Chris Haslinger (second from right), director of training for the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters, received a proclamation from the county board of commissioners at the board’s Aug. 6 meeting. They were gathering for a photo to mark the event. From left: Conan Smith, Andy LaBarre, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Chris Haslinger, and Verna McDaniel, the county administrator. (Photos by the writer.)

The county has determined that it’s authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill for support of indigent veterans, without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008, and collects the tax in December. The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

The county’s position is that Act 88 can also be levied without voter approval to fund economic development and agricultural activities. This year, the proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014 – the same rate that was levied in 2013. It’s expected to raise an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues.

Final action on these tax levies is expected at the board’s Sept. 3 meeting.

Also related to Act 88, the board approved allocations of $87,760 in Act 88 revenues that were collected in 2013, to support six projects. Four of the projects are administrated by Ypsilanti-based Growing Hope, with the remaining two projects initiated by the Michigan State University Product Center.

During the Aug. 6 meeting, commissioners approved amendments to both the Act 88 projects resolution and the resolution to levy the tax this year. The amendments directed the county’s corporation counsel to provide a written opinion about how Act 88 revenues can lawfully be used, and how the tax can be lawfully levied without a vote of the people. The amendments were brought forward by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

In other action, the board received a second-quarter budget update, with projections showing a general fund surplus of $211,920 for the year. The board also made mid-year budget adjustments, which included allocating a $3.9 million surplus from 2013 into unearmarked reserves.

Commissioners approved a new policy to guide decisions on tax increment finance (TIF) proposals, and supported revised rules and guidelines from the water resources commissioner. Those revisions relate to procedures and design criteria for stormwater management systems.

A proclamation made during the Aug. 6 meeting honored Herb Ellis Sr., the first black man to be elected to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Ellis was elected in 1968 and served until 1982, representing Ann Arbor. During that time he also was the first black chair of the county board. He passed away on July 10, 2014 at the age of 98.

Another resolution recognized the contributions of United Association (UA), a union of plumbers, pipefitters, sprinkler fitters, welders, and heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) technicians. They’re in this area from Aug. 9-15 for their 61st annual training program, and have announced a new 15-year agreement to continue the program at the Washtenaw Community College.

The Aug. 6 meeting was held one day after the Aug. 5 primary elections. At the start of the meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi congratulated all primary candidates, and said he looked forward to working with Ruth Ann Jamnick, the winner of the District 5 Democratic primary. He quickly added “pending the general election, but I think…” – a comment that drew laughs. District 5 – which covers August Township and parts of Ypsilanti Township – is heavily Democratic. Jamnick, who prevailed in the four-way Democratic primary, will face Republican Timothy King in the Nov. 4 general election. District 5 was the only race that was contested for the county board, with incumbent Rolland Sizemore Jr. not seeking re-election. Incumbents in all other districts of the nine-member board were unchallenged in the primary.

At the end of the meeting, the board voted to enter into a closed executive session for the purpose of reviewing attorney-client privileged communication. It is one of the exemptions allowed under the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

After about 30 minutes, three commissioners returned to the boardroom – Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). They indicated to The Chronicle that they thought the discussion in the closed session had strayed away from the limits imposed by the OMA, and they had left the session because of that. They did not state what the nature of the discussion had been, nor the topic of the session.

Soon after, the remainder of the board emerged from the closed session, and the meeting was adjourned.

Act 88 Grants, Levy

The Aug. 6 agenda included a resolution to approve allocations to six projects, using funds from an Act 88 millage that the county levies each year. Commissioners were also asked to give initial approval to levy that tax.

Tony VanDerworp, the county’s economic development officer.

The county’s position is that Act 88 of 1913 can be levied without voter approval to fund economic development and agricultural activities. This year, the proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014 – the same rate that was levied in 2013. It’s expected to raise an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues.

In previous years, the resolution setting this millage has outlined how the revenues would be allocated. The largest allocations have gone to the county’s office of community & economic development, and to the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK.

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

This year, the 10% amounts to $91,753. Of that, $3,993 remains unallocated and will stay in the Act 88 fund balance to support future projects. Beyond that, a total of $87,760 in funding was recommended for six projects initiated by two organizations – the Michigan State University Product Center, and Ypsilanti-based Growing Hope [.pdf of staff memo]:

• $10,060 to the MSU Product Center to study the potential for enhanced food processing in Washtenaw County.
• $12,700 to the MSU Product Center to develop “MarketMaker,” a food industry business network and database.
• $20,000 to Growing Hope/Reconsider to run community education events on the Michigan Invests Locally Exemption Act and to study the potential and processes for investing locally in Washtenaw County.
• $13,000 to Growing Hope/Revalue to provide two full-day educational events to assist investors in incorporating local investment offerings into their financial plans.
• $13,000 to Growing Hope to create a study on increasing food assistance sales at farmers markets in Washtenaw County.
• $19,000 to Growing Hope to support the development of an Ypsilanti “MarketPlace,” a year-round farmer’s market, and “MarketHub,” a food distribution center serving underserved communities.

These recommendations were made to the county board by the Act 88 advisory committee. Members are: County commissioners Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9); Todd Clark, president of United Bank & Trust; and Art Serafinski, chair of the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau board. Staff support was provided by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED), including economic development officer Tony VanDerworp, who attended the Aug. 6 meeting along with OCED director Mary Jo Callan.

Act 88 Grants: Board Discussion

Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) began the discussion by noting that he’s had some long-standing concerns about the legality of how the county is using Act 88 funds. Rather than sorting those issues out that night, he said he’d rather work with the county’s corporation counsel and come to an understanding about it.

He then brought forward an amendment for the projects resolution, requesting that corporation counsel provide the board with a written opinion about the lawful use of the sums raised under Act 88. Smith’s original proposed amendment stated:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by December 31, 2014, detailing the lawful uses of sums raised under Act 88 of 1913 (MCLA 46.161), and that this opinion address in similar manner other possible interpretations.

Smith’s motion did not receive support from any other commissioners to bring it forward for discussion, so Alicia Ping (R-District 3) declared it dead due to the lack of support.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had been out of the room during this part of the meeting, and returned to their seats just after the motion had been declared dead. Conan Smith said he’d be willing to support Dan Smith’s motion. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – vice chair of the ways & means committee, who was chairing the meeting in the absence of Ways & Means chair Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) – allowed D. Smith to reintroduce the motion. It was then supported by C. Smith.

C. Smith said there’s been a lot of confusion about Act 88, “and we face it every year.” He and D. Smith had spent a lot of time on the phone talking about the meaning of the act, he said, so “it would be really helpful to have an interpretation that we can use as we go into our granting processes and the distribution of these funds.”

At the Act 88 committee meeting that was held earlier in the day, C. Smith said, they began talking about the grants process for next year, and about how to ensure that the allocations relate specifically to the purposes of the act – “just to make sure we’re on the straight and narrow.” One way to go about it is to leave it up to the committee to determine, though none of the committee members are lawyers, he noted. He thought it would be great to have a statement to rely on. Even if it’s not possible to be definitive – because the law itself is unclear – it would be useful to know what ways the law could be interpreted, he said. C. Smith concluded that he was comfortable with the amendment.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, about what legal effect Hedger’s legal opinion would have – “what would it get us on the hook for down the road, good or bad?”

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

Hedger replied that like any opinion, it would simply be his advice to the board. As policymakers, ultimately it’s the county commissioners who decide what to do, he noted. If the amendment were approved, he’d give them his best interpretation of how the Act 88 revenues can be spent. Hedger said that asking him to come up with alternative interpretations, as directed by D. Smith’s draft amendment, was a little “touchy-feely.” He added: “That would just be me speculating.”

As far as putting the county on the hook one way or another, Hedger said he didn’t think that was an issue, because it would just be an opinion.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked what D. Smith meant by the word “exhaustive.” D. Smith replied that Hedger has already provided the board with opinions on other topics that explain how phrases could be construed in different ways. That’s what D. Smith intended by “exhaustive.” The language in MCLA 46.161 is extremely convoluted, he added, so Hedger could explain how parsing the grammar in different ways would yield different interpretations. Then it’s up to the board to decide which interpretation to use, he said.

Rabhi said he thought an opinion was simply an opinion – not a description of other opinions. He wasn’t sure it was an appropriate approach to ask for alternative interpretations. Rabhi would support asking Hedger to give the board his interpretation of the law, but it wasn’t Hedger’s job to do more than that.

C. Smith said he’d asked D. Smith to include that language in the amendment. He noted that the very first sentence of Act 88 has a semicolon in it. That sentence states:

The boards of supervisors of the several counties may levy a special tax on the taxable property within their respective counties for the purpose of creating a fund; or appropriate out of the general fund an amount to be used for advertising agricultural or industrial advantages of the state or county or any part of the state, or for collecting, preparing or maintaining an exhibition of the products and industries of the county at any domestic or foreign exposition, for the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing the trade in the products of Michigan, or advertising the state and any portion thereof for tourists and resorters.

As an English major, C. Smith said, his interpretation of a semicolon is to stop one thought, and append another thought to it – interrelated but separate. So for the Act 88 language, he said, there might be two legitimate interpretations of the function of that semicolon. It’s important for the board, which will be allocating the Act 88 dollars, “to have some degree of comfort that we’re doing it within the parameters of legality, even if those aren’t 100% clear,” he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The courts ultimately are responsible for interpreting the law, C. Smith said. If the board asked for a legal opinion and someone then sued the county over Act 88, the board would have a document that showed the legal underpinnings for their decision – and “I would feel more comfortable with the decisions that we are making.”

Act 88 is a mess, C. Smith continued – it’s “ancient” legislation that’s been amended over the decades, making it even more convoluted. “Just knowing that we’re walking down a path that is legal – even if we’re not sure that that is the absolute right path – I think would be helpful for us on the committee to make an allocation of the funds,” he said. “What I definitely don’t want to do is to walk down a path that’s not legal.”

D. Smith said he wants to make sure there’s a very full discussion of the law’s various nuances. At the end of the day, Hedger will provide his best interpretation of the law, he added. But as part of that guidance, it’s prudent to explore other ways that it could be interpreted. It should answer as many questions as can be answered, he said, “so that this issue is put to rest once and for all.”

Rabhi said it seemed like D. Smith was trying to do Hedger’s job. He thought they should ask the person that they hired to be the county’s attorney for his opinion. If the board wants a white paper on Act 88, they should ask for that – but maybe not from Hedger, he said. Rabhi asked Hedger what he thought.

Hedger replied that after this discussion, he had a better feel for what the amendment is asking for. He said D. Smith was right – when Hedger writes legal opinions for the board, he often describes other interpretations that he doesn’t necessarily agree with. He didn’t have a problem with this approach.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) didn’t think the amendment accurately reflected what the board wanted from Hedger. C. Smith said he’d be comfortable striking the last clause: “…and that this opinion address in similar manner other possible interpretations.” D. Smith agreed to that change.

Rabhi thanked the Smiths, saying that striking the clause would allow him to support the amendment.

The revised amendment was as follows: [strike-through reflects a clause that was struck during deliberations]:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by December 31, 2014, detailing the lawful uses of sums raised under Act 88 of 1913 (MCLA 46.161), and that this opinion address in similar manner other possible interpretations.

Outcome on the amendment, as revised: It passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Outcome on main resolution, as amended: The board unanimously passed the resolution allocating Act 88 funds, without additional discussion.

After the vote, Conan Smith commented that this was the first round of competitive Act 88 grants, and the projects are really interesting. “I think they’ll be very impactful on the community,” he said. He was especially excited about the grant to Growing Hope to study how to increase the use of food stamps at the Ypsilanti farmers market, so that people who use food stamps can get better access to fresh fruit and vegetables. He encouraged everyone in the community to take a close look at these projects.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed some frustration about the amount of money in general that’s being spent on studies, rather than directly on projects. He thought that the Ypsilanti farmers market project should be expanded to other parts of the county.

Act 88 Levy: Board Discussion

Later in the meeting, the board was asked to consider a separate resolution that would authorize the county to levy the Act 88 tax this year.

Dan Smith brought forward a similar amendment, aimed at getting a firm understanding of the Act 88 millage:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by October 1, 2014, detailing the exact mechanism under which Act 88 of 1913 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

There was no discussion on the amendment.

Outcome on the amendment: It passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Outcome on the main resolution, as amended: It passed unanimously.

2nd Quarter Budget Update

The administration gave an update on the county’s second-quarter financial status, for the period from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2014. County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the update by calling it “good news.” [.pdf of presentation]

Finance analyst Tina Gavalier.

Tina Gavalier of the county’s finance staff told commissioners that property tax revenue is showing a projected surplus of $720,000 compared to what was budgeted for 2014. In addition, the sheriff’s office is projecting a roughly $200,000 surplus due to federal, state and local reimbursements for prisoner boardings. In the category of general intergovernmental revenues, there’s now a projected surplus of $370,000 due to state liquor tax funds and local reimbursements for animal control.

Several other areas are showing a revenue shortfall, however, compared to the amount budgeted. Those units include the clerk/register of deeds ($350,000 shortfall), district court ($209,000 shortfall), trial court ($73,000 shortfall) and interest income ($71,000 shortfall).

Gavalier noted that the trial court is still determining the impact of a Michigan Supreme Court decision prohibiting the assessment of court costs on criminal cases. The court can collect on anything that was assessed prior to the court ruling, she explained, but if no legislative action is taken, courts could see a substantial decrease in future revenues.

Overall, the net projected revenues for the general fund show a revenue surplus of $656,991.

On the expenditure side, the sheriff’s office has a projected over-expenditure of $673,000 related to overtime costs, inmate food and medical services, and law enforcement operating supplies. Gavalier said the sheriff and his staff are actively working to reduce that over-expenditure by year’s end. All other departments are reporting a combined operating surplus of $135,000.

In other expenditure categories, the line item for tax appeals and refunds is projected to have a surplus of about $239,000. The line item of central charges has a projected surplus of $93,000 due to tax refund overpayments being less than budgeted – partially offset by projected over-expenditures from the homelessness initiative that the board approved earlier this year. Appropriations are assumed to be on budget at $16.2 million. The expenditure projections also took into account structural and non-structural budget adjustments that have been made so far in 2014, totaling $560,000.

