents of the districts that they were appointed to represent. But based on feedback from the working session, he had modified his original amendment. If experts are needed, then they can be brought in as consultants or a subcommittee, he said.

Leah Gunn had a question for Michael Ford – AATA’s CEO – about this and all possible amendments. Would any amendment by the county board require that all other three parties reconsider the articles of incorporation and four-party agreement? Yes, Ford replied. In that case, Gunn said she didn’t see any reason to change the language that had already been approved.

County commissioner Barbara Bergman.

Barbara Bergman echoed Gunn’s comments. She asked when a millage might be put on the ballot for voter approval. AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein said there was no specific date targeted, although it appeared that they wouldn’t meet the timeline for a November 2012 ballot measure. [The deadline for certifying ballot language to the county clerk for a Nov. 6 ballot proposal is 70 days before the election – Aug. 28.] There are ongoing discussions with local districts, and he hoped the board would pass the agreement so that the project could move forward. The next step would be to nail down services and cost, so that when a millage is sought, people will know what they’re getting, he said.

Bergman noted that amending the documents would cause a delay in the process, and she didn’t support any of the amendments. She said she’d “work on squashing these amendments one by one.”

Yousef Rabhi asked Ford about the intent behind the phrase “shall be representative of public transportation interests as they exist in the County and other qualifications as detailed in the Bylaws of the Authority.” What do the bylaws say?

Ford replied that the bylaws haven’t been finalized. Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator, noted that the intent in that phrase is to allow each appointing body to have the power to choose their representative, and not put constraints on those bodies. Rabhi said that was important, and he didn’t think the phrase should be deleted.

Conan Smith said he’d oppose the amendment, too. A two-thirds majority requirement is a pretty high bar for any local government unit, he said, but if that much support can be mustered to appoint someone younger or who lives outside Washtenaw County, then the appointing body should be able to do that. It’s their voice that should be represented, he said, not the county board’s.

Dan Smith agreed that the appointing body’s voice is important, but this is also an issue of overseeing taxpayer dollars, he said. The Act 196 authority board will have the ability to put a millage on the ballot. He told Rabhi that he hoped each appointing body would choose a representative with an interest in public transit, but that decision shouldn’t be a requirement. Smith also pointed out that they don’t yet know what the bylaws entail, nor do they know the process by which bylaws can be changed.

Alicia Ping supported the amendment, saying she represents nine communities that are not part of the four-party agreement. [Ping represents District 3, covering Saline and several townships in southwest Washtenaw.]

Bergman called the question, to end deliberations and force a vote. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with Wes Prater dissenting. A roll call vote was then taken on the amendment itself.

Outcome on amendment regarding board qualifications: It failed on a 5-6 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, and Rob Turner.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Removal of Director)

The second amendment proposed by Dan Smith would eliminate the ability of the Act. 196 authority board to remove one of its directors. The intent of the amendment is to keep the power to remove directors in the hands of the local appointing entities.

SECTION 4.04: RESIGNATIONS, VACANCIES, AND REMOVALS
A director may resign at any time and such resignation shall become effective upon the Authority’s receipt of a written resignation notice, unless the notice specifies a later date. The Authority Board may, upon a 2/3rds vote of its other directors, remove a director prior to the expiration of that director’s term of office for persistent failure to perform the duties of that director’s office, gross misconduct in office, other reasons as specified in the bylaws, conviction of a felony involving extortion, or financial misconduct. A director may be removed from office with or without cause at any time by the same local body or process that appointed the director.

Wes Prater described it as a common-sense amendment. It makes sense that the Act 196 board shouldn’t be allowed to remove one of its own members.

Conan Smith observed that virtually every public body has an impeachment process – the county board of commissioners could remove any of its members, for example. When Dan Smith had originally proposed this amendment at the working session, it has received some support among other commissioners, so Conan Smith said he raised the issue with the committee that has helped develop these Act 196 documents. [Members of the committee are: Sabra Briere and Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city council); Paul Schreiber and Pete Murdock (Ypsilanti mayor/city council); Conan Smith and Alicia Ping (Washtenaw County board); Jesse Bernstein and Charles Griffith (AATA board); David Read and David Phillips (U196 board).]

The feeling was that the bar was sufficiently high in the current unamended item – with a two-thirds majority required to remove a director. One safeguard is that if the Act 196 board removes a director, the appointing entity can simply reappoint that person again, Conan Smith said. They can get into a pissing match, he said, and at some point the Act 196 board will see it’s in their best interest to simply keep the person on the board. But the common sense approach is to never vote to remove a director – that’s not how people usually do things, he said. People try to work things out without taking that step. The practical reality is it will never be a power that’s used, he concluded.

Barbara Bergman called the question. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with Dan Smith dissenting. A roll call vote was then taken on the amendment itself.

Outcome on amendment regarding director removal: It failed on a 3-8 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Termination of Agreement)

Dan Smith said this amendment is to ensure that all political entities are treated in the same way as Ann Arbor.

12. Termination of Agreement.
…
b. Discretionary Dissolution or Withdrawal Conditions. The Washtenaw County Board will also be allowed to dissolve the New TA if there is no Authority-wide voter approved funding passed before December 31, 2014, or voter approval passes Authority-wide but the same is defeated in the City of Ann Arbor any member political subdivision. The City of Ann Arbor may also withdraw from the new TA Agreement using any of the methods authorized by MCL 124.458. In the event the City of Ann Arbor exercises any of the foregoing rights, the City of Ann Arbor may immediately terminate this agreement upon written notice to the other parties.

Barbara Bergman characterized it as a “killer” amendment, which would paralyze the process. She was emphatically against it.

Ronnie Peterson said you either want to be married or you don’t. He didn’t understand why the county board needed to be involved – he trusted the leadership of other communities. Other than from some county commissioners, he hadn’t heard objections to the proposed documents from any other elected official. If the county had received correspondence objecting to the plan, he hadn’t seen it. He didn’t understand why they were spending so much time talking about it, and said they shouldn’t be micromanaging the AATA. If the board decides to amend these documents, it should be because of advocacy from the local communities, and he hadn’t seen that. Peterson said he was troubled by the attack on the AATA.