The net projected over-expenditures for the general fund are $445,070. So the projected general fund surplus for 2014 is $211,920.

Washtenaw County general fund projections for 2014.

If that $211,920 is added to the fund balance at year’s end, Gavalier said, then the fund balance would be 20.3% of the general fund expenditures.

Most departments that aren’t part of the general fund are on budget or are projecting a surplus, Gavalier reported. Two areas – veterans relief and risk management – are using their fund balances as planned, she said.

Some revenue issues to monitor include: (1) state legislation that might repeal or reform Act 88, (2) revenues for the clerk/register of deeds office, (3) court revenues, (4) personal property tax reform, and (5) payments from state revenue-sharing. Expenditure items to monitor include rising costs in the child care fund due to increased caseloads and placements, the sheriff’s office costs, and union contract negotiations.

Gavalier noted that the board will receive a third-quarter update in November, with a budget reaffirmation process taking place this fall for the 2015-2017 budget.

2nd Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Responding to a query from Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Tina Gavalier explained that the projected revenue shortfall of $350,000 in the clerk/register of deeds office was from lower-than-projected fees from document-processing – such as real estate transfers and marriage licenses. It’s lower than it’s been in the past several years. Rabhi quipped: “Buy houses and get married, everybody!”

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Regarding the courts, Rabhi asked if there’s legislation pending to address the impact of the recent state Supreme Court ruling. He wondered if the county’s lobbyist needed to work on something in Lansing. [Washtenaw County and several other local municipalities pay Governmental Consultant Services Inc. to act as a lobbyist for their interests at the state level.]

County administrator Verna McDaniel said she hadn’t taken any action on this issue, but would be talking with the court administrators about it. She pointed out that the courts operate under a lump sum budget.

Rabhi said it might be worthwhile to see what other counties are facing, and to see if there’s potential to work across county lines. McDaniel said she’d get more information about that.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) wondered when the new GASB regulations take effect. He was concerned when the administration talks about a “surplus,” knowing that the county actually has about a huge amount of unfunded liability.

By way of background, Smith was referring to more than $200 million in unfunded liabilities from the retiree health care and pension funds. The new accounting changes – required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) – take effect in phases. In 2014, the main change will be more disclosures in notes to the financial statements, required by GASB 67. But in 2015, when GASB 68 is implemented, the county’s unfunded actuarial accrued pension liability will be booked as a liability in the county’s statement of net position, which will be a significant change, according to the county’s finance staff. New standards for health care liabilities will be addressed in the future by GASB, and the county’s accounting staff is working on that.

McDaniel replied that it’s an issue that staff will “continue to dialogue with this board about,” to get direction in terms of priorities and any additional actuarial payments that might be required.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about the shortfall for the courts, saying she was concerned about it. She wondered how that will impact the memorandum of understanding with the county, regarding the lump sum budget under which the courts operate. McDaniel noted that in the past, the courts have been able to work within their lump sum budget. But this year, the impact of the Supreme Court ruling will be substantial, she said. So the courts will have to come up with a plan about how they’ll handle it. The impact could be as much as a half million dollars, McDaniel said. “We’ll work with them, and we’ll have more information as this develops.”

Ping also asked for a breakdown in line-item costs that are contributing to the over-expenditures in the sheriff’s office budget. McDaniel said that the sheriff, Jerry Clayton, felt confident that expenses will even out over the remainder of 2014, based on actions that his office is taking.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

2014 Budget Adjustments

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to mid-year budget adjustments, including allocating this year’s higher-than-expected property tax revenues and a $3.9 million surplus from 2013. Initial approval had been given at the board’s July 9 meeting.

The adjustments increased the general fund budget’s expenses and revenues by $720,486 for 2014, $733,233 for 2015, $745,980 for 2016 and $758,727 for 2017. The county operates on a four-year budget, with the fiscal year matching the calendar year.

The adjustments were recommended by county administrator Verna McDaniel, who requested setting aside the $3,920,818 surplus from 2013 in unearmarked reserves, rather than spending it. The projected year-end 2014 fund balance is $20,638,675. The county board had previously approved a goal of holding a fund balance equal to 20% of its general fund budget. For 2014, the general fund budget is $103,127,202. [.pdf of staff memo and mid-year budget resolution]

In addition, the following mid-year budget adjustments were made to the general fund:

• Structural adjustments resulting in a $494,677 increase in expenditures for: (1) providing employee health care coverage for autism; (2) a consultant to help with the board’s budget priority work, (3) a “local government initiatives” intern; (4) reinstatement of two full-time equivalent positions in the sheriff’s office; and (5) salary adjustments for non-union employees.
• Non-structural, one-time, adjustments that increased expenditures by $65,000 for homelessness initiatives.

The administration recommended that the remaining $160,809 be held as an undesignated allocation until budget projections improve as new information becomes available. Finance staff gave a second-quarter budget update on Aug. 6, projecting that the county will have a $211,920 general fund surplus at the end of 2014. [.pdf of budget presentation]

From left: County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

When an initial vote was taken on July 9, commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) had voted against it. On Aug. 6, both raised the same concerns they’ve voiced earlier.

Conan Smith said he hoped that when the county achieves its goal of a fund balance equal to 20% of the general fund budget, then any extra surplus would be “put to work in the community.” With its vote that night, the board will have achieved fiscal stability, he said, and he looked forward to achieving community stability as well.

Dan Smith stressed the importance of setting a budget and sticking to it, with adjustments coming only during the annual budget affirmation process – rather than throughout the year. There are other things to focus on, he said, including policy issues.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he agreed with C. Smith. The board has done a lot to make sure the county’s financial security is in place. Looking forward, there are some investments that the county can make in the community. He thanked C. Smith for advocating on that issue.

Outcome: The budget adjustments passed unanimously.

Veterans Relief Tax

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to levy a tax to support services for indigent veterans.

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

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

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

There was no discussion of this item at the board’s Aug. 6 meeting.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave initial approval to levy this millage. A final vote is expected at the board’s Sept. 3 meeting.

New TIF Policy

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval a policy to guide the county’s participation in tax increment financing (TIF) authorities.

Commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

At its Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, the board had passed a resolution directing county administrator Verna McDaniel to develop a policy for evaluating future TIF proposals. The resolution stated that the policy would be developed with input from staff of the office of community and economic development, the equalization department, and the brownfield redevelopment authority. The Oct. 16 resolution was passed over dissent by the board’s two Republican commissioners, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Subsequently, an advisory committee was formed to help develop the policy. Members were: county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7); county treasurer Catherine McClary; corporation counsel Curtis Hedger; and finance director Kelly Belknap.

The two-page policy brought forward by McDaniel lays out a process by which the board would consider any proposed or amended Corridor Improvement Authority (CIA) or Downtown Development Authority (DDA) where the capture of county tax revenues is requested. [.pdf of TIF policy]

New TIF Policy: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) referred to this section of the policy:

III. Tax Increment Financing Participation Process

Any local unit of government proposing a new or amended Corridor Improvement Authority or Downtown Development Authority, or other statutory entity empowered to capture, incremental County tax revenues are requested, shall adhere to the following review process, in addition to those specified by the appropriate state enabling legislation:

…

D. Any County participation in these Tax Increment Financing Districts shall be through the execution of a participation agreement. A participation agreement shall include, at a minimum, extent of County participation including estimated amount (consideration of dollar for dollar and percentage estimates), duration, and methods, if any, of termination and reporting requirements.

IV. County Opt Out Authorization

In the event a requesting entity fails to adhere to this process, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorize the County Administrator to take the appropriate steps to opt out of participation in the proposed tax increment financing plan.

It appeared to D. Smith that no additional board approval would be required, in order for the county administrator to begin opt-out proceedings if the requesting entity doesn’t follow the agreed-upon process. He didn’t object to that approach, but wanted to make certain that it’s what is intended.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) responded, saying that D. Smith’s interpretation was correct. Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said the committee gave that authorization because of a potential timing issue. There are times when deadlines related to the TIF process would occur before the next board meeting, “so it gives the administrator some flexibility,” he said.

LaBarre said the policy is an attempt to give the board as broad a framework as possible. This is a tool the board could use, he said, but he also urged the board to look at each individual proposal in its set-up and its context. There are so many different types of tax-capture mechanisms for many different purposes, so he wanted to give that caveat. LaBarre praised the county staff for their work in developing this policy, saying “I simply went along for the ride.

Outcome: The TIF policy passed unanimously on an initial vote. A final vote is expected at the board’s next meeting, on Sept. 3.

Appointments

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), the board’s chair, made several nominations for appointments.

• Food Policy Council: Khadije Wallace to the slot for a citizen representative, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.
• River Raisin Watershed Council: Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, as the Washtenaw County representative; and Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the water resources commissioner’s office, as the county alternate. Those terms both end on Dec. 31, 2014.
• 2014 Remonumentation and Land Survey Peer Review Group: Thomas Sutherland, John Jekabson, Kevin Gingras, Patrick Hastings and Kenneth Coleman.

Outcome: All appointments were confirmed.

Water Resources: Revised Rules & Guidelines

The board’s Aug. 6 agenda included an item to support new rules and guidelines proposed by the county’s water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. The changes relate to procedures and design criteria for stormwater management systems. [.pdf of revised rules and guidelines]

The previous rules and guidelines had been adopted in 2000. According to a staff memo, the new changes reflect updated requirements of the county’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater discharge permit, which is administered by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Pratt attended the Aug. 6 meeting, but there were no questions from commissioners and no discussion on this item.

Outcome: The resolution supporting the revised rules and guidelines was approved.

Communications & Commentary

During the Aug. 6 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: Proclamations – UA

At its July 9, 2014 meeting, the board had passed a proclamation welcoming the United Association (UA), a union of plumbers, pipefitters, sprinkler fitters, welders, and heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) technicians. They’ll be in this area from Aug. 9-15 for their 61st annual training program. For the past 25 years, that program has been held in Washtenaw County on the Washtenaw Community College campus, bringing about 2,400 participants to the county with an estimated economic impact of $5 million. [.pdf of UA proclamation]

Chris Haslinger, director of training for the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters.

At the Aug. 6 meeting, Chris Haslinger, director of training for the UA, was on hand to receive the proclamation. He thanked the board. He described the growth of the training program over the years, pointing out that this year there will be 450 first-time attendees. He noted that the community here welcomes the UA members, and that the union receives a great deal of assistance from the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus. Both presidents of those bureaus – Mary Kerr and Debbie Locke Daniel – also attended the county board’s Aug. 6 meeting.

Halsinger reported that the UA had reached an agreement with WCC to extend the program here through 2028. There are eight people based in the Ann Arbor area who work year-round on UA training programs, he said. Eight people might not seem like a lot, he added, but it’s important that they live here and contribute to the community.

He described some other initiatives undertaken with WCC, and concluded by thanking the county, the city of Ann Arbor, Local 190 and Local 704. “We look forward to a future in the Ann Arbor community,” he said.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded by thanking Halsinger and sharing an anecdote. He said he was on a conference call with U.S. vice president Joe Biden, discussing the future of the country’s talent and job resources. Rabhi said he asked Biden a question and mentioned the partnership between WCC, the county, the UA and other communities as an example of the direction that the country should be heading. He thanked Haslinger for UA’s investment in this community.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Herb Ellis Sr.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) read a proclamation honoring Herb Ellis Sr., the first black man to be elected to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Ellis was elected in 1968 and served until 1982, representing Ann Arbor. During that time he also was the first black chair of the county board. [.pdf of proclamation]

Jeff Ellis.

Ellis had passed away on July 10, 2014 at the age of 98.

Jeff Ellis, one of Ellis’ sons, was on hand to accept the proclamation. His father’s life was dedicated to serving others, either through education, civic organizations or as an elected official, he said. In particular, Ellis had been interested in public health issues, promoting educational opportunities for young people, and improving the lives of senior citizens.

Herb Ellis was a pioneer in the community, as one of the first black teachers in the Ann Arbor public school system, and the first person of color to be elected to the county board of commissioners. He was recognized as a consensus-builder, Jeff Ellis said. “He believed in leading by example, and did his best to be a positive role model in all aspects of his life. By most accounts, he was successful in that effort.”

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Donald Shelton

The board had a third proclamation – for 22nd circuit court judge Donald Shelton, who is retiring this year. [.pdf of proclamation for Shelton] Shelton was out of town and did not attend the Aug. 6 meeting. Yousef Rabhi reported that the proclamation would be given to Shelton at a retirement party later this year.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for political office in the state legislature and Ann Arbor city council. He called on the county to redouble its efforts after the Aug. 5 primary election to give priority to eliminating homelessness, generating adequate affordable housing, true countywide affordable and accessible public transportation, affordable health care and education. He supported Act 88 funding but didn’t think the grants reflected these priorities. Partridge advocated for support of Democrat Mark Schauer in his bid for governor, and for a progressive Democratic platform to address the needs of the most vulnerable residents. The state needs a balanced budget, but not one that’s balanced on the backs of those who are least able to fend for themselves in this economy.

Executive Session

At the end of the meeting, the board voted unanimously to go into executive session for the purpose of reviewing attorney-client privileged communication. It is one of the exemptions allowed under the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Commissioners retreated to a room in the administration’s offices, along with several staff members and others who had been invited into the closed session.

After about 30 minutes, three commissioners returned to the boardroom – Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). They indicated to The Chronicle that they thought the discussion in the closed session had strayed away from the limits imposed by the OMA, and they had left the session because of that. They did not state what the nature of the discussion had been, nor the topic of the session.

Soon after, the remainder of the board emerged from the closed session, and the meeting was adjourned.

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

Absent: Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 3, 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 county’s position is that Act 88 can be levied without voter approval to fund economic development and agricultural activities. This year, the proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014 – the same rate that was levied in 2013. It’s expected to raise an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues.

In previous years, the resolution setting this millage has outlined how the revenues would be allocated. The largest allocations have gone to the county’s office of community & economic development, and to the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK.

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

This year, the 10% amounts to $91,753. Of that, $3,993 remains unallocated and will stay in the Act 88 fund balance to support future projects. Beyond that, a total of $87,760 in funding was allocated for six projects initiated by two organizations – the Michigan State University Product Center, and Ypsilanti-based Growing Hope [.pdf of staff memo]:

• $10,060 to the MSU Product Center to study the potential for enhanced food processing in Washtenaw County.
• $12,700 to the MSU Product Center to develop “MarketMaker,” a food industry business network and database.
• $20,000 to Growing Hope/Reconsider to run community education events on the Michigan Invests Locally Exemption Act and to study the potential and processes for investing locally in Washtenaw County.
• $13,000 to Growing Hope/Revalue to provide two full-day educational events to assist investors in incorporating local investment offerings into their financial plans.
• $13,000 to Growing Hope to create a study on increasing food assistance sales at farmers markets in Washtenaw County.
• $19,000 to Growing Hope to support the development of an Ypsilanti “MarketPlace,” a year-round farmer’s market, and “MarketHub,” a food distribution center serving underserved communities.

These recommendations were made to the county board by the Act 88 advisory committee. Members are: County commissioners Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9); Todd Clark, president of United Bank & Trust; and Art Serafinski, chair of the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau board. Staff support was provided by the county’s office of community & economic development.

During the Aug. 6 meeting, commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) brought forward an amendment for both the projects resolution and the resolution to levy the tax this year. After some discussion among commissioners, the board unanimously passed this amendment on the projects resolution [strike-through reflects a clause that was struck during deliberations]:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by December 31, 2014, detailing the lawful uses of sums raised under Act 88 of 1913 (MCLA 46.161), and that this opinion address in similar manner other possible interpretations.

A similar amendment was passed unanimously for the resolution to levy Act 88:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by October 1, 2014, detailing the exact mechanism under which Act 88 of 1913 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

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

A supporter of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law brought his gun to the Oct. 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

About three dozen people spoke to the board about the Stand Your Ground resolution, which urged the state legislature to repeal that law. Although there were speakers on both sides of the issue, more than 20 voiced opposition to the resolution, including several who attended the meeting wearing sidearms.

It was after midnight when the board took a 5-to-4 vote to pass the resolution, over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). In support of the resolution were Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The following week, David Raaflaub of Ypsilanti – a former candidate for county commissioner – filed a complaint against the board in the 22nd Circuit Court. The complaint asks the court to determine two issues: (1) what authority the board has that enables it to “draw conclusions of law,” and (2) what authority the board has to represent the county in seeking changes to state law. Dan Smith has indicated that he would bring forward a resolution to rescind the board’s Oct. 16 action, if it’s determined that the county will incur additional costs – such as fees for outside legal counsel – to defend the lawsuit.

Another major debate on Oct. 16 related to an increase in the Act 88 tax levy, which funds economic development and agriculture – including activities of Ann Arbor SPARK. The board ultimately gave initial approval to increase the tax from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills, following a long discussion and a failed attempt by Conan Smith to increase the tax even more, to 0.09 mills. His proposal for a draft policy to guide the allocation of Act 88 funds did win support from the majority of commissioners, however.

The county’s position is that it’s authorized to collect the Act 88 millage – as well as a levy for veterans relief services – without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy these taxes predates Michigan’s Headlee Amendment. During deliberations, Dan Smith raised questions about whether levying this kind of tax is constitutional. He also questions whether the language of the Act 88 statute allows the kind of general interpretation the county is using to define eligible uses of funds generated by the levy.

Dan Smith also proposed amendments for both the Act 88 and veterans relief millages in the future exempt them from capture by tax increment financing (TIF) districts or authorities in the county. Those exemptions, which were approved by the board, would apply to tax capture from a proposed State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA) in Pittsfield Township. After about 90 minutes of debate, the board gave initial approval to participate in that project, with Dan Smith casting the only dissenting vote. He had unsuccessfully proposed postponement, then floated an opt-out resolution that did not secure enough votes to pass. The board is expected to take a final vote on participating in the CIA at its Nov. 6 meeting.

In other action, the board (1) gave initial approval to a proposed brownfield redevelopment plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix; (2) appointed Barb Fuller to the county road commission; (3) took an initial vote to extend the coordinated funding approach, which supports local nonprofits; and (4) authorized the annual apportionment report, with details of the 2013 taxable valuations for property in the county.

And in a vote taken after midnight, the board rejected a proposal that would have given notice to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. That vote was 3-6, with support from only Dan Smith (R-District 2), Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Stand Your Ground

The Oct. 16 agenda included a resolution asking state legislators to repeal Michigan’s version of the Stand Your Ground law. [.pdf of resolution]

This is the fourth meeting that has included public commentary on the Stand Your Ground law – Public Act 309, the Michigan Self Defense Act, which was passed in 2006. In early September, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had announced his intent to bring forward a resolution urging the state legislature to repeal the law, similar to resolutions passed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 8, 2013 and by the Ypsilanti city council on Aug. 20, 2013. The resolution had originally appeared on the county board’s Sept. 18 agenda, but was pulled from the agenda before the meeting when it became uncertain that it would win sufficient support to pass, given the anticipated absence of some commissioners.

Supporters of the law spoke at the Sept. 18 and Oct. 2 board meetings, and showed up again on Oct. 16. Some were affiliated with Michigan Open Carry Inc., an advocacy group based in Lansing that has been urging people to attend the Washtenaw County board meetings to protest the proposed resolution. The resolution also attracted the attention of the National Rifle Association. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action issued an alert on Oct. 11 calling the resolution “misguided” and providing contact information for the nine county commissioners.

Stand Your Ground: Public Commentary

Thirty-two people spoke about this issue during public commentary at the start of the meeting – 20 people supporting Stand Your Ground, and 12 people opposing the state law. Many others attended the meeting, filling the boardroom to capacity with overflow into the adjacent lobby. The county had brought in two sheriff’s deputy for extra security.

From left: Lefiest Galimore and Doug Smith at the Oct. 16 county board meeting. Galimore opposes Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law, which Smith supports.

Unlike speakers at the Oct. 2 meeting who were primarily from outside of Washtenaw County, most of the 20 people who supported Stand Your Ground on Oct. 16 – and who opposed the resolution urging its repeal – said they lived in Washtenaw County, including residents of Ann Arbor, Saline, Ypsilanti and several of the townships.

Many argued that law-abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves, and that Stand Your Ground prevented victims from being prosecuted as killers. Some stated that repealing Stand Your Ground would embolden predators and threaten the safety of residents. Others argued that this was a state issue that the county board was not in a position to address.

A couple of speakers – including Dennis Moore of the Willow Run Tea Party Caucus – pointed out that this resolution is energizing supporters of Stand Your Ground and creating common ground for people of different political parties.

Most of the 12 opponents of Stand Your Ground were from Ann Arbor, including Lefiest Galimore, who has advocated for this kind of resolution at previous Ann Arbor city council and county board meetings. He said he didn’t oppose gun ownership, but he supported the repeal of Act 309. It’s not an anti-gun movement, but it’s about protecting every citizen in the community, he said. Others who spoke in support of the resolution included two pastors, at least two members of the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice, and two physicians – Jerry Walden and Andrew Zweifler, representing Physicians for the Prevention of Gun Violence. The majority of those speakers stated they supported non-violence, criticized the increasing prevalence of guns and America’s high murder rate compared to other countries, and argued that the law is applied in discriminatory ways against minorities.

During a second opportunity for public commentary – which occurred around midnight – six people spoke in support of the Stand Your Ground law, including some who had addressed the board earlier in the meeting.

Stand Your Ground: Initial Board Discussion

After about 90 minutes of the initial public commentary at the start of the meeting, several commissioners responded. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked everyone for coming. It was heartening to see such engagement and active democracy, he said, adding that he’d like it to extend to other issues as well.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he appreciated that people had shown up and he noted that there would be another opportunity for public commentary later in the evening. He said there seemed to be some misunderstanding about what the resolution will do. “It does absolutely nothing,” D. Smith said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) also thanked people for coming out and sharing their thoughts. It’s gratifying that people have spent time to understand the issue deeply. Regarding whether this resolution is within the purview of the county board, C. Smith stated that the county funds the sheriff’s department, as well as the criminal justice system – including the prosecuting attorney’s office. “So state laws that impact the operations of those functions within the county are of concern to this board,” he said. The board might not have control over the legislation, but informing state legislators “about what motivates the folks here in Washtenaw County” is important, C. Smith said, and the way that the board does that is through resolutions. The resolutions don’t have the force of law, he added, but they do communicate the board’s interests.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) agreed with Dan Smith that the resolution does nothing, and she reminded other commissioners that “we are not a lobbying organization. We are a legislative body.” This isn’t an issue in Lansing now, she said. Residents are welcome to lobby state legislators directly, she added. “We are not an intermediary.” Her statement resulted in applause from residents in the boardroom.

Stand Your Ground: Final Board Action

The agenda item for the Stand Your Ground resolution was taken up at about 12:30 a.m. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she’d spent time reading and reflecting on the law, but her main concern is that the application of the law doesn’t meet its intent.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the board’s ways & means committee.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that there are six state legislators representing the residents of Washtenaw County – including one who had attended the meeting earlier in the evening. [He was referring to state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), who is married to county commissioner Conan Smith.] “We even have the First Constituent in Lansing, so we have a bonus in this county,” he joked. [The reference was to Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican who lives in the Ann Arbor area.] This is not county business, D. Smith said. The process is to take concerns to Lansing, and not bring them to the county board.

D. Smith noted that the county board has a lot of local business to conduct, and he observed that the board postponed discussion of the proposed budget that evening. “We need to stick to Washtenaw County business, and let Lansing do Lansing’s business.”

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) thanked residents for attending and for their patience, saying it was the longest meeting he could recall in all his years on the board. [It adjourned at about 12:45 a.m.] “It shows that government is working,” he said. The Stand Your Ground resolution is not an easy vote for him, Peterson said, and he’s talked with a lot of constituents about it. He thought the discussion had been healthy.

Everyone knows what brought this issue to the forefront, Petersen said, adding that he didn’t want to politicize it. [The reference was to the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida.] Peterson said that he hadn’t been contacted by any national organization, as some people had implied.

Peterson stated that he believes in the right to own guns, and most gun owners are decent, law-abiding citizens. He said he knows what it means to be a victim of crime. But America needs a more peaceful environment. The country is far too violent, he said, and that topic deserves more discussion.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 5-4 vote. The five commissioners who voted in favor of the resolution were Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Voting against it were Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Stand Your Ground: Legal Action

The following week, David Raaflaub filed a lawsuit against the Washtenaw County board of commissioners over its Stand Your Ground resolution. [.pdf of board resolution] [.pdf of Raaflaub complaint]

Ian Reed Twiss, an Ann Arbor resident, talks with commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Twiss is pastor at Holy Faith Church in Saline, which is located in Ping’s district. He spoke during public commentary on Oct. 16 to support the board’s resolution about repealing Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law. Ping voted against that resolution.

The complaint, filed on Oct. 21 in the 22nd Circuit Court of Washtenaw County, asks the court to determine two issues: (1) what authority the board has that enables it to “draw conclusions of law,” and (2) what authority the board has to represent the county in seeking changes to state law.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, stated in an Oct. 24 email to The Chronicle that the county is in the process of retaining counsel who will respond to the lawsuit on the board’s behalf.

Reached via email on Oct. 24, Dan Smith indicated that he would bring forward a resolution to rescind the board’s previous action, if it’s determined that the county will incur additional costs – such as fees for outside legal counsel – to defend the lawsuit.

Raaflaub is a member of the Washtenaw County Republican executive committee. He was the Republican candidate for county commissioner in District 6 in the November 2012 election, running against incumbent Democrat Ronnie Peterson, who won that election.

Raaflaub’s filing indicates that the filing is “pro se” – that is, he’s representing himself. He is currently suspended by the state bar from the practice of law.

Veterans Relief, Act 88 Tax Hikes

Increases to two taxes for the upcoming 2014 budget – one for veterans relief services, and another for agricultural and economic development – were on the Oct. 16 agenda.

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services, following an initial vote on Oct. 2. The new rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 this year.

According to a staff memo, the additional revenue is needed to address rising claims, the anticipated release of current active duty soldiers, the increased cost of living reflected in claims, continued increases to demand, and an increased workload due to the Washtenaw County Veterans Treatment Court.

The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs. The county had held a public hearing on this tax proposal at its Sept. 18 meeting, but no one spoke.

A public hearing and initial vote were held on Oct. 16 for the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The proposed increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills. The millage would be levied in December 2013 and would raise an estimated $972,635.

According to a staff memo, the funds would be allocated to the following groups:

• $423,135: Washtenaw County office of community & economic development
• $200,000: Ann Arbor SPARK
• $100,000: Eastern Leaders Group
• $52,000: Promotion of Heritage Tourism in Washtenaw County
• $50,000: SPARK East
• $50,000: Detroit Region Aerotropolis
• $82,500: Washtenaw County 4-H
• $15,000: Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show

The enabling legislation for this tax is also pre-Headlee, and the county board levies the tax without voter approval.

Veterans Relief, Act 88: Public Commentary & Public Hearing

Two executives from Ann Arbor SPARK – Donna Doleman, vice president of marketing and communications, and Luke Bonner, vice president of business development – spoke in support of the Act 88 funding during public commentary at the start of the Oct. 16 meeting. Doleman thanked commissioners for partnering to create jobs for this region through investment in economic development.

Donna Doleman, Ann Arbor Spark vice president of marketing and communications.

Doleman highlighted SPARK’s work in business retention, expansion and attraction, saying it’s become a model for the country. She listed several accomplishments that the agency has achieved. Some of those items were included in handouts provided to the board. SPARK’s national and international prestige gives it an edge in marketing this region, Doleman said. Thirty percent of the views on a business attraction video have been international, she noted. [.pdf of SPARK handout 1] [.pdf of SPARK handout 2] [.pdf of SPARK handout 3]

Bonner echoed Doleman’s comments, saying that without the county’s support, SPARK wouldn’t be able to accomplish what it has. This year alone, he said, SPARK has helped secured $100 million in new investment and 1,200 jobs. He highlighted two examples: American Broach & Machine in Ypsilanti, and Universal Marketing Group, which is expanding its call center operation from Toledo. Bonner also described SPARK’s help in marketing the former GM property in Ypsilanti Township.