County commissioner Conan Smith.

Wes Prater wondered why Ann Arbor is given a right that other political entities don’t have. It’s not treating everyone equally, he said, and in general the agreement is slanted toward Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Conan Smith asked whether the four-party agreement or articles of incorporation restricted the county board from taking any actions it is in general empowered to take. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, said that generally, there were no such restrictions.

In that case, this amendment is moot, Smith said – the county board can dissolve the transit authority at any time. Hedger clarified that the articles of incorporation lay out how the transit authority can be dissolved, so action by the county board would be problematic, he said. “Problematic, but not illegal,” Smith replied.

Barbara Bergman called the question. The vote on calling the question passed 8-2, with dissent from Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Ronnie Peterson was out of the room.

Outcome on amendment regarding terminating the transit authority: It failed on a 4-7 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Dan Smith. 

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Timeline, Papers of Record)

Dan Smith said the problem with this whole process is that local taxpayers aren’t being allowed to decide whether to participate. It’s the elected officials who are making decisions. The state’s Headlee Amendment was intended to put decisions about tax increases directly into the hands of voters, he said. If this countywide transit process allowed voters to weigh in on whether to join the authority, that would be fine. But it’s the governing bodies who make that decision. If the Northfield Township board doesn’t opt out, for example, and the overall millage passes, the township’s property owners would have to pay the tax – even if every single Northfield Township voter voted against the millage.

Smith noted that the reason many municipalities don’t show up to these county board meetings is because they’ve already opted out. Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator, replied that AATA would honor those opt-out decisions [after the new authority is formed]. Smith said he wasn’t sure that would be legally sufficient, without further action by the governing bodies. But he added that his biggest problem is that voters can’t vote directly on whether to participate.

With that, he offered up an amendment to the county board’s resolution regarding the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. [Because it was part of a county board resolution, not the documents themselves, the amendment would not need approval from the other three parties.]

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners hereby adopts and authorizes the County Administrator to file the Articles of Incorporation within sixty (60) days creating a new transportation authority for Washtenaw County upon notification from AATA that the contingencies in the 4-party Public Transportation Agreement have been met.
…
1. AATA will publish details of the service and funding plan in newspaper(s) of general circulation in the Washtenaw County, including but not limited to AnnArbor.com, the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the Washtenaw Legal News, and the Heritage Newspapers serving portions of Washtenaw County, and the paper of record, if any, for each jurisdiction;
2. Letters of notice will be sent to each city, village and township elected official in the county at their address of record alerting them to the County’s intention to file the Articles of Incorporation on a date certain. Those letters shall indicate
a. Whether or not the jurisdiction represented by that official is included in the boundary of the New TA;
b. The process by which that jurisdiction may either withdraw from or join the New TA; and
c. The date on which the Articles of Incorporation will be filed and, if relevant, the date by which the New TA must receive official notice from the jurisdiction if that jurisdiction votes to opt-out of the New TA.

Gryniewicz said AATA would be happy to put notices in any publication. She said the amendment was otherwise also compatible with Act 196 legislation.

Conan Smith indicated that he fully supported this amendment. Leah Gunn said the main problem is that any amendment made by the county board will require action by the other three parties – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and AATA. It’s a foolish waste of time, she said, and she urged Dan Smith to withdraw the amendment.

Yousef Rabhi asked why the 60-day filing deadline was added. Dan Smith replied that the reason commissioners were voting down his amendments is because they wanted the process to move forward quickly. This will ensure that it does.

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, told the board that after the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation are approved, AATA will need to finalize its service plan and financial plan before the articles can be filed. He didn’t want to put a timeline on that process.

Rabhi offered an amendment to D. Smith’s amendment, striking the mention of a 60-day timeline. He also thanked Smith for his work in bringing these amendments forward, saying that Smith is a very thoughtful person and the discussion wasn’t personal.

Outcome on Rabhi’s amendment: It received no second, and died for lack of support.

County commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

In response to a question from Ronnie Peterson, Ford again stated that he preferred not to have the 60-day limit. Peterson said there should be flexibility, and that a 60-day deadline was a hassle. Peterson then asked about the other changes being proposed. Ford expressed some frustration, saying that after the June 14 working session he had followed up by meeting with representatives from the other three parties, and there had been no support for any of these proposed amendments. ”We went through this exercise,” Ford said.

Alicia Ping noted that she had made a big deal during the working session about the ability for communities to opt in at a later date. Gryniewicz said that information could be included in the letter of explanation about the process, which will be sent to municipalities.

Ping said she was sure the board would pass the agreement and articles of incorporation, but it was important to voice these concerns.

Rabhi questioned why the amendment removed the word “join.” That’s because when the articles of incorporation are filed, all municipalities will be part of it, D. Smith said – there’s no action required to “join.” The action that’s required relates to opting out.

Barbara Bergman called the question. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Outcome on amendment to the board resolution: It failed on a 4-7 vote, with support from Wes Prater, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, and Rob Turner.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Amending Articles of Incorporation)

Dan Smith noted that this was another amendment that had been discussed at the June 14 working session. It limits the Act 196 board’s ability to amend its articles of incorporation.

Unless otherwise specifically allowed by law, these Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority. All amendments must comply with applicable state and federal laws. All amendments to the Articles of Incorporation become effective only after they are executed jointly by the Chairperson and by the Secretary of the Board of the Authority, ratified by each member political subdivision and the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, filed with the recording officer of the Washtenaw County Clerk, and filed and published in the same manner as the original Articles of Incorporation.

Rob Turner supported this change. He was concerned that a coalition of just three districts – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – would have sufficient votes (10 out of 15) to make changes. Other municipalities would be joining the authority based on the articles of incorporation, but then those articles could be changed almost immediately by just a small subset of the communities involved.