Leigh Greden introduced himself as vice president of government and community relations at Eastern Michigan University, and a resident of the district in Ann Arbor that’s represented by county commissioner Yousef Rabhi. He urged the board to approve the increase in the Act 88 millage. The low cost of just 73 cents per month for the average homeowner allows the county to support a variety of tangible projects, he said, including Ann Arbor SPARK’s initiatives, heritage tourism, and the Eastern Leaders Group. Greden noted that he serves as co-chair of the ELG along with Bob Tetens, director of the county’s parks and recreation commission. He described the ELG’s efforts, including the Live Ypsi program that encourages EMU staff and faculty to buy homes in the city, which results in more people paying taxes there. Act 88 funding also helped Michigan Ladder Co. in Ypsilanti, he said. “None of these programs would have been possible without the Act 88 millage,” Greden said. When something works, he concluded, “keep doing it.”

Doug Smith began by saying he wouldn’t give his address, contending that requiring someone to give their address violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The two tax increases that the board will be voting on will push the county above the constitutional limit of 18 mills, he said. He asked the board to refrain from voting until the county has made public its legal justification for exceeding the limit. Until 2008, activities that are now funded through the veterans relief and Act 88 millages were paid for out of the county’s general fund. He read a section from the Headlee Amendment, which the state enacted in 1978:

Units of Local Government are hereby prohibited from levying any tax not authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified electors of that unit of Local Government voting thereon.

It seems the county’s corporation counsel is saying that since the veterans relief and Act 88 laws allowed the levying of millages prior to 1978, that these can be levied in excess of the 18-mill cap without a vote by the county’s citizens, Smith said. He called the levies “legally dubious” and said he’s trying to do legal research to verify that. He hasn’t been able to find anything published by the county that gives a legal justification for these millages. Are any other counties using these levies above the 18-mill cap? Have the levies ever been tested in court, and is there published case law? Does it matter that the veterans relief law states “shall” and the Act 88 law states “may” levy a tax?

Doug Smith pointed out that the Headlee Amendment states that any taxpayer in Michigan shall have standing for a lawsuit in Michigan’s Court of Appeals to enforce it, so all it would take is one taxpayer willing to challenge this tax, and the county would find itself in court. He again asked that the board hold off on voting until the corporation counsel has published an opinion on the taxes for all citizens to see.

Smith also spoke during the Act 88 public hearing later in the meeting, which occurred around midnight. He pointed out that Act 88 allows for the spending of proceeds for specific purposes. From Act 88:

… for the purpose of advertising the agricultural advantages of the state or for displaying the products and industries of any county in the state at domestic or foreign expositions, for the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing trade in the products of the state, and advertising the state and any portion thereof for tourists and resorters, and to permit the boards of supervisors out of any sum so raised, or out of the general fund, to contribute all or any portion of the same to any development board or bureau to be by said board or bureau expended for the purposes herein named.

Smith wondered whether anyone checks with Ann Arbor SPARK to ensure that those requirements are met. Referring to the example that SPARK vice president Luke Bonner had given about American Broach, Smith described it as a wholly-owned Chinese company that does all of its manufacturing in China. The local operation is for research and development, he noted. “So what exactly is the Washtenaw County product that is being advertised and promoted?” He also objected to holding public hearings after midnight, saying that it doesn’t promote participation by the public.

In response to the public commentary, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed his support for Act 88, especially for the funding it provides to the Detroit Aerotropolis, Ann Arbor SPARK, and the Eastern Leaders Group.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase to 0.09 mills)

When commissioners reached the Act 88 agenda item, Conan Smith (D-District 9) began by proposing a policy and process for allocating Act 88 funds. However, he was told by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, that it would need to be considered later in the agenda, as an item for current or future discussion.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

C. Smith then referred to a handout that had been provided at the Oct. 3 working session, which outlined Act 88 investment options. The handout listed items that could be funded if the millage remained at the current 0.06 mills ($819,714), or if it were increased to 0.07 mills, 0.08 mills or 0.09 mills. [.pdf of Act 88 options]

C. Smith noted that each of the options was backed by a strategic or business plan, and was built off of work that the county has been doing for several years. For example, a levy of 0.07 mills would allow for $50,000 to fund a commercial kitchen incubator for youth skills development. However, he said, that program doesn’t really thrive unless there’s also funding for a local food manufacturing project – which would require more funding and a higher millage rate.

He also expressed support for a “community capital acceleration” program, which at 0.07 mills would be funded for $10,000. But if it’s not launched with sufficient funding, he said, “we’re sort of undermining our own efforts.”

At that, C. Smith made a motion to amend the proposed 0.07 mills and raise the allocation to 0.09 mills.

Outcome: The motion died for lack of a second.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase Allocations + Millage Rate)

C. Smith then moved to increase the millage rate in order to fund an increase for the community capital acceleration program  – from $10,000 to $35,000. Dan Smith (R-District 2) supported the motion, noting that his support was in order to move the item forward for debate. It didn’t necessarily mean that he supported the amendment itself.

But C. Smith decided to withdraw that motion. He indicated that there were actually three items that he felt needed an increase in funding – beyond the amounts that would be funded with an 0.07 mill tax. So he moved to increase the millage rate in order to fund increases for those specific items: the community capital acceleration program (from $10,000 to $35,000); a local business employment cooperative (from $15,000 to $50,000); and market analysis for a local food manufacturing, processing and distribution system ($50,000 – this was not funded at 0.07 mills).

He estimated these programs could be funded at his proposed level – a total of $110,000 – by increasing the millage rate to 0.0725 mills.

Outcome: That motion also died for lack of a second.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase Allocations Only)

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked Mary Jo Callan – director of the office of community and economic development, which administers several Act 88-funded programs – to come forward and explain the itemized funding list that C. Smith was referencing. She explained that the list was intended to indicate various funding levels for several programs, based on potential increases to the millage rate.

Callan pointed out that the resolution on the board’s agenda that night did not increase the earmarks for specific projects or organizations, compared to the current funding levels. Rather, the resolution would increase the millage rate from 0.06 mills this year to 0.07 mills in 2014. The extra funding would be allocated to the office of community and economic development as a placeholder, to be subsequently allocated to specific programs in the future. She hoped that the board would eventually allocate the extra funds using the process and policy that C. Smith had drafted and shared at the Oct. 3 working session. That’s up to the board, she said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) then proposed an amendment that would increase funding in the three line items that C. Smith had mentioned, but without increasing the overall millage rate beyond 0.07 mills.

Rabhi said he couldn’t support Ping’s amendment. The Act 88 resolution needed to move forward, he said, but the board should use C. Smith’s policy to determine priorities for allocating the excess revenues, rather than allocating some of those revenues now. There needs to be more discussion about that, he said.

C. Smith said he appreciated Ping’s effort, but he wouldn’t support it because it would shift funding away from other projects, rather than increase the overall funds. If the overall millage rate isn’t being increased beyond 0.07 mills, then he wanted to go through the process of prioritizing all the possible additional projects.

Outcome: Ping’s amendment was defeated on a 3-6 vote, with support only from Ping, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Act 88: Board Discussion – Partnerships

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed concern that some of the programs supported by Act 88 funds were duplicating efforts that other entities in the county are already pursuing. He noted that Washtenaw Community College, for example, already has a food service program, which might duplicate the proposed commercial kitchen incubator. He also wondered why hotels aren’t helping to pay for it.

Mary Jo Callan replied that OCED can explore more partnerships, in addition to those that are already in place. She said the county did an analysis of what’s available, because they don’t want to duplicate programs. Tony VanDerworp of OCED described the work that’s been done to develop the kitchen incubator proposal, including discussions with local schools. The county doesn’t want to operate it, he said, but would help facilitate the program.

Sizemore also objected to allocating $10,000 for developing the community capital acceleration program, saying there are educational institutions that have expertise that the county might be able to tap without spending money.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Exemptions from TIF)

Dan Smith put forward an amendment calling for the Act 88 levy to be exempt from capture by tax increment financing (TIF) districts or authorities in the county to the greatest extent allowed by law.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he’d support the amendment, but he wondered why it was appropriate for this millage more than any other one.

D. Smith explained that this is a millage that the board votes on every year. He planned to offer a similar amendment for the veterans relief millage. These millages are levied for very specific purposes, and he thought that the millages should be exempt from as much tax capture as possible so that the revenues will be used solely for the purpose that was intended.

Outcome: The amendment was passed 8-1 over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Later in the meeting, D. Smith made a similar amendment for the veterans relief millage. It was also passed on an 8-1 vote over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz. The board also gave final approval to the increase in the veterans relief millage.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Legal Opinion

Referring to issues raised during public commentary, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) indicated that he’d like to see a legal opinion by the board’s next meeting about whether the veterans relief and Act 88 millages are overstepping the county’s constitutional authority.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the staff memo accompanying the Act 88 resolution provides some detail about the history of the Act 88 legislation, in that it predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. [.pdf of Act 88 staff memo]

But he said that despite his repeated requests to the county administrator and corporation counsel, there’s no mention in the staff memo about how the millage is allowed under Article 9, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, or the 18-mill levy limit, or the 5.5 mill county operating millage.

D. Smith expressed concern that the Act 88 levy might be unconstitutional. Very few counties are levying Act 88, and Washtenaw County might be the only county that’s levying the veterans relief millage, he said.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that he and D. Smith had discussed this issue, and that Hedger had provided the legal rationale. However, Hedger said he would never put a legal opinion in a cover memo unless he’s directed by the board to do so. The board is his client – not individual commissioners, he said – and he writes legal opinions under the board’s direction. If the board directs him to write a legal opinion, he’d do that and provide it to commissioners, Hedger said. Once they receive it, he added, they can do with it whatever they want. But he felt uncomfortable putting that kind of detailed legal analysis in a cover memo.

D. Smith noted that the memo points to another state statute as justification for the levy. “I’ve told corporate counsel repeatedly: ‘Convince me that this is indeed a legal levy,’” D. Smith said. If it’s legal, then there would be opportunities to consider a levy under Act 283, and it would give townships the opportunity to consider levies under Act 51. [Act 283 of 1909 and Act 51 of 1951 both address tax levies for road construction and repair.] If those are legal statewide, he added, then there would be over three-quarters of a billion dollars available for roads that could be levied and managed locally. “So I am more than willing to be convinced about these levies and how we are allowed to exceed the very clear constitutional limits,” D. Smith said.

However, he added, Hedger seems to be taking bits and pieces from different statutes “to suit the outcome that’s desired, and I completely disagree with it.” He said he wasn’t asking for a formal legal opinion, but rather for “casual discussion” similar to what’s already in the staff memo, which mentions the Headlee Amendment. There are already specific references to state legislation in the memo, he noted, and he was asking for additional commentary of that nature.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Policy

Later in the meeting, C. Smith put forward a draft policy and process for allocating Act 88 revenues. [.pdf of Act 88 policy] [.pdf of Act 88 process]

Ronnie Peterson supported it, saying he’d like to see something similar for the coordinated funding program, which allocates dollars for human services. He said the Act 88 policy is essential to move forward along with the resolution on setting the Act 88 millage.

Yousef Rabhi said it was up to the board to decide whether to adopt the policy, but he supported it. Andy LaBarre didn’t think the board could come up with a better process than the one C. Smith put forward. He thanked C. Smith for developing it.

Outcome: The Act 88 policy and process was given initial approval with little discussion, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). A final vote on that policy will likely occur on Nov. 6.

Veterans Relief, Act 88: Board Votes

Outcome on Act 88: An initial vote on levying Act 88 at 0.07 mills passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from D. Smith. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Outcome on Veterans Relief: A final vote on levying 0.0333 mills for indigent veterans services passed unanimously.

Pittsfield State Street CIA

On the agenda was a resolution to approve participation in Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA).

David Sarns, a member of the State Street corridor improvement authority board in Pittsfield Township, attended the Oct. 16 county board meeting. He did not formally address the board.

The resolution would authorize the county administrator to sign a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] The agreement would allow the CIA to capture 50% of any county taxes levied on new development within the corridor boundaries, not to exceed $3,850,464 over a 20-year period, through 2033. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for improvements to the State Street corridor roughly between the I-94 interchange and Michigan Avenue, as outlined in the CIA development and tax increment financing plan. [.pdf of TIF plan]

The Pittsfield Township board of trustees held a public hearing on the CIA at its Oct. 9, 2013 meeting. That started the clock on a 60-day period during which any taxing entities within the corridor can “opt out” of participation. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission voted at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting to participate . Other local taxing entities in the corridor are Washtenaw Community College, the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, and the Saline and Ann Arbor district libraries. The Ann Arbor District Library board discussed the issue at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

In total over the CIA’s 20-year period, the plan anticipates capturing about $14 million in local tax dollars. That amount would provide about a local match to be used to secure federal funding for the bulk of the estimated $30 million project.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Postponement

Dan Smith (R-District 2) began deliberations by noting that in 2011 and 2012, the board spent considerable time discussing the county’s involvement in an authority “that wasn’t going to cost us anything.” [He was referring to a countywide transit initiative, spearheaded by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, that ultimately failed to garner support throughout the county. It attempted to create a new transit authority under Act 196, but did not involve TIF financing.]

D. Smith recalled that the first public discussion of the transit authority was in April 2011, with the first vote on it over a year later – on July 17, 2012.

In contrast, the county’s participation in the State Street CIA will cost about $3.85 million over 20 years, he noted. The board was first presented with this proposal at a working session 13 days prior to the Oct. 16 meeting, D. Smith said, and commissioners need more time to sort through concerns.

D. Smith then moved to postpone the item until Nov. 20.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said this is an issue where time is of the essence, and the board should discuss it that night.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered why D. Smith hadn’t tried to get his questions answered before proposing to postpone. Sizemore also pointed out that there will be two weeks before the board takes its final vote, on Nov. 6. There will be plenty of time to get questions answered. Sizemore noted that several Pittsfield Township officials were attending the meeting and could answer questions.

Outcome: The motion to postpone failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Substitute Resolution

D. Smith then moved a substitute resolution stating that the county would not participate in the CIA. [.pdf of D. Smith's substitute resolution] He said he supported the road improvement project, but objected to the TIF funding mechanism. He noted that the county had the ability to invest directly in the project using general fund money – which is allowed by Act 119 of 2011.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

He also pointed out that if the county participates in the CIA, the county board would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. For example, if certain aspects of the project turn out to be more expensive than anticipated, the CIA board might decide to cut back on items in the plan, such as non-motorized pathways.

The CIA mechanism also only addresses a specific problem in Pittsfield Township, D. Smith noted. There are many parts of the county that can’t use a CIA. For example, North Territorial Road in his district needs improvement, but there’s not enough development along that road to make a CIA viable, he said.

D. Smith also pointed out that the board has not developed any policies or procedures regarding TIFs, to help guide the board’s decisions. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) stated that he supported developing such a policy.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) observed that the board has been working to align its general fund investments with its strategic priorities. One way to make those strategic investments is through direct appropriations. Another way is through tax expenditures of DDAs, TIFAs and CIAs that capture dollars that would otherwise go to the general fund, but that are redirected to specific projects. In this particular case, there’s nothing wrong with the proposed State Street project, C. Smith said. But the board hasn’t been investing in road projects as a priority – as those are handled by the road commission. The CIA will capture dollars that won’t be used for investments that the board has set as priorities. Right now, C. Smith said, he’s not comfortable taking money that he thinks should go toward human services, and instead putting those funds into a road project.

C. Smith advocated for developing a rubric to help the board decide whether to invest in road projects, and if so, what specific road projects should be prioritized.

Another concern is that a lot of anticipated revenue for the State Street CIA is rooted in potential future development, C. Smith noted. Some projects would be built regardless of whether improvements are made to the corridor, he said, and those new tax dollars should be going toward priorities like human services. It’s also unclear how much future development will materialize.

These are complicated issues, and that’s why he supported postponement, C. Smith said. Short of that, he thought the county should not participate at this time.

D. Smith pointed out that the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point. Rescinding his resolution would trigger participation in the CIA.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) wondered if the county board could specify how its portion of the TIF capture is allocated within the CIA. That is, could the county earmark its TIF capture for non-motorized transportation elements? Dick Carlisle, the planning consultant who’s been hired by Pittsfield Township to work on this project, replied that in a sense the money is already earmarked. That’s because the non-motorized paths and bike paths are already in the CIA plan. The project wouldn’t be able to proceed without these elements being included, Carlisle said. Mandy Grewal, the township’s supervisor, pointed out that the township zoning requires that new roads be built using Complete Street principles.

Rabhi noted that the county board wouldn’t be adopting the CIA plan, but would be voting on the agreement with Pittsfield Township regarding the CIA, which doesn’t specifically address elements of the plan. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, confirmed that the CIA will decide how the money is spent. Rabhi floated the idea of amending the agreement to include more details about how the county’s money should be spent.

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

Saying that her patience was wearing thin because of the length of the meeting, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said there’s nothing that irritates her more than when Lansing tries to tell the county what to do. Now that’s what the county is trying to do to Pittsfield Township, she said. “I think that’s completely out of line.”

Anyone who’s driven through Pittsfield Township will know that it’s radically different now, she said, with better roads and non-motorized paths. These are competent people running the township, she said.

Ping said that the CIA is the best model for this project, because if there’s no growth, the county won’t lose any revenue. “I think we’d be foolish not to support this,” she said. Ping hoped the board would look at the bigger picture.

C. Smith replied, saying it was wrong of Ping to insinuate that his perspective on this is foolish or poorly thought out, or that he didn’t care about people in this community, or that it’s not worth it to talk about more than $3 million in county dollars. This isn’t similar to Lansing telling the locals what to do, he said. This is about what to do with county-generated revenue, he said – whether the board will put it toward priorities that commissioners have articulated over the years, like helping poor people, or whether it will fund a road. “That is an important conversation for us – that’s not foolish,” C. Smith said. “This is about our priorities. So I’m frustrated that it would be just dismissed.” To get brushed off like that is wrong – it’s rude, he said.

Later in the meeting, Ping indicated that she thought she’d said that Pittsfield Township wouldn’t bring a foolish plan to the board. If she’d said something differently, she hadn’t intended to. C. Smith replied by saying that he loved her.

D. Smith noted that this issue isn’t about trust or distrust of Pittsfield Township officials. It’s about a 20-year plan. It’s unlikely that county commissioners will be around in 20 years, and the same is true for members of the Pittsfield Township and CIA boards, he said. The issue is that the county board should properly look out for the $3.8 million in county revenues for the best interest of everyone in the county. “We only have one chance to get out of the CIA and out of TIF capture,” he said. The board would have the chance to join the CIA later, if that’s what commissioners decide after sorting out all these other issues. But once they join the CIA, the control is out of the county’s hands, he said.

Outcome: The vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Original Resolution

Discussion continued.

D. Smith pointed out that municipalities around the county have found other ways to pay for roads. Ypsilanti Township is using bonds. Scio Township is in the process of levying $85 per parcel in a township-wide special assessment district to fund road repair. The city of Ann Arbor has a 2 mill tax for streets. Superior Township dedicates a significant portion of its general fund budget for roads. Salem Township took money out of its general fund reserves to invest in road repairs on North Territorial. His point was that municipalities have found ways to pay for roads without coming to the county for TIF funding, he said.

The Pittsfield Township board seems to be set on using this mechanism and no other, D. Smith said. He understood their rationale: If the township can get $3.8 million from the county, why should they levy an additional tax on Pittsfield Township residents or use a special assessment? He said that at the Oct. 9 public hearing of the Pittsfield Township board, supervisor Mandy Grewal had claimed that the CIA was the only tool that was available for State Street repair. However, there are other tools available, D. Smith noted.

Pittsfield Township clerk Alan Israel and treasurer Patricia Scribner were among the township officials who attended the Oct. 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

D. Smith again stated that he had no problem with this project, but objected to the funding mechanism. There are other ways that the county can participate, which would allow the board to have more control. If the county joins the CIA, then dollars that the taxpayers approved for natural areas preservation would be used for roads. He wasn’t sure how many people would be willing to renew that millage when they find out that the dollars are being used for a different purpose. The same is true for the parks millage, he said.

D. Smith reported that the people who spoke against the CIA at the Oct. 9 public hearing outnumbered supporters. He said Grewal had later characterized opponents of the CIA as her political opponents. He pointed out that in the 2012 election, the entire township board had been unopposed. He said he had serious concerns about the proposal, though he’d like to support the project with a different funding mechanism.

Several other commissioners expressed support for the project, calling State Street an important transportation artery. Yousef Rabhi said that all the concerns he raised at the board’s Oct. 3 working session had been addressed in the agreement that Pittsfield Township brought forward.

Rabhi said it would have been good if commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) had been appointed to the CIA board, because her district covers Pittsfield Township. Jim Fink, an attorney representing the township, noted that the CIA board is appointed by the township supervisor and the state statute doesn’t prohibit appointing a county commissioner. Rabhi said he wouldn’t push the issue of a board appointment, but he hoped it would be considered in the future.

D. Smith clarified with consultant Dick Carlisle that the county’s EECS tax (enhanced emergency communication system) would be exempt from capture, based on the agreement that the county board would be voting on that night. Carlisle also confirmed for Smith that the tax capture would apply to increases due to inflation as well as increases resulting from new development.

In total, the board debated the issue and asked questions of Pittsfield Township representatives for about 90 minutes. Questions were fielded by supervisor Mandy Grewal, consultant Dick Carlisle, attorney Jim Fink, and Craig Lyon, the township’s director of utilities and municipal services.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 8-1 to give initial approval to participate in the CIA, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: TIF Policy

Near the end of the meeting, Yousef Rabhi brought forward a resolution directing county administrator Verna McDaniel to develop a policy for evaluating future tax increment financing (TIF) proposals. The resolution stated that the policy would be developed with input from staff of the office of community and economic development, the equalization department, and the brownfield redevelopment authority.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) indicated she would not support this, because each TIF proposal is unique.

Outcome: The item passed on a 7-2 vote with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Washtenaw County Court Budget

On the Oct. 16 agenda was an item giving final notice to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system.

Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw Trial Court.

The issue had arisen this summer, when commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) had brought forward a resolution to give notice to the courts. She did that at the board’s June 5, 2013 meeting in a move that caught some commissioners by surprise, although for several weeks during earlier budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal initially were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Then at the county board’s July 10, 2013 meeting, when the item was on the agenda for final approval, the board had voted to postpone a final vote until Oct. 16. The rationale was that it should be coordinated with approval of the 2014 budget.

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

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

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

On July 10, Ping reported that chief judge Donald Shelton had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget, and that he had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund. County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff presented a four-year budget proposal for 2014-2017 at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting.

Washtenaw County Court Budget: Board Discussion

The board reached this item on the agenda after midnight. Dan Smith (R-District 2) began deliberations by noting that on Oct. 15, a state Senate committee had voted on HB 4704, which would change the law about who can bring lawsuits against the county. The bill has already passed the House and will be taken up soon by the Senate. Given that, he moved to postpone the county board resolution until Dec. 4.

The legislation was described in an email sent to the board from the Michigan Association of Counties:

The bill will encourage countywide elected officials to work budget issues out with the county board of commissioners, rather than threaten or file a lawsuit. In addition to requiring the parties to talk, there are three main changes to current law. The bill provides an assumption that the appropriated amount is at a “serviceable level,” so the burden of proof is on the countywide elected official who chooses to sue. In addition, the bill requires the court to take into account the county board’s “ability to pay” in deciding the lawsuit. Finally, the bill requires that the countywide elected NOT spend over the budgeted amount prior to a decision in the case. These changes will help make sure that when a case occurs it is warranted, and it will help cut down on threats and frivolous filings.

Previous discussions about the court system’s budget have been tempered by the fear that the court might sue the county, if the board of commissioners didn’t provide adequate funding.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) noted that chief judge Donald Shelton and court administrator Dan Dwyer had been waiting all night. He wanted to show them respect, he said. He noted that the bill would still require further action in the state legislature – noting that it may or may not be signed into law.

Shelton spoke briefly to commissioners, saying he welcomed an opportunity to continue the collegial relationship between the board and the courts, and he didn’t think a postponement would help with that relationship.

Outcome on postponement: It was defeated on a 1-8 vote, with support only from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Outcome on main item: The final vote to eliminate lump-sum budgeting failed on a 3-6 vote, with support from only Dan Smith (R-District 2), Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to an extension of the coordinated funding approach for human services, as well as to some changes in that funding model.

No dollar amounts were allocated, but the resolution authorized the allocation of children’s well-being and human services funding for 2014 through 2016. It authorized the continued management of those funds through the county’s office of community & economic development, using the coordinated funding approach – with some modifications.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended.

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

Last year, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended. Those recommendations would also be authorized as part of the county board’s overall coordinated funding resolution, as described in a staff memo:

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

1) Under this proposal, the application pre-screening process will be broadened to better accommodate smaller non-profit organizations. New types of financial documentation will allow smaller agencies to illustrate their viability in the absence of an independent audit. 2) Capacity-building grants would be available to target smaller agencies that need to improve their governance or financial structure to be eligible for the application process, with the goal of expanding the opportunities for all agencies providing human services in the County in an equitable fashion.

Recommendations for specific funding allocations will be made to the county board in April 2014, for funding to start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process. One of the goals of coordinated funding is to attract more partners, such as private foundations.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Tom Partridge introduced himself as a write-in candidate for Ward 5 Ann Arbor city council. He called for the county to go beyond the coordinated funding proposal and provide more extensive affordable housing, public transportation, and health care, and to end homelessness. He objected to the coordinated funding approach of giving money to multiple nonprofits, each with an executive director. He urged commissioners to put a countywide millage on the ballot for human services.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked how needs are being determined, and when applications for funding would be coming to the board for approval.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, reminded commissioners that this vote would authorize continuation of the coordinated funding process. This wasn’t a vote to allocate specific dollars. She reviewed the history and approach that’s being used, as well as the review that was funded by the RNR Foundation.

Peterson said he was concerned about the direction that the county was taking, in terms of delivering services to those most in need. The board needed to make sure that its issues are addressed, and other entities should do the same, he said.

Callan explained that the request for proposals (RFP) is released in January, and the staff will bring back recommendations in April or May. Peterson said he hoped the board would have a discussion about priorities before the RFP is issued.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he agreed with Peterson, in that the board needs to set clear priorities for funding. What are the outcomes that the board expects from its funding? He thought the board should vote on metrics that the staff recommends – but that’s not happening, he said.

Callan disagreed, though she acknowledged that there seems to be a feeling that the board wasn’t consulted. She noted that during the last funding cycle, the staff brought to the board specific priorities and funding amounts for approval, before any dollars were distributed.

Callan said this next cycle will include further developing of community outcomes, much like the county board is doing for its budget priorities. It’s important to know whether investments are making a difference in the community, she noted. So there will be specific community outcomes developed for each of the six priority areas in the coordinated funding model. The outcomes will be developed using data and best practices, working with people who are out in the community doing this work.

C. Smith confirmed with Callan that she’ll be bringing back these outcomes and metrics to the board before the RFP is issued.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 8-1 to give initial approval to the coordinated funding program. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

2014-2017 Budget

No one spoke at a public hearing on the proposed 2014-2017 Washtenaw County general fund budget, which took place after midnight.

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

County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff had presented the budget on Oct. 2, 2013.

The $103,005,127 million budget for 2014 – which represents a slight decrease from the 2013 expenditures of $103,218,903 – includes putting a net total of 8.47 full-time-equivalent jobs on “hold vacant” status, as well as the net reduction of a 0.3 FTE position. The recommended budgets for the following years are $103,977,306 in 2015, $105,052,579 in 2016, and $106,590,681 in 2017. The budgets are based on an estimated 1% annual increase in property tax revenues. [.pdf of draft budget summary]

McDaniel had previously indicated that the county would need to find $3.9 million in structural savings in 2014. On Oct. 2, she reported that $4.13 million in operating cost reductions had been identified.

An item on the Oct. 16 agenda called for continued discussion of the 2014-2017 budget. However, by the time the board reached that point in the agenda, it was about 11:30 p.m. Dan Smith (R-District 2) moved to postpone discussion until Nov. 6.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone discussion of the 2014-2017 budget until Nov. 6.

Apportionment Report

On the Oct. 16 agenda was a resolution to approve the 2013 apportionment report – giving details of the 2013 taxable valuations for property in the county, broken down by municipality. 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. [.pdf of 2013 apportionment report]

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: "Equalization: Washtenaw Property Values Rise."]