Leah Gunn and Barbara Bergman both objected to the amendment, with Gunn again pointing out that any amendment would require approval from the other three parties in the four-party agreement.

Felicia Brabec wondered why the amendment required both the political subdivision and the county board to ratify changes. Dan Smith said he was trying to accommodate feedback he’d heard at the June 14 working session. He didn’t care which entities had to ratify it – he just didn’t want the Act 196 board itself to have that sole power.

Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz said this was one of the amendments that had been discussed with the committee that has helped develop these Act 196 documents. The group felt strongly that the representatives appointed to the Act 196 board should be the ones who have the authority to change the articles of incorporation.

Conan Smith added that the committee had struggled with this issue. It doesn’t make sense for the county board to be the amending body for the articles of incorporation – there might be commissioners who represent districts in which no municipality is participating in the transit authority. It’s also burdensome if amendments to the articles of incorporation need to be ratified by each political subdivision, because unanimous approval would be difficult. This might be one of those things to take on faith, he said. There’s no incentive to make changes to the articles of incorporation that would deter entities from participating.

After some additional discussion, Brabec proposed an amendment to Dan Smith’s amendment [Brabec's addition in bold caps, deletion in strike-through]:

Unless otherwise specifically allowed by law, these Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority. All amendments must comply with applicable state and federal laws. All amendments to the Articles of Incorporation become effective only after they are executed jointly by the Chairperson and by the Secretary of the Board of the Authority, ratified by each APPOINTING ENTITY  member political subdivision and the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, filed with the recording officer of the Washtenaw County Clerk, and filed and published in the same manner as the original Articles of Incorporation.

Gunn again raised concerns that any amendments would require reconsideration by the other three parties in the four-party agreement. Dan Smith pointed out that the AATA could have expanded service on its own, but because AATA wanted to be countywide, they needed to create this new authority. That’s what the county board now needs to sort through, to ensure that the organization that’s set up will function long after the commissioners around the table have moved on, he said. It’s cumbersome, he acknowledged, but they need to make sure it’s fair for all of the municipalities in the county.

Ronnie Peterson argued that other municipalities have been asking AATA for a seat at the governance table for a long time. Ann Arbor is willing to change how AATA operates to allow that to happen, he said.

There was then some discussion about the meaning of “appointing entity” – whether it meant each transit authority district, or each governing entity within those districts. It was never fully clarified.

Yousef Rabhi called the question on Brabec’s amendment. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Outcome on Felicia Brabec’s amendment: It failed on a 5-6 vote, with support from Brabec, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr.,  Dan Smith and Rob Turner.

There was no additional discussion on Dan Smith’s original amendment.

Outcome on amendment regarding how to amend the articles of incorporation: It failed on a 3-8 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Final Comments

Rolland Sizemore Jr. told Michael Ford of the AATA that he didn’t like how the AATA had handled this entire process. There should have been more input from the board of commissioners all along, he said.

Barbara Bergman countered that she wanted to praise Ford for how he’s handled the process.

Dan Smith observed that even though a two-thirds vote has been considered a high bar for actions taken by the Act 196 authority board, in reality a two-thirds majority of seats is held by a potential coalition of just three communities – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, with a total of 10 votes on the 15-member board. [Ann Arbor will have 7 seats, Ypsilanti will have one, and the Southeast District (Ypsilanti and Augusta townships) will have two.] It’s understandable that weight is given to Ann Arbor because of the assets that Ann Arbor is contributing, he said. But the structure also diminishes the voices of other communities. The governance of the Act 196 authority is still a problem for him.

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi.

Yousef Rabhi said that as an advocate for Ann Arbor, he supports having Ann Arbor represented at the table in a way that’s commensurate with its assets and population. [Rabhi is one of four commissioners whose districts cover portions of Ann Arbor.] He thinks the Act 196 board composition is well-weighted.

Ann Arbor has been paying 2 mills since the mid-1970s, Leah Gunn said, and is going to transfer $200 million worth of assets to the new authority. She said she’d think other communities would be saying “Thank you, Ann Arbor.”

Wes Prater noted that those assets have been used primarily to provide service in Ann Arbor. The city’s residents, not the out-county residents, have enjoyed the fruits of AATA, he said. Even the expanded service will focus primarily on urban areas, he said. Prater predicted that 12-14 communities will opt out of the transit authority, as they learn more about the services and costs. And some communities who stay in will end up with less service than they expected, he said, and they’ll be unhappy.

Sizemore reiterated his comment that he didn’t want to hear local elected officials whine. “Well, they will,” Prater replied. “I know they will,” Sizemore said.

Alicia Ping said she planned to vote against the agreement because none of the amendments were adopted, and she was representing the nine municipalities in her district who were unlikely to participate initially. However, she said she thought it would be good to have a broader transit authority in place so that communities could join later, if they wanted.

Outcome: On a 7-4 vote, the board gave initial approval to a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, without amendments. Dissenting were the board’s three Republican commissioners – Alicia Ping, Dan Smith and Rob Turner – as well as Democrat Wes Prater. The board also set an Aug. 1 public hearing to gather feedback on the agreement. A final vote is expected to take place at that Aug. 1 meeting.

Head Start Extension

Following up on previous discussions about the future of Washtenaw Head Start, the county board was asked to approve changes to the program from Aug. 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013 – an interim period during which the county will continue to manage Head Start before handing it over to another administrative entity. The action was part of authorizing a federal grant application for the program.

Separately, the board was asked to pass a resolution supporting the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District as the next local Head Start administrator. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson talks with Cheryl Perry, a management analyst in the county administrator’s office. Perry, who has served as support staff for the county board, will be transferring to work for Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director.

The local Head Start program provides pre-school services to 561 children, ages 3-5, and their families – both directly, and through delegating to other providers, including local school systems. The majority of the program would be funded with a $4.028 million federal grant in the coming year, out of a total budget of $4.55 million. The interim plan calls for eliminating 7.8 full-time jobs, and leaving another three jobs vacant. Because of vacancies and retirements, only three employees will be affected, according to a staff memo. The changes will result in one teacher and one teaching assistant per room – previously, there were two teaching assistants and one teacher per room.