From left: Equalization director Raman Patel and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Later in the year – in October or November – the equalization and property description department presents an apportionment report, which gives details of the taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. Like the equalization report, the board is required by state law to vote on adopting the apportionment report.

This year, all the taxing entities in Washtenaw County will be levying in total an estimated $629.608 million in property taxes – an increase from $621.687 million in 2012. It’s also an increase from $622 million in 2011, but has not yet regained ground to the level of $639 million in 2010.

The county alone will levy an estimated $80.669 million, including millages for the general fund, parks & recreation, and Huron Clinton Metroparks.

Apportionment Report: Board Discussion

Raman Patel – who retired from his position as the county’s equalization director in late 2011 but remains in that job on a contract basis – presented the report and fielded questions from commissioners. He noted that an outstanding item needed to complete the report was the board’s decision to set the rate for the veterans relief and Act 88 millages. He also suggested that the board indicate whether those millages are subject to capture by local tax increment financing (TIF) districts, like downtown development authorities.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked whether Patel could forecast the tax revenue out three or four years. Patel replied that it’s much more difficult to predict tax revenues now, recalling how several years ago the property values tanked within a six-month period. “So you don’t know what the market is going to do,” Patel said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that Patel’s cover memo indicated that the equalization staff had reviewed all the millages levied in the county to make sure that they’ve complied with Article 9, Section 31 of the state constitution. Smith wondered if a similar evaluation was done with Article 9, Section 6 regarding the millage limits that are specified. That section states, in part:

Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, the total amount of general ad valorem taxes imposed upon real and tangible personal property for all purposes in any one year shall not exceed 15 mills on each dollar of the assessed valuation of property as finally equalized. Under procedures provided by law, which shall guarantee the right of initiative, separate tax limitations for any county and for the townships and for school districts therein, the aggregate of which shall not exceed 18 mills on each dollar of such valuation, may be adopted and thereafter altered by the vote of a majority of the qualified electors of such county voting thereon, in lieu of the limitation hereinbefore established. These limitations may be increased to an aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills on each dollar of valuation, for a period of not to exceed 20 years at any one time, if approved by a majority of the electors, qualified under Section 6 of Article II of this constitution, voting on the question.

Yes, Patel said – that’s the responsibility of his department too. There are about 75-80 different millages levied in Washtenaw County, he explained, and his staff has to make sure that each millage complies with the state law. “It’s not a small task,” he noted. Patel reviewed some of the history related to this issue. Of all the municipalities in Washtenaw County, only three cities don’t levy at the maximum rate allowed without voter approval: Saline, Milan and Chelsea.

In response to another query from D. Smith, Patel said he didn’t think any municipality would reach the 50 mill aggregate limit in his lifetime. He noted that after Proposal A, school millages are no longer calculated as part of that total.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the 2013 apportionment report.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a proposed brownfield plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix. [.pdf of brownfield plan] A public hearing was also scheduled for the Oct. 16 meeting.

The plan relates to a renovation of an abandoned 77,700-square-foot warehouse at 140 Buchanan in the city of Chelsea. The company plans to invest more than $4 million in the project, according to a staff memo that accompanied the Oct. 16 resolution.

If the project is given brownfield status, it would allow the company to be reimbursed for up to $376,805 in eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). The total amount to be captured through TIF over 16 years is $580,677, which includes fees paid to the county brownfield program administration and the county’s local site revolving remediation fund.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield: Public Hearing

The public hearing took place after midnight and only one person – Lara Treemore Spears of ASTI Environmental, a representative from the project – spoke briefly. She indicated that two company officials had been at the meeting but left around 11:30 p.m. She thanked the board for considering the plan, and briefly described the investment planned by the company.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that the plan lists several previous owners, including the city of Chelsea. None of those entities are responsible for cleanup, so he wanted to know how Washtenaw County got “stuck with the bill.”

Nathan Voght, the county’s brownfield program coordinator, explained that in general, the state’s previous approach of going after the original polluters to get them to pay for cleanup didn’t work. So in 1996 the state enacted Act 381 – the brownfield redevelopment financing act. The act provides a funding mechanism to help new entities redevelop a contaminated site. Voght said the idea is that since society allowed this to happen, communities should pitch in to help clean it up.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Responding to another question from D. Smith, Voght noted that environmental laws are stronger now than decades ago, and that will help prevent similar contamination in the future.

D. Smith then pointed to a table in the brownfield report that listed eligible activities totaling $376,805. Most of those activities relate clearly to cleanup, he noted. But it also includes demolition – at $221,550. That seems to be in a different category, D. Smith said, and he asked Voght to explain why it was also eligible for funding. Voght said a brownfield site doesn’t just include contaminated ground. It includes everything that’s an impediment to development, and oftentimes that includes old buildings or factories, which might include asbestos.

D. Smith then highlighted a table that listed out the amount of taxes that would be captured from each taxing entity, as part of the brownfield plan. [.pdf of tax capture table] He noted that another item on the agenda – a proposal from Pittsfield Township for a State Street corridor improvement authority – would exempt some taxes from capture. He asked if similar exceptions were possible for the brownfield project. Voght replied that there are no exemptions for brownfield projects, nor are there opt-out provisions, as there are for the CIA.

Responding to a question from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Voght reported that in general, tax capture in Washtenaw County comes from about 24 mills in state taxes, and from local millages ranging from 25 to 35 mills. Depending on where a project is located, about 40% of the tax capture is from state taxes, and 60% from local taxes.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the brownfield plan. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Road Commission Appointment

The appointment of Barb Fuller to the Washtenaw County road commission was on the Oct. 16 agenda. She was nominated by board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) to fill a seat vacated by Ken Schwartz when he took over as supervisor for Superior Township on Oct. 1. The position is for the remainder of a six-year term, through Dec. 31, 2016.

The appointment had originally been on Oct. 2 agenda, but Dan Smith (R-District 2) raised the question of whether Schwartz had officially resigned. So on Oct. 2 the board voted 6-3 to postpone her appointment, over dissent from Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

This item was considered after midnight at the Oct. 16 meeting. There was minimal discussion. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the process for soliciting applications. Rabhi and Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office both described ways in which the vacancy had been publicized, including ads in print publications and in media reports. Rabhi indicated that another person who had applied had missed the deadline.

Fuller, who lives in Manchester, previously served as deputy supervisor in Pittsfield Township from 2008-2012. She provides organizational management and consulting services, and has served in a variety of leadership roles for groups including the Washtenaw Community College Foundation Women’s Council and the Montessori School Board. She is the first woman to serve on the road commission since Pam Byrnes was appointed in 2000. Byrnes had been the first woman ever to serve on the road commission, but resigned before the end of her six-year term, when she was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2004.

Other current road commissioners are Doug Fuller (no relation to Barb Fuller) and Fred Veigel, who also is a member of the county’s parks & recreation commission. The salary for road commissioners, which is set by the county board, is $10,500 annually.

Barb Fuller takes the position as the county board explores possible changes to the road commission. At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the board created a new seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” Members include four county commissioners – Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Conan Smith (D-District 9), Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) – and three township supervisors: Mandy Grewal of Pittsfield Township, Ken Schwartz of Superior Township and Pat Kelly of Dexter Township.

Outcome: Barb Fuller’s nomination was confirmed on an 8-1 vote. Dan Smith (R-District 2) cast the only dissenting vote.

Dog License Civil Infraction

Commissioners held a public hearing at their Oct. 16 meeting on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees.

No one spoke on the hearing, which was held after midnight.

About a year ago, at the county board’s Nov. 7, 2012 meeting, commissioners approved a civil infractions ordinance that gave the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. For example, enforcement of the county’s dog licensing ordinance is low because the current penalty – a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine – is relatively harsh. The idea is that enforcement would improve if a lesser civil infraction could be used. The civil infraction fines are $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense.

An increase in the enforcement is expected to result in an increase in the number of dog licenses, which would provide additional revenue to be used for animal control services.

However, the county board hasn’t yet taken the additional step of authorizing the issuance of a civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. There was no agenda item put forward for a vote on this issue at the Oct. 16 meeting, nor was there any resolution on the agenda regarding a new fee structure for dog licenses.

The county treasurer’s office is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. More information about current dog licenses are on the county website.

After the Oct. 16 meeting, county staff emailed a copy of the draft ordinance to The Chronicle. [.pdf of dog license ordinance] [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

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

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

Final unanimous approval to levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services was given on Oct. 16, following an initial vote on Oct. 2. The new rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 this year.

According to a staff memo, the additional revenue is needed to address rising claims, the anticipated release of current active duty soldiers, the increased cost of living reflected in claims, continued increases to demand, and an increased workload due to the Washtenaw County Veterans Treatment Court.

The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs. The county had held a public hearing on this tax proposal at its Sept. 18 meeting, but no one spoke.

A public hearing and initial vote were held on Oct. 16 for the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The proposed increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills. The millage would be levied in December 2013 and would raise an estimated $972,635.

According to a staff memo, the funds would be allocated to the following groups:

• $423,135: Washtenaw County office of community & economic development
• $200,000: Ann Arbor SPARK
• $100,000: Eastern Leaders Group
• $52,000: Promotion of Heritage Tourism in Washtenaw County
• $50,000: SPARK East
• $50,000: Detroit Region Aerotropolis
• $82,500: Washtenaw County 4-H
• $15,000: Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show

The enabling legislation for this tax is also pre-Headlee, and the county board levies the tax without voter approval. Dan Smith (R-District 2) questions whether levying this kind of tax is constitutional. He has asked the county administrator and corporation counsel for written explanation pointing to the statutory authorization for levying these taxes.

During deliberations, Conan Smith (D-District 9) made a motion to amend the increase and raise it to 0.09 mills. The motion died for lack of a second. He also moved to increase the millage rate in order to fund increases for three specific line items, but that motion also died for lack of a second. Those items were a community “capital acceleration” program, a local business employment cooperative, and market analysis for a local food manufacturing, processing and distribution system.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) proposed an amendment that would have increased funding in the three line items that C. Smith had mentioned, but without increasing the overall millage rate beyond 0.07 mills. That motion was defeated, with support only from Ping, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). C. Smith said he wouldn’t support it because it would shift funding from other projects, rather than increase the overall funds.

Later in the meeting, C. Smith put forward a draft policy for allocating Act 88 revenues. It was given initial approval with little discussion, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). A final vote on that policy will likely occur on Nov. 6.

During deliberations, amendments put forward by Dan Smith (R-District 2) called for both the Act 88 and veterans relief millages to be exempt from capture by tax increment financing (TIF) districts or authorities in the county. Those amendments were passed 8-1 over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz.

The board also held a public hearing on the Act 88 tax, which took place after midnight. One person spoke. An initial vote on Act 88 passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from D. Smith. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

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 proposal came in the context of an initial board vote to levy an annual tax of 0.05 mills, unchanged from the current rate. The Michigan statute authorizing this millage (Act 88 of 1913) predates the state’s Headlee Amendment, so no voter approval is required. The board can levy the tax directly.

Ken Schrader, a PC technician with Washtenaw County, explained to the county commissioners that recently installed new microphones are more sensitive than the older ones. He jokingly warned them that they should be careful what they say now, because “you can’t take anything back.” Later in the meeting, the county’s information technology department was presented with an award from the Center for Digital Government.

The current rate is expected to bring in about $683,095 in 2013, and is allocated to a variety of organizations, including the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK ($200,000) and its Ypsilanti office SPARK East ($50,000). Smith and county administrator Verna McDaniel serve on SPARK’s executive committee.

Smith, a Democrat from Ann Arbor, suggested that by raising the rate to 0.06 mills, property owners would see only a slight increase in their annual taxes. For the average taxpayer, he estimated it would increase from $4.25 to $5.10 per year, while the amount raised countywide would increase about 20% to $838,577. He also proposed that the office of community and economic development – a joint county/city of Ann Arbor department led by Mary Jo Callan – should be given the authority to allocate the funding, rather than having the county board earmark amounts for specific organizations.

No formal amendment was made, but Smith circulated a three-page memo the following night outlining his proposal. [.pdf of Smith's Act 88 memo] It’s likely the board will take up this proposal as an amendment before a final vote at its Sept. 19 meeting. Initial approval was given on Sept. 5 for the current rate of 0.05 mills on a 7-to-3 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, and Dan Smith. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

Another pre-Headlee tax – for support of indigent veterans – also got initial approval from the board, at a slightly increased rate. The initial approval increases that tax from 0.025 mills to 0.0286 mills. Staff of the county’s department of veterans affairs say the increase is needed because of rising claims and services from veterans due to a struggling economy, an anticipated increase in the number of returning soldiers, and a drop in property values. The millage is expected to raise $390,340 in revenues during 2013.

In other action related to tax revenue, commissioners gave initial approval to an ordinance governing the county’s natural areas preservation program. The change would remove the current restriction that only 7% of millage funds can be used for management or stewardship. The intent is to provide more flexibility in managing the funds, allowing the county to build a reserve for long-term stewardship. It’s viewed as an important goal, in the event that the NAPP millage is eliminated in the future. Yousef Rabhi, a Democrat who represents District 11 in Ann Arbor, proposed an amendment that would set a minimum of 25% to be spent on stewardship. The amendment failed on a 1-9 vote.

In an item viewed largely as a formality, county commissioners “ratified” the articles of incorporation for a new countywide transit authority. The document had been slightly revised from what the board had previously approved on Aug. 1, 2012 – on a 6-4 vote. This time, the vote was 6-3, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Ronnie Peterson were absent. Rob Turner, who had previously voted against the articles of incorporation, supported the item on Sept. 5.

Also approved was a resolution to support a policy change in the city of Ann Arbor related to affordable housing. The item was added to the Sept. 5 agenda during the meeting by Democrat Leah Gunn of Ann Arbor, and was not discussed by commissioners at the meeting. The resolution “encourages the Ann Arbor City Council to direct proceeds from the sale of the city-owned surface parking lots in the downtown to the city’s Housing Trust Fund, to be used to support sustainable, affordable housing.” [Earlier in the day, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board had passed a similar resolution of support. Gunn is chair of the DDA.] Dan Smith abstained from the vote. The following night, at a board working session, Alicia Ping announced that she had intended to vote against it, but had cited the wrong agenda number in casting her no vote.

Other action at the Sept. 5 meeting included initial approval of the county’s public health budget, which projects a 3.5 net increase in jobs. Voting against the budget were Alicia Ping and Dan Smith, who cautioned against adding new jobs as the county faces a deficit in 2013. A final vote is expected at the board’s Sept. 19 meeting.

Seth Best, a former resident of Camp Take Notice, addressed the board during public commentary about the need to tackle the root causes of homelessness. The homeless encampment had been evicted this summer from its most recent site in Scio Township.

And highlighting a letter that the county had recently received, commissioner Felicia Brabec raised concerns about the intent of Paxton Resources LLC to drill an exploratory oil and gas well in Saline Township. The board will likely revisit the issue of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” at a future working session. Yousef Rabhi, who chairs those meetings, suggested wrapping it into a session he plans regarding the Pall/Gelman Sciences 1,4 dioxane plume. He sees a tie-in to the issue of industrial environmental contamination.

Millages: Economic/Agricultural Development, Indigent Veterans

Two taxes – for economic/agricultural development and indigent veterans services– were on the agenda for initial approval. Because the Michigan statutes that authorize these millages predate the state’s Headlee Amendment, they can be approved by the board without a voter referendum. Commissioners also were asked to set public hearings on these millages for the board’s Sept. 19 meeting, when a final vote will be taken.

Millage: Economic/Agricultural Development – Board Discussion

The 0.05 mill tax for economic development and agriculture is authorized under the state’s Act 88 of 1913. It will cost homeowners $5 for each $100,000 of their home’s taxable value. The millage amount at this point would be unchanged from the current tax.

The anticipated $683,095 in millage proceeds would be allocated to the following local entities in 2013, and are 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).

Board chair Conan Smith introduced this item by saying that the county is facing an interesting phenomenon. The average household income is increasing steadily, he contended, but taxable values of homes have been decreasing. That means that there’s less money for local governments, which receive revenues from property taxes. So funding for government services has decreased. It’s unusual to be in a county where families are experiencing greater prosperity, while local governments struggle, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 10), chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

This was background for his proposal to look at increasing the Act 88 millage from 0.05 mills to 0.06 mills. Average taxpayers are paying about $4.25 annually, he said, and it would increase to $5.10. The increase would help to maintain the solvency of the fund and support for the agencies that are funded through it, and would allow the county to do even more economic development, he said.

Smith cited an ongoing concern about the recent consolidation that created the office of community and economic development (OCED). He felt that the move pulled together several economic development activities under one umbrella, but there’s only one staff person dedicated to coordinating those services. It’s a challenge, he said, especially when you think about the synergies between economic development, community development and workforce development – which are now all handled by OCED.

In addition to providing more revenues for economic development, Smith hoped the board could consider allocating all Act 88 revenues to OCED, and giving that department the authority to analyze and distribute the funds, rather than having the board allocate specific funding for each agency. Instead, OCED could make recommendations to the board each year, in the same way that OCED staff handles allocations to local nonprofits through the coordinated funding approach.

Smith said he wasn’t prepared to make any amendments to the Act 88 resolution that night, but he hoped the board could have this conversation in a couple of weeks at its Sept. 19 meeting.

Leah Gunn expressed her support for the idea. Rolland Sizemore Jr. told Smith he hoped to see a proposal before the Sept. 19 board meeting, to give everyone a chance to review it.

Turning to the resolution at hand, Wes Prater expressed frustration that he didn’t know how these organizations being funded by the Act 88 millage were performing. There needs to be a report of results from the previous year, he said. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that the information is available. She noted that Skip Simms from Ann Arbor SPARK was at the meeting, and that she and Conan Smith served on SPARK’s executive committee.

Sizemore said he was tired of not getting this kind of information in advance of the board meeting. McDaniel apologized, saying that the information is online, but not provided in one centralized report.

Prater specifically asked about the accomplishments of the Eastern Leaders Group (ELG), which is getting $100,000. He also wondered why the county was paying $65,264 to promote heritage tourism – why weren’t the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus doing that? [Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor CVB, attended the Sept. 5 meeting but did not formally address the board.]

Tony VanDerworp, who serves as OCED’s business development specialist, highlighted a three-page report that had been included in the board’s meeting packet. Information about the ELG is given, he noted. In general, the report provides details about jobs created, funds that were leveraged, and new programs over the past year, he said. VanDerworp added that he’d be happy to provide additional information as well.

Prater replied that he’d seen the report, but that it didn’t talk about how the county’s funding had been used. He wanted to know specifically what was accomplished with the dollars that the county had levied and spent.

Sizemore thanked Bob Tetens, the county’s parks and recreation director, for taking leadership on the ELG – it’s moving forward faster than it had been, he said. Sizemore also praised Shamar Herron, the county’s workforce development manager. Sizemore is more concerned about people who are making $10-15 an hour, rather than the jobs that Ann Arbor SPARK focuses on, which are at a higher salary level.

As chair of the board’s working sessions, Yousef Rabhi reported that he planned to schedule a working session later this fall focused on the Food System Economic Partnership and MSU Extension program, to explain how their allocations will be spent. He suggested including representatives from other agencies funded by Act 88 as well.

Regarding Conan Smith’s proposal, Rabhi said he wasn’t sold on it yet but he’d be interested in hearing from OCED’s director, Mary Jo Callan.

Smith responded to Prater’s concerns about evaluating performance. Current analysis of the Act 88 grantees isn’t being done, he acknowledged. But OCED has developed a process to evaluate the grantees for human services, who receive money through the coordinated funding approach. That process should be easily replicable for economic development funding too, he said, and would allow for greater oversight of those funds.

Outcome: The initial vote on the Act 88 millage passed on a 7-3 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Ronnie Peterson was absent. A public hearing is set for the board’s Sept. 19 meeting, where a final vote is expected, with the possible amendment mentioned by Conan Smith.

The following night, during the board’s working session, Conan Smith emailed commissioners a three-page memo outlining his proposal. [.pdf of Smith's memo] Smith projected that the proposed increase in the tax – to 0.06 mill, compared to the current 0.05 mill – would represent a 20% increase in revenues, raising an additional $139,762 for a total of $838,577 in 2013.

Millages: Support for Veterans – Board Discussion

Also on the Sept. 5 agenda was a tax to support services for indigent veterans. The proposal called for an increase to 0.0286 mills, to be levied in December 2012. That rate is expected to raise $390,340 in revenues for use during 2013. The current 0.025 mills brought in $344,486 in 2012.

According to a staff memo, the increase is needed because of rising claims and services from veterans due to a struggling economy, an anticipated increase in the number of returning soldiers, and a drop in property values. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked why an increase is needed. Michael Smith, the department’s director, reviewed the reasons stated in the staff memo. He noted that when the millage revenues were first collected in 2009, the tax brought in about $393,000. Each year that amount has decreased, while costs have increased. The office helps indigent veterans pay for things like utility bills, gas and food. A $300 food voucher doesn’t buy as much as it did just a few years ago, he said, so the county’s veterans affairs committee – which the county board appoints – decided it was time to ask for an increase. They were very cautious and debated the decision at length, he said.

Smith described other services that his office provides. They help veterans pursue getting benefits from the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, for example, and pay $300 toward the burial costs for veterans or their spouses. In addition, veterans are entitled to a free memorial marker, but sometimes cemeteries require a base for those markers. And the cost for the base varies widely, he noted, from $35 in Manchester to more than $800 at United Memorial Gardens.

Smith also cited the uncertainty about how many veterans would be returning to Washtenaw County as the military demobilizes. About 300,000 soldiers are expected to be coming home nationwide, he said. Army reserve units will be returning as well.

Several commissioners expressed support for the work of Smith and his staff. Alicia Ping asked Smith to review the history of the millage. Smith explained that the state legislature had passed a law in 1899 to support indigent veterans, mandating that counties levy this tax. [Today, few counties actually levy the millage. Washtenaw County did not levy it until 2008, when former commissioner Ken Schwartz notified the board that the option existed. Previously, the county's department of veterans affairs was supported by the general fund.] Public Act 214 reads in part:

…each county shall annually levy, a tax not exceeding 1/10th of a mill on each dollar, to be levied and collected as provided by law… for the purpose of creating a fund for the relief of honorably discharged indigent members of the army, navy, air force, marine corps, coast guard, and women’s auxiliaries of all wars or military expeditions … and the indigent spouses, minor children and parents of each such indigent or deceased member.

If the county levied the maximum rate, the full 1/10th mill would raise more than $1 million in Washtenaw County, Smith said, which is more than is needed. In times of emergency, the county has the authority to levy as much as 2/10ths of a mill, he noted.

Sizemore also wondered why the department had decided to lock its doors – he was concerned about that. Smith explained that the department had been short-staffed, because two employees unexpectedly decided to retire at the end of last year. He didn’t have the staff to handle the office’s normal walk-in hours, he said, and he had to figure out how to manage their work flow.

In addition, the office – located at 2155 Hogback Road – is in a building that’s not very secure, and they work with a population that can be volatile, he said. The office is co-located with the county’s facilities warehouse. Deliveries are made there frequently and people are walking through the building unsupervised. The department has files with sensitive information, including Social Security numbers, Smith said, so he decided to lock the office doors. A sign is up indicating that people can knock for service, and most of the work is handled through appointments. They’ve never turned anyone away, he said. New employees are being trained, and he plans to return to full walk-in service in the future.

Sizemore responded, saying that if security is a problem, perhaps the county should find a more suitable location for the office. Wes Prater also expressed concern, saying that it had been a very hot summer and they don’t know what the winter will be like. He hoped that veterans wouldn’t have to wait outside in the cold. Smith agreed, saying he was working toward the goal of full walk-in service again.

Outcome: An initial vote to increase the millage for veterans relief passed unanimously. A final vote and public hearing is set for Sept. 19.

Natural Areas Preservation

An amendment to the ordinance governing the county’s natural areas preservation program was on the Sept. 5 agenda for initial approval.

The change would remove the current restriction that only 7% of millage funds can be used for management or stewardship. The Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission had been briefed on the proposal at its May 8, 2012 meeting. At that time, the proposal would have raised the limit from 7% to 25%. Now, however, the proposed ordinance amendment would eliminate all percentage restrictions on set-asides for management and stewardship.

The proposal would amend Section 8 of the NAPP ordinance (deleted text indicated in strike-through):

SECTION 8: Natural Areas Acquisition Fund

Available funding for the purchase of natural areas land shall be deposited in a special fund in the office of the Washtenaw County Treasurer (“Acquisition Fund”). Money in such Acquisition Fund may be temporarily deposited in such institutions or invested in such obligations as may be lawful for the investment of County money.

The revenues from the deposit and/or investment of the Acquisition Fund along with the revenues from the sale of any natural areas property purchased pursuant to this Ordinance shall be applied and used solely for the purchase, stewardship and administration of natural areas land (75%) and agricultural development rights (25%) under this Ordinance, however, that no more than 7% of increased millage funds used to purchase land under this Ordinance may be used annually to administer a land preservation program or maintain lands purchased under this Ordinance.

From left: Curt Hedger, Bob Tetens, and Tony VanDerworp. Hedger is the county’s corporation counsel. Tetens is parks and recreation director, and VanDerworp serves as business development specialist with the office of community and economic development.

According to a staff memo that was part of the county board’s Sept. 5 meeting information packet, the goal would be to use $600,000 per year for management and stewardship. Of that, roughly $240,000 would be used for ongoing stewardship activities, and $360,000 would remain to be invested in a dedicated reserve for long-term land stewardship. By 2020, when the current millage expires, that annual investment is expected to have built a dedicated reserve of $6 million.

Though no percentages are identified in the revised ordinance, $600,000 would work out to about 25% of annual millage revenues.

Voters first approved NAPP funding in 2000 and renewed it in 2010, each time for 10 years. The current millage – at 0.2409 mills – will expire in 2020. It generates about $3 million annually.

Natural Areas Preservation: Board Discussion

Conan Smith said he was very supportive of this change, because it provides greater flexibility. He also floated the idea of eliminating a separate ordinance requirement for allocating 75% to the acquisition and maintenance of natural areas and 25% for agricultural land. He hadn’t consulted with parks and recreation director Bob Tetens about this yet, Smith said, but if commissioners are interested, he’d bring forward a formal proposal at a future meeting.

Yousef Rabhi said he had some reservations about eliminating the 75/25 allocation, but was very supportive of the proposal that was on the table that night. Rabhi then asked Tetens to describe what kinds of maintenance activities are done in the county’s natural areas.

The work varies by preserve, Tetens explained, but includes trail maintenance, removal of invasive species, trash pickup and other activity. Rabhi hoped to see the balance of activities tip in favor of ecological restoration. He acknowledged that public accessibility was part of the program’s mission, but noted that increasing the health of the ecosystem is another important role. Tetens replied that the staff’s work is tilted toward that ecosystem aspect.

Rabhi then clarified with Tetens some information in the staff memo, which indicated that $240,000 annually would be used for stewardship. That’s an internal goal, Tetens replied. The current proposal grew out of discussions that occurred when the staff talked with commissioners and others prior to the NAPP millage renewal in 2010. Even with the 7% cap on spending for stewardship, he said, the program has set aside about $2 million for future stewardship activity.

The intent of the ordinance change is to to set aside even more dollars, so that by 2020 – when the county board has to decide whether to put a renewal on the ballot again – they’ll have some options. The assumption is that land acquired by the county through NAPP will be protected forever, Tetens said. They need to save more money so that they’ll be in a position to take care of the land in perpetuity, regardless of whether there’s a millage to support it.

Natural Areas Preservation: Board Discussion – Amendment

Rabhi said that as someone who works in the field, he understand the crucial role of stewardship. [Rabhi, a Democrat representing District 11 in Ann Arbor, works with the city's natural area preservation program.] He believed that instead of eliminating percentages completely, the ordinance should indicate a minimum of 25% for stewardship. He proposed that as an amendment to the resolution. It was seconded by Barbara Bergman.

Leah Gunn noted that she had been on the board when the original NAPP ordinance had been passed in 2000, and said she had worked hard campaigning for the millage to support the program. She said she couldn’t give enough praise to the parks and recreation commission and the staff, and she trusted them to do their jobs. Gunn told Tetens that the board should “let you do what you think is best, and if we find we’re dissatisfied with it, we’ll probably let you know,” she quipped.