These changes had been forecast at the board’s May 2, 2012 meeting. County administrator Verna McDaniel had told commissioners that the county had agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the program, through July 31, 2013. As part of the budget process last year, the county board had voted to relinquish its 46-year administration of the program on July 31, 2012. But the process to find another entity to administer Head Start has taken longer than expected, so the county reached an agreement with federal officials to operate the program another year.

In May, McDaniel reported that the agreement waives a 20% local match of about $750,000 that the county had previously been required to provide. She had noted that there would be staff changes proposed as a result of the new interim agreement. At the time, several commissioners praised the decision for easing the eventual transition to a new Head Start administrator, but Ronnie Peterson had expressed concern that the program’s high standards would be compromised.

Head Start Extension: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson noted that he had previously asked for outside consultants to come in and evaluate the Head Start program, in light of changes that are being proposed. He had hoped that those assessments would be done, but it appeared that they hadn’t. It would have helped the board make decisions based on the welfare of children, not just on cost, he said. Peterson added he was sure that experts from Eastern Michigan University, the University of Michigan or other institutions could be found to offer their services without charge.

Peterson spoke at length about the importance of the Head Start program, and of keeping the high standards that the county had previously met. He opposed reductions of teaching staff, and said he’d vote against them. The county has a healthy cash flow, he said. They are able to find money for other programs, so they should be able to find money for Head Start.

Board chair Conan Smith responded to Peterson, saying that although he wasn’t an expert on early childhood education, he could address the budgetary questions. Smith said the expectation is that the county won’t be able to deliver the same level of service in the coming year – there’s no question about that. As the board went through the budget process last year, for financial reasons they decided to move out of the business of early childhood education, he said. But they also made the decision because they recognized that the county isn’t an expert in that area – there are others in the public and private sector who can do a better job.

Smith noted that the current situation came up because there were some stumbling blocks that arose during the transition to another administrator. He appreciated that the county could continue to guide the program for another year – if not, it would have been administered by a third party on an interim basis. As a community member who cares about the population served by Head Start, Smith said he’s grateful that the county can provide resources for another year. It’s not the same program – it was a financial decision, not a programmatic one – but it ensures that local influence is maintained as a stop-gap measure. So the local Head Start team was asked to identify changes that would have a minimal negative impact on children during this period, Smith said.

Peterson replied that Smith’s answer was a good one for the media, but it was the board of commissioners that had decided to let go of Head Start in the first place. There had been no discussion with the Head Start policy council, or parents, or the staff, he said. Peterson didn’t buy the idea that the county was “rescuing” Head Start for this interim year, given that the county had created the situation. He said it was a disgrace for him to be on the board, and he would fight to bring back Head Start. He certainly wouldn’t vote in favor of the proposed cuts.

From right: County commissioners Leah Gunn and Felicia Brabec.

Felicia Brabec wanted to know who was involved in making the decisions about which jobs to eliminate. County administrator Verna McDaniel said her staff as well as human resources staff had worked with the program’s interim director, Cassandra Sheriff. McDaniel pointed out that federal requirements call for only one teacher per classroom. The county’s previous practice of having one teacher and two teaching assistants had been above those standards. The bulk of positions being eliminated are teacher aides.

Sheriff came to the podium and Brabec asked how she felt about the changes. Peterson objected, saying that Sheriff was being put in the middle of this debate. Sheriff replied that there had been many discussions with parents, the Head Start policy council and staff about these transitions. It’s always better to have more teachers, she said, but these changes seemed inevitable, given the situation. “Floating” teaching positions have been created to help in the classrooms – that hadn’t been necessary when there were three people per class, she said. With retirements and vacancies, most of the staff had been moved to other jobs within Head Start, she noted, and they were unable to find a position only for one part-time janitor.

Sheriff also said that services hadn’t been compromised, and the organization was still thriving.

Leah Gunn pointed out that Sheriff was, in fact, an expert in early childhood education. She thanked Sheriff for what has been a tough year, and said that Sheriff had done an extraordinary job.

At this point, Peterson indicated that he had been willing to end the debate, but that other commissioners had opened the door for further discussion. He asked Sheriff at what point had teaching staff been reduced. There was a back-and-forth exchange and some confusion – Sheriff seemed to initially think Peterson was asking when the decision to reduce staff had been made, and that happened in April or May, she said. Peterson interpreted that to mean that staff reductions had actually occurred in May, and he wondered why the board hadn’t been informed. Sheriff and McDaniel both clarified that the changes wouldn’t be made until the 2012-2013 school year, which begins in the fall.

In that case, Peterson said, Sheriff didn’t yet know what the impact would be on the children. Wes Prater objected, saying that Peterson was badgering Sheriff. Peterson replied that other commissioners had brought her to the podium and opened up the topic. She was an interim administrator and had only held that job for a few months, he noted. She was not a professional evaluator, he said, and he had asked earlier this year that a professional evaluation be conducted of potential changes to the Head Start program.

Prater asked whether the full board had approved Peterson’s request for an independent evaluation of Head Start. Peterson noted that no one had objected when he asked for it – he accused Prater of being rude, and asked him to be respectful. Peterson said the person who designed the staff reductions shouldn’t be the one to assess and evaluate it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr., who was chairing the meeting, told commissioners that they needed to pass this resolution in order to apply for the federal grant money to run the program in the coming year. But he said the administration would respond to Peterson. ”I assure you we’ll get answers for you very soon,” Sizemore said. Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working session, agreed to put the topic on the agenda for the Aug. 2 working session.

Barbara Bergman noted that the program will continue to meet federal standards, and that it was a positive thing to be turning over the Head Start program to educators. Sheriff is doing a terrific job, Bergman said. She took umbrage at being accused of not caring about the children.

Prater observed that every decision about Head Start has been approved by the board. It’s the board that makes these decisions, not one or two commissioners, he said. That’s the way things work.

Leah Gunn wondered whether an assessment was necessary at this point. The changes won’t take effect until the fall, so what’s the point in evaluating it now? Wait until it’s underway, she advised. Gunn also pointed out that Head Start programs are evaluated by federal officials all the time.

Conan Smith offered Peterson a compromise, suggested that Peterson vote in favor of the program’s federal grant application but against the staff reductions. He said it’s important to have Peterson’s voice in support of the federal funding. He noted that the reduction equates to about 1% of the Head Start budget, and he didn’t think the impact would be great enough to warrant an evaluation.

Peterson replied that he wouldn’t support a reduction in staffing. He noted that commissioners have spent months discussing how to handle animal control services, and no one has complained. [For recent coverage on that topic, see "Work Continues on Animal Control Policy."] Yet when he wants to talk about children in poverty, “I get nothing but pushback,” Peterson said, adding that he felt sickened to see that attitude among his “progressive friends” on the board.

County commissioner Leah Gunn.

Gunn said she took it very personally that Peterson assumed other commissioners didn’t care about or advocate for children. She noted that the board had created a children’s well-being fund before Peterson was elected. She pointed out that she had served as the board’s representative on the Head Start policy council when Peterson was an alternative on the council, and he had attended only one meeting. His accusations are “very personal and very insulting,” she said.

Peterson replied that rather than go to meetings, he goes to the Head Start classrooms. He noted that something the board did in 1998 – when the children’s well-being fund was created – didn’t reflect the situation in 2012. A commissioner’s vote now indicated how they felt about children in poverty, he said.

Rob Turner, a former Chelsea school board member, said he’d been impressed when Conan Smith had asked him for guidance on ways that the county can address disparities in graduation rates. [That suggestion occurred during final budget deliberations at the board's Dec. 7, 2011 meeting.] Turner then read excerpts from a recent report in the Chelsea Standard, which provided data on local school performance on the Michigan Merit Exam and ACT (American College Testing) – two measures of “college readiness.” Among the data he cited, the percentage of students deemed “college ready” ranged from 47.3% in Saline and 43.2% in Ann Arbor to a low of zero percent in the Willow Run school system.

Turner noted that his niece teaches in the Willow Run system, and has to teach basic things like how to be polite. The home situations are different in different parts of the county, he said, and these issues need to be addressed. He called on Smith to form a commission with educators and others from across the county, to tackle these educational challenges, especially in the county’s most impoverished communities.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve the application for federal Head Start funding. Ronnie Peterson voted against the reduction in staff that was part of the program’s annual plan.

Head Start: Support for WISD

A separate resolution on the agenda supported the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) as the next local Head Start administrator, beginning in the 2013-2014 academic year. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

Dan Smith said he thought the resolution was appropriate, given that the county had administered the program for 47 years.

Outcome: The resolution of support for WISD passed unanimously.

Change to Accommodations Ordinance

The county collects a 5% excise tax from hotels, motels, bed & breakfasts and other small accommodations businesses, which is then distributed to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention & visitors bureaus and used to promote tourism and convention business. Collection and enforcement is handled by the county treasurer’s office, and has been stepped up over the past two years. A move to exempt bed & breakfasts and cottages from the tax was on the board’s July 11 agenda for initial approval.

In addition to exempting cottages and bed & breakfasts with less than 14 rooms, the change would also exempt individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and Bill Nickels, chair of the county’s accommodations ordinance commission.

According to the county treasurer’s report to the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, in 2011 the county collected $3.99 million in accommodation taxes. The money is primarily distributed to the county’s two convention & visitors bureaus (CVBs) based on a 75/25 percentage split – in Ann Arbor ($2.69 million in 2011) and Ypsilanti ($898,563). The county treasurer retains 10% of the tax to cover collection and enforcement expenses.

The accommodation ordinance commission (AOC) recommended approval of the ordinance change at its June 5 meeting. A staff memo states that the AOC had recently reviewed enforcement and administrative costs, and did not believe it was cost effective to enforce the ordinance with these smaller establishments. The staff memo also states that the local CVBs support this change, in part because the CVBs do not actively market these establishments.

The leaders of both local CVBs – Mary Kerr of Ann Arbor and Debbie Debbie Locke-Daniel of Ypsilanti – attended the July 11 meeting but did not formally address the board. The county treasurer, Catherine McClary, did not attend the meeting.

By way of background, the county board has made periodic changes related to the accommodations tax over the past several years. In December 2008, the board voted to increase the accommodations tax that it collects from 2% to 5%, a change that took effect in March of 2009.

The county keeps a portion of those tax revenues to pay for the cost of collection and enforcement. Until November 2009,  the county kept 5% of accommodations tax revenues for that purpose. But in November 2009, the board approved a five-year agreement with the CVBs, from 2010 through 2014, that increased the county’s share of the accommodation tax revenues from 5% to 10%.

At the board’s Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, commissioners amended the county’s contract with the CVBs to address the process for distributing excess funds that might accumulate from the county’s 10%, if that amount exceeds the expenses required to administer and enforce compliance with the tax. Beginning in May 2013, the county will continue to retain 10% of the tax proceeds, plus 10% of any remaining fund balance. If additional funds accumulate in the fund balance, they are to be returned proportionally to the two convention & visitors bureaus – 75% to Ann Arbor, and 25% to Ypsilanti.

In February 2012, the county drew on those excess administrative funds, voting to allocate $200,000 to help fund a Pure Michigan campaign focused on the Ann Arbor area. At the time, more than $350,000 had accumulated in the administrative fund from the county’s share of the accommodation tax revenues.

Accommodations Ordinance: Public Commentary

Bill Nickels, chair of the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, told the board that the AOC voted to support the proposed exemption. Of the $17 million collected over the past four years, he noted, only about $126,000 came from bed & breakfasts. He indicated that it’s not an amount that’s worth spending the county staff time and expense to collect. Nickels also reported that recently, the county treasurer – Catherine McClary – decided to expand the definition of accommodations to include private homes that lease out rooms on special occasions. That would affect about 40 homes, he said, and would increase the expense of audits and enforcement. All of this led to the AOC’s conclusion that including these types of small establishments in the accommodations ordinance is not cost effective, Nickels said.

Joan Knoertzer, proprietor of the Library Bed & Breakfast in Ann Arbor, told commissioners that she spoke for herself and many other owners of bed & breakfasts. She’s been in business 12 years, and the last time the county board was voting on a change to the accommodations ordinance, she had found out about it about a half hour before the meeting by reading it in the newspaper. This time, she’d been notified directly – she thanked the county for that. Owners are very happy about the proposed exemption, she said. The audits by the county treasurer’s staff went from being done quarterly to monthly, and are very intrusive and time-consuming. She said the owners hadn’t realized that the previous ordinance change would result in more audits like this. These small business owners support Ann Arbor from the bottom of their hearts, she said, and serve as ambassadors and concierges for the city. She strongly urged that the board approve this exemption.

Pat Materka of the Ann Arbor Bed & Breakfast said she wanted to reinforce what Knoertzer had reported. Revenues from the accommodations tax has been great for promoting larger hotels, she said, but the impact on smaller businesses has been negligible. The collaborative, positive relationship that they have with the Ann Arbor convention & visitors bureau has been interfered with by the county treasurer’s policy of auditing – it’s been intrusive, abusive and unnecessarily contentious, she said. It would complicate things even more to start harassing private homeowners who rent out rooms – it doesn’t make sense, Materka said. All bed & breakfast owners gratefully support the ordinance change, she added. She hoped the county board would let owners do what they love – offer hospitality.

Accommodations Ordinance: Board Discussion

There was no discussion among commissioners on this resolution.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the proposed ordinance change. In a separate vote, they set a public hearing for Aug. 1 to seek input on the revision. A final vote is expected at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting.

Contract with Sylvan Township

Commissioners were asked to authorize a contract with Sylvan Township related to debt repayment on water and sewer bonds. It’s another attempt to establish an arrangement under which Sylvan Township will repay the county for covering bond payments – contingent on Sylvan Township voters approving a millage.

County commissioner Rob Turner represents District 1, which includes Sylvan Township.

In May of 2012, the county had picked up a $175,000 interest payment that the township couldn’t afford to make, related to $12.5 million in bonds that were issued 11 years ago – and backed by the county’s full faith and credit – to build a water and wastewater treatment plant in the township. The treatment plant in Sylvan Township was intended for future development. Under a previous contract with the county, the township was obligated to make the bond payments. [.pdf of June 20, 2001 county board resolution authorizing the bonds]

The project has a long and contentious history, including litigation and changes in ownership. In very broad strokes, the development that was expected to support the bond payments never materialized and the township has been struggling to make payments.

A staff memo accompanying the July 11 resolution describes some of the background leading up to the current situation:

The two companies who were to build the new housing to be served by the projects were Magellan and Hamill. In June, 2003, the County discovered that the developers failed to pay the first installment on the special assessment for the projects and that the Township had entered into development agreements with the developers which credited future connection fees to the developers rather than to the bond debt service. Magellan ultimately agreed to an amended development agreement removing the credit of future connection fees and reducing the assessment on Magellan property from $4.6 million to $3.2 million dollars. Hamill refused to execute a similar amended agreement and eventually sold its interest in the development property to Norfolk Development Corporation (which also purchased part, but not all of the development properties from Magellan).

In 2007 and 2008, the special assessments on the development properties went delinquent. The County Treasurer advanced funds to the Township to cover this delinquency. Currently, the Township owes the County Treasurer $1,169,616.62 which includes interest for these unpaid advanced special assessments.

In August, 2007, Magellan and Norfolk sued the Township in Washtenaw County Circuit Court claiming that the special assessments for the project were illegal under a number of theories. The suit was heard by the Circuit Court, Court of Appeals and ultimately remanded back to the Circuit Court. As a result of the litigation, the sewer special assessment was nullified, and certain past water special assessments were nullified with future water payments being upheld.

Township officials put a millage proposal on the November 2011 ballot to levy a 4.75 mill, 20-year tax that would fund the bond payments. But Sylvan Township residents rejected the millage by a vote of 475 to 328. As soon as the millage failed, it became clear that Sylvan Township – located west of Ann Arbor, near Chelsea – would not be able to make its payment in May of 2012. Because the county had backed the bonds with its full faith and credit, it is ultimately responsible for making the payments, even if it isn’t reimbursed for those payments by the township.  The county has an interest in making the bond payments to avoid having its AA+ bond rating negatively affected.

Even if the November 2011 millage had passed, proceeds alone would not have been sufficient to cover the entire cost of the bond payments, however – forcing the county to tap its capital reserves as well. The millage proceeds were also intended to repay the county to cover any amount used from the county’s capital reserves, as well as interest. The proceeds would also have been used to repay the county treasurer’s office, which advanced about $1.2 million to the township in 2007 and 2008 related to this project.

At their Oct. 19, 2011 meeting, county commissioners gave final approval to a contract with Sylvan Township related to the township’s bond repayment schedule. However, the contract was contingent on voters passing the 4.75 mill tax, so the contract was nullified in the wake of the November 2011 vote. A staff memo accompanying the October 2011 contract resolution indicated that if the millage failed, the county could file suit against the township for breach of contract in failing to meet its debt repayment obligation. Such legal action could result in a court-ordered assessment on township residents. According to a staff memo for the July 11 resolution, the county is still pursuing “legal remedies” to the situation, but hopes to find other ways to resolve the issue.

Currently $9.7 million in principal is owed, plus interest – another $175,000 interest payment in November and two interest payments totaling $350,000 in 2013.  Factoring in the $1.2 million that was advanced by the county treasurer to the township in 2007 and 2008, a total of $11.425 million is owed to the county.

The contract brought to the board on July 11 is nearly identical to the one it approved in October of 2011. It’s contingent on township voters approving a 4.4 mill tax for 20 years that will be on the Aug. 7 ballot. The county will use its capital reserves to make the bond debt payments, and the township will repay the county with proceeds from the millage. The township’s repayments will continue for seven years past the debt repayment schedule, to cover interest as well as the repayment of $1.2 million advanced by the county treasurer.

Sylvan Township Contract: Public Commentary

Kurt Koseck told commissioners that he’d spoken to them previously [at the board's Nov. 16, 2011 meeting]. He had watched their May 2, 2012 meeting and been impressed with the communications there. Up until this point, a lack of accountability on this issue had motivated him to become involved, to run for office and to attend these board meetings. [Koseck, a Republican, is among the four candidates running for two spots on the Sylvan Township board of trustees in the Aug. 7 election.]

Koseck said he’s been amazed by the lack of communication between the Sylvan Township board and the county board. He noted that at the county board’s May 2 meeting, board chair Conan Smith had said that the county is a partner with Sylvan Township. Koseck thanked Smith for acknowledging that the county had some culpability in this situation.

From left: Sylvan Township residents Tim Kelley and Kurt Koseck.

The county hasn’t been accountable, he said, but it clearly had been involved in the project. Koseck noted that consultants for the project were hired by the county but paid for by the township. It had been a $12.5 million project – and prior to that, the largest project that the township had undertaken was to build the township hall, for about $700,000. So the county was clearly the superior partner in this arrangement, he said.

Koseck also asked whether the county followed its full faith and credit policy in 2001, when it backed the Sylvan Township bonds. He wondered whether the policy had been re-examined since then, to make sure the situation can’t happen again.

Another Sylvan Township resident, Tim Kelley, told commissioners that he has reviewed a lot of the history related to this situation. The voters were never asked to approve this project, yet it was financed and built, he said. Now, property owners are being asked to pay for it. The resolution and contract being considered now by the county board doesn’t include property owners, he noted. The only way that the voters have a voice is in the millage vote. If the millage is approved, Kelley asked the board to keep an open mind about broadening the tax base for this debt service to the fullest extent possible. Until 2004, there were additional property owners in Sylvan Township – but now those properties have been annexed into the city of Chelsea. He said those property owners should also pay, and “enjoy the fruits of this fiasco.”

Sylvan Township Contract: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi noted that the county has already spent a lot of money on this project, and he wanted assurance that this contract would secure funds for all the money the county was owed now and into the future. Absolutely, replied county administrator Verna McDaniel. Over the 20-year period, all of the bond payments and interest will be covered.

Rob Turner added that the county will also be repaid for the taxes that are owed, plus interest on that amount.

Rabhi thanked Turner for his time and energy in resolving this situation, and said he hoped that the millage would be passed. It would be a better alternative than ”the other mess we could get into,” he said – an allusion to legal action against the township.

Turner said there are people in the township who would disagree with Rabhi, and who think that Turner is the enemy because he wasn’t a stronger advocate in saying that the county is culpable and should pay. He said he’s had people tell him that the county should help out Sylvan Township in this situation just like the county helped the Dexter area after the tornado touchdown in March. Assuming the millage is approved, Turner said this contract will smooth out the repayment and make things less painful for taxpayers. If property values go up, or if future development occurs in the township, the millage revenues will repay the county even faster.

There are only about 100 hookups to the water and wastewater treatment plant, but the rest of the township’s property owners will be paying for it – even though they don’t benefit from it, Turner said. It’s a hurtful situation for people, and a bitter pill to swallow. It will be a difficult millage vote, but Turner has heard people say they’ll support the millage because it’s better than the alternative. If a court ends up assessing property owners, it could be a lot higher than a 4.4 mill tax, he noted.

Felicia Brabec said she had been interested in Turner’s view of the likelihood that the millage would pass, and he’d provided some insight. Maybe the tide is turning, she said. Brabec also wondered what the impact will be on the county’s capital reserves. Are there projects that can’t be funded, because money is being used for the Sylvan Township bond payments?

McDaniel replied that the county has the capacity to make the Sylvan Township bond payments, and to cover its other bond obligations as well. [She did not provide details about the balance at the July 11 meeting, but had previously told The Chronicle in May 2012 that the capital reserve fund's available balance stood at about $4.7 million.]

Outcome: Commissioners voted to authorize the contract with Sylvan Township.

Workforce Development Funding

On the July 11 agenda were several items related to funding for workforce development programs, administered by the county’s office of community and economic development.

The board was asked to approve an annual employment services plan for programs provided at the Michigan Works! Career Transition Center in Ypsilanti. [.pdf of employment services plan] The plan is required in order to receive federal funding, allocated by the state’s Workforce Development Agency. This year, the county will receive $470,755 for the period from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.

Also on the agenda was the county’s application for $2,548,864 in funding for federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs for adults, dislocated workers, and youth from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. That’s a decrease from $2,995,151 awarded in the previous fiscal year.

The county board also was asked to authorize the receipt of an additional $350,000 from the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker program – funds that were unspent by other entities from a fiscal 2010 federal program, and that are being reallocated. For a similar reason, additional federal funding was also available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Regional Economic Impact Workforce Investment Act National Emergency Grant. The county will receive $258,919 more than originally budgeted to provide employment services for displaced workers.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved all workforce development agenda items.

Community Corrections

The annual plan and application for funding of Washtenaw County’s community corrections program was on the agenda for approval at the July 11 meeting. The plan covers the period from Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2013 with a $1,037,788 budget.

Community corrections is operated by the sheriff’s office and includes a variety of programs. Goals include: (1) reducing prison sentences for eligible offenders; (2) reducing jail crowding so that priority for jail beds will be reserved for dangerous offenders; and (3) reducing recidivism by providing credible alternatives to incarceration. Services range from pre-trial intervention to jail-based programs and treatment initiatives for probationers and parolees.

Of the $1.037 million budget, $430,719 is expected to be funded by the Michigan Dept. of Corrections, with an additional $260,890 estimated to come from fee revenue, $240,983 from the county general fund, and $105,196 from the community corrections fund balance. Because people who participate in these programs would otherwise likely be in the county jail, the sheriff’s office estimates that community corrections saved the county $4.756 million in 2011 by eliminating the need for 55,953 jail bed days at $85 per day.

Community Corrections: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi asked whether the funding in the plan had already been factored into the current budget. County administrator Verna McDaniel indicted that it had been.

Barbara Bergman, who has served on the community corrections advisory board, thanked the program’s director, Renee Wilson, for her work. Wilson has been running the program with diminishing resources from the state, she said, but Bergman didn’t know how much longer that could be done. Keeping people out of jail is a tremendous service, Bergman said, and it’s unfair for the state to keep asking the county to do more while not providing adequate resources.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the annual plan and application for funding for the community corrections program.

Water Resources Projects

The board was asked to approve backing the bonds for four projects proposed by the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, including three in Ann Arbor.

Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, talks with Peter Ecklund of Axe and Ecklund, bond counsel for projects on the July 11 agenda.

The three Ann Arbor projects are: (1) stabilizing Traver Creek as it runs through the Leslie Park Golf Course, costing up to $1.805 million; (2) providing stormwater retention and infiltration from the road surface using porous asphalt on Willard Street, in the Allen Creek drain district and costing up to $345,000; and (3) providing bio-retention and stormwater capture via reforestation as part of a Huron River “green infrastructure” project, costing up to $345,000.

The Ann Arbor projects require the county to give its full faith and credit, although the payment of bonds will be funded through special assessments in districts tied to each project. The most high-profile of these project will involve work at the Leslie Park Golf Course. Most recently, the city’s park advisory commission was briefed on this project at its June 19, 2012 meeting.

The fourth project backed by the county is for a five-year North Lake improvement project in Dexter and Lyndon townships. Costing up to $305,000, it would include controlling invasive and nuisance species, such as the Eurasian water milfoil, and maintaining a lake level control structure. The bond payments would be made with revenues from a special assessment of the district benefiting from the lake improvements.

Water Resources Projects: Board Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. teased Janis Bobrin, the water resources commissioner, asking her if she was just trying to get a lot done before she left office. [Bobrin, a Democrat who has served in that elected position for more than 20 years, is not seeking re-election this year. Two Democrats – Harry Bentz and Evan Pratt – are competing for the position in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary, with the winner facing Republican Eric Scheie in November.]

Yousef Rabhi asked what kind of restoration was being planned with the Huron River green infrastructure project. Bobrin replied that the city of Ann Arbor will be implementing the project, planting trees in the right-of-ways and other city-owned areas.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously authorized bonding for all four water resources projects.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan

The board was asked to set a hearing for Aug. 1, 2012 to get public input on a brownfield financing plan for a residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

The apartment complex – located at the site of the former Fox Tent and Awning, north of Mosley between Main and Ashley – is being put forward by Dan Ketelaar’s Urban Group Development Co., and will be marketed to young professionals. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

Previously approved by the Ann Arbor city council on June 18, the project’s brownfield tax increment finance (TIF) plan works in conjunction with a $650,000 TIF grant (paid over a period of four years) awarded by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board at its June 6, 2012. Both the brownfield TIF and the DDA TIF work in a similar way. The developer must build the project and pay the new taxes on the project, then receive reimbursement for eligible expenses. The brownfield plan includes developer reimbursements of $3.7 million over 21 years.

Work covered by the brownfield plan includes: site investigations for characterization of soils and dewatering if water is encountered during excavation; disposal of soils; demolition of buildings and removal of existing site improvements; lead and asbestos abatement; infrastructure improvements like water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer upgrades, street repair and improvements to streets; and site preparation like staking, geotechnical engineering, clearing and grubbing.

For additional background on the project, see Chronicle coverage: “618 S. Main Project Gets Planning Support” and “Ann Arbor City Council OKs 618 S. Main.”

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan: Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen told commissioners that this is the time of year when public bodies sometimes put through controversial items that have been put aside, but that reemerge in the summer like cicadas – when many people are out of town. He said he was happy to see that’s not the case for the county board.

He wanted to talk about brownfields, and noted that there was a lot of activity in Ann Arbor. There’s a danger of mission creep, Mogensen said. The brownfield designation started out as a way to deal with contaminated sites, but now includes other categories as well. It’s important to ask what the public benefit is from making a brownfield designation. By the time the county holds a public hearing, the likelihood of a brownfield plan being turned down is unlikely, he said. Mogensen said he wasn’t asking that the board turn down this particular proposal, but he did ask that they act as an oversight body, and not overlook their responsibility. It’s important not to expend public money to finance projects if the projects could not otherwise get financing, he said.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners voted to set a public hearing for the 618 S. Main project at their Aug. 1, 2012 meeting.

Appointments

The board was asked to make two appointments to the county’s local emergency planning committee: Stephen D. Field and Martin Donaldson, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2014.

Board chair Conan Smith noted that it’s difficult to recruit people to this committee, and he was grateful that they found two people who would serve.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved appointments to the  local emergency planning committee.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [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!

In addition to exempting cottages and bed & breakfasts with less than 14 rooms, the change would also exempt individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

According to the county treasurer’s report to the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, in 2011 the county collected $3.99 million in accommodation taxes. The money is primarily distributed to the county’s two convention & visitors bureaus (CVBs) – in Ann Arbor ($2.69 million in 2011) and Ypsilanti ($898,563). The county treasurer retains 10% of the tax to cover collection and enforcement expenses.

The accommodation ordinance commission (AOC) approved the ordinance change at their June 5 meeting. A staff memo states that the AOC had recently reviewed enforcement and administrative costs, and did not believe it was cost effective to enforce the ordinance with these smaller establishments. The staff memo also states that the local CVBs support this change, in part because the CVBs do not actively market these establishments.

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