Dan Smith weighed in, saying that the intent of changing the original ordinance was to simplify it. Ordinances should be crafted to last a long time, he said, and including percentages makes that more difficult. By adding back in a different percentage, Rabhi’s amendment adds complexity to the ordinance that’s unnecessary. [Smith is one of three county commissioners who serve on the parks and recreation commission. Others are Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Barbara Bergman.]

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11).

Smith read from the current ordinance, noting that the parks and recreation commission is an agency of the county. The ordinance gives the county board a lot of leeway to give direction to the parks and recreation commission, if it chooses. For those reasons, he did not support Rabhi’s amendment.

Wes Prater clarified with Tetens that none of the proposed changes would increase NAPP’s budget. Responding to another query from Prater, Tetens said that the issue is how to allocate the millage revenues. While the parks and recreation commission has a certain amount of discretion over NAPP’s budget, it doesn’t have authority to make ordinance revisions – only the county board of commissioners can do that.

Bergman praised the parks and recreation commission and staff, and said it’s important to maintain the county’s natural areas, especially regarding invasive species. To her, the amendment was meant to be advisory in nature, sending a message to future commissions.

Felicia Brabec asked Tetens what the impact would be on administering the program, if hard percentages are in the ordinance. When the ordinance was originally developed, the percentages were relatively arbitrary, Tetens replied. Regarding the proposed minimum 25% spent on stewardship, right now the program probably wouldn’t need to spend that much, he said. And depending on how much additional land is acquired in the future, they might need to spend more than that in the coming years. It’s important to keep manageable the amount of land that the county owns, he said, and to ensure that the county has sufficient funds to sustain maintenance indefinitely.

Conan Smith felt that Rabhi’s intention was “spot on,” and perhaps one way to address it would be to add language to the ordinance that expresses a commitment to maintenance. He did not make a formal motion to add such language, however.

At this point Alicia Ping called the question, a parliamentary move aimed at ending discussion and forcing a vote. The motion to call the question passed on a voice vote.

Outcome on amendment: The amendment failed on a 1-9 vote, with only support from Yousef Rabhi. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

Natural Areas Preservation: Board Discussion – Final Comments

Wes Prater asked about the current fund balance for NAPP. About $1.9 million is set aside for stewardship, Bob Tetens said. The total fund balance for NAPP is between $7-8 million, he added.

Leah Gunn said the purpose of the ordinance change is to set policy. It’s not to take control of the budget. She trusts the parks and recreation commission, which is appointed by the county board, to make decisions about NAPP’s budget. The program is also overseen by another group, the natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC), she noted. The board needs to trust the people they’ve appointed to do the right thing, she concluded.

Outcome: The initial approval for changes to the NAPP ordinance passed unanimously. A final vote is expected at the board’s Sept. 19 meeting.

Later in the meeting, Rabhi stressed that he doesn’t distrust the parks staff or administration. He said he was simply trying to ensure that maintenance was financially supported at an adequate level. He understood that the staff is very well-qualified, as are members of the oversight bodies.

Countywide Transit Accord

In an item viewed largely as a formality, county commissioners were asked to “ratify” the articles of incorporation for a new countywide transit authority. The document was slightly revised from what the board had previously approved on Aug. 1, 2012 – on a 6-4 vote. The effort to more toward a broader public transit entity is being led by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA).

From left: County commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2), Wes Prater (D-District 4), and Felicia Brabec (D-District 7).

The ratification of the articles of incorporation does not incorporate a new transit authority. Rather, it establishes the document that will be used to incorporate a new authority. The articles of incorporation will be filed by Washtenaw County with the state, when the AATA requests that it do so. After incorporation, the new authority – to be called The Washtenaw Ride – would not receive a transfer of AATA assets until a voter-approved funding mechanism has been approved.

The Sept. 5 agenda item to re-approve the articles of incorporation was prompted indirectly by the board’s action on Aug. 1, when it voted to amend the document that had already been approved by three other parties in a four-party transit agreement. Those other parties include the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Because of the amendment, the articles of incorporation had to be re-authorized by the other three parties.

The county board’s Aug. 1 amendment made a change to the size of the majority needed, in order for the new transit authority’s board to change the articles of incorporation – from 2/3 to 4/5 of the 15 board members. When the amended document was sent back to the Ann Arbor city council, the city’s legal staff made additional changes that were driven by a desire to harmonize the county board’s amendment with the rest of the document, as well as with Act 196 of 1986 – the act under which the new transit authority will be incorporated.

For example, the 4/5 majority requirement for changes to the articles of incorporation is at apparent odds with one kind of change to the articles specifically mentioned in Act 196 – a change in jurisdictions that are part of the authority. Act 196 explicitly indicates that a 2/3 vote is required. So an administrative change undertaken after the board’s Aug. 1 meeting was to add the clause: “… unless another vote of Board is required under the terms of these Articles or provided for in Act 196.”

Although it wasn’t clear whether the changes required a re-vote by the county board of commissioners, some commissioners were concerned that the changes might be construed as substantive and contrary to the intent of the county board, which could become an unnecessary point of contention down the road. For more details on this series of changes, see Chronicle coverage: “Washtenaw Board to Re-Vote on Transit Accord.”

Earlier in the day on Sept. 5, the AATA board released a final draft of a 5-year service plan as part of a possible transition to The Washtenaw Ride. An 0.584 mill tax to support expanded service could be placed on the ballot by May 2013. [See Chronicle coverage: "Revised 5-Year Transit Plan: More Service, Cost."]

Outcome: With no discussion, the board voted 6-3 to ratify the articles of incorporation, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Ronnie Peterson were absent. Rob Turner, who had previously voted against the articles of incorporation, supported the item.

Public Health Budget

A net increase of 3.5 full-time-equivalent positions was part of the 2012-2013 department of public health budget on the Sept. 5 agenda for initial approval.

Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director, and Jennifer Brassow, the public health department’s finance director.

Seven full-time-equivalent positions (a combination of part-time and full-time jobs) are being reclassified in the proposed budget. Last year, the department eliminated a net of nearly seven FTEs. The $10,998,870 budget includes a $3,553,575 allocation from the county’s general fund – unchanged from the previous year. Of that general fund allocation, $548,052 will be used to fund the county’s medical examiner program, according to a staff memo.

Unlike the county’s general fund budget, which is aligned to the calendar year, the public health budget runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30, in sync with the state’s fiscal year.

This coming year, the public health budget also includes two new vaccines that can be administered at the department’s clinics. Effective Jan. 1, 2013, meningococcal vaccines will be available at $120 per child and $125 per adult. HPV vaccines will be administered for $140 per child and $145 per adult. [.pdf of full fee schedule]

Public Health Budget: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director, about possible state cuts to the budget, and what the impact might be on clients served by the department. Fleece replied that there are concerns about across-the-board state budget cuts – that’s part of the uncertainty that the department faces. Some new grants the department is seeking are seen as promising, as well as current grants that are typically renewed. But none of those funding sources are finalized. As for the impact of possible funding cuts on clients, Fleece said it wasn’t possible to know until those cuts are determined – the department will have to make adjustments during the year, as necessary.

Fleece also noted that the department is projecting that it will end the year without needing to tap its fund balance.

Wes Prater pointed out that the positions reflect increased pay grades, which will cost the county in the long-term. He wondered why they couldn’t hold the line with pay grades. Fleece replied that for several of the positions, the increases will be covered by billing Medicaid. He noted that the department tried cutting some nursing positions during the previous budget cycle, but it had been hard to manage without them. That’s why this budget calls for two public health nurse positions. Currently, the department is turning away clients because there aren’t enough nurses to handle the demand for services.

Barbara Bergman described the funding from Medicaid as important – if the county didn’t take advantage of that, it would be like “leaving money on the table,” she said. She also defended the higher pay grades, saying that the county has been hemorrhaging staff and that at some point, people won’t be able to afford to work for the county.

Yousef Rabhi clarified with Fleece that no jobs were actually being eliminated – positions are simply being reclassified, or created.

Dan Smith said he’d be voting against this budget because it created a net of 3.5 new positions. The county is facing a budget deficit, and in that context, no new positions should be added.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wondered if the budget cost the county more money. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that there’s no increase in general fund support for the department. Fleece added that the general fund support is the minimum that’s necessary in order to receive state funding.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the budget on a 8-2 vote. Voting against the budget were Alicia Ping and Dan Smith. Ronnie Peterson was absent. A final vote is expected at the board’s Sept. 19 meeting.

Food Policy Council Appointment

One appointment was made by commissioners at their Sept. 5 meeting. Sharon Sheldon of the Washtenaw County public health department was appointed to replace Jenna Bacolor on the Washtenaw County Food Policy Council. The slot is designated for someone in the public health sector. Sheldon also serves on the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) board and is a former board member of the nonprofit Growing Hope. She currently works as a program administrator in the county public health department’s health promotion/disease prevention division.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to appoint Sharon Sheldon to the food policy council.

Two appointments to fill vacancies on the Washtenaw County Historic District Commission had originally been on the Sept. 5 agenda but were pulled by board chair Conan Smith. Both slots had been for members of the general public. The board’s meeting packet had indicated that John McCurdy, an Ypsilanti Township resident and associate professor of history at Eastern Michigan University, was to be appointed to a term expiring on Dec. 31, 2012. Courtney Miller was to be appointed to a term ending on Dec. 31, 2013. She lives in Ypsilanti and previously served as a preservation planner with the city, serving as staff to the Ypsilanti Historic District Commission.

Smith stated that “technical” reasons resulted in the decision to remove the appointments from the agenda. Wes Prater asked Smith whether it was because the positions hadn’t been advertised, and Smith indicated that this was the case.

In an email to The Chronicle following the meeting, Smith clarified that although there is no requirement to “notice” these vacancies, he had “pledged to the commissioners that they would receive the appointments information further in advance and that I would personally vet them with staff. I hadn’t had a chance to do that when these two came to the board this evening.”

Ann Arbor Land Sale Policy

An item added to the Sept. 5 agenda during the meeting was a resolution to support a policy change in the city of Ann Arbor related to affordable housing.

From left: Commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Elaine Holleran, administrative analyst.

The resolution “encourages the Ann Arbor City Council to direct proceeds from the sale of the city-owned surface parking lots in the downtown to the city’s Housing Trust Fund, to be used to support sustainable, affordable housing.”

Earlier in the day, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board had passed a similar resolution of support. County commissioner Leah Gunn (D-District 9) is chair of the DDA, and brought the resolution forward for the county board’s consideration.

At the city council’s Sept. 4 meeting, councilmember Sandi Smith –  who also serves on the DDA board – had announced her intent to bring a resolution to the council on Sept. 17 that would establish a policy of depositing proceeds from city-owned land sales into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The policy Smith is calling for would represent a return to a previous policy that was rescinded in 2007. That policy dates back to 1996. [For detailed Chronicle coverage, see: "City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy."]

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners voted 8-1 to approve the land sale resolution. Dan Smith abstained. Ronnie Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr. were absent.

At the board’s Sept. 6 working session, Alicia Ping announced that she had intended to vote against the land sale resolution. But she had stated the incorrect agenda item number when she cast her dissenting vote, and had voted unintentionally against the board’s approval of claims. She hoped the record could be clarified.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Camp Take Notice

During public commentary, Seth Best told the board that he now lives in Ann Arbor, but he’s a former resident of Camp Take Notice. He was identified as a female at birth, but he’s been male in his mind and heart, he said. In 2006, he made a life-affirming decision to transition to become male. It cost him his job, and by 2008 he was homeless. He was in the South at the time, where the faith community had a lock on providing services for the homeless, he said. But because he was transgender, he was not welcome.

He came back to Michigan because he’d heard that the Delonis Center would accept him. They did, but had a 90-day limit on his stay there. That passed quickly, and again he found himself at the mercy of the faith community, he said. After a few weeks he learned about Camp Take Notice, and asked if he could join. He found himself where his gender didn’t matter. He was among like-minded people in a safe, drug-free place. He felt empowered as the camp grew, and it helped him. He’s no longer on the streets.

Best told commissioners that homelessness can’t be ended with just a house or a job. The root causes need to be addressed, and that’s related to mental health issues, he said, including drugs and alcohol.

Communications & Commentary: Camp Take Notice – Board Response

Several commissioners responded to Best’s commentary. Yousef Rabhi thanked him for coming, and called his story inspiring. Barbara Bergman noted that she serves on the board of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), and she hoped their outreach efforts had been of some assistance.

From left: County commissioners Rob Turner (R-District 1) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rob Turner said he’d first met Best at a recent town hall meeting regarding Camp Take Notice. The meeting had been hosted by the University of Michigan School of Social Work, and led by emeritus professor Bill Birdsall. It had been held on a Sunday, Turner said, because every Sunday the camp members have dinner together, followed by a town hall meeting. [For some of the history of Camp Take Notice, including the tradition of those Sunday gatherings, see Chronicle coverage: "Laws of Physics: Homeless Camp Moves" and "Laws of Physics II: Homeless Encampment."]

Turner said he’d been struck by the sense of community among members of the camp, which had been dislocated this summer from its most recent site in Scio Township. [The camp had been set up on property owned by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, off of Wagner Road near M-14.] Turner recalled that the county had helped fund assistance to provide housing, but several people were still without housing.

There are more than 4,000 homeless people in Washtenaw County, Turner said. The camp had been a place where people could feel safe, if they couldn’t stay at the Delonis Center. He said that several elected officials had been invited to the meeting at UM, including state Rep. Mark Ouimet, state Sen. Rebekah Warren, and sheriff Jerry Clayton. No county commissioners had been invited, Turner said, but he was the only elected official who came – he’d read about the meeting in the Chelsea Standard, and had brought his two daughters.

Recidivism into homelessness is high, Turner continued, because people often don’t have the ability to follow up with services that might help them stay in housing. Without community support, it’s hard. Turner said he’s impressed with the community that Camp Take Notice has built, but it’s not a perfect solution. He’d like to talk to their leadership, and try to tap into their volunteerism and community support to help some of the county’s programs. It could be a wonderful resource, he said.

Rabhi thanked Turner for attending the meeting at UM, and said he had also been involved – he’d gone out to the camp when the members were evicted, and had participated in a working group of people that included law enforcement, neighbors and others. Camp Take Notice worked hard to have a good relationship with the community, he said.

Bergman noted that the county has already provided considerable resources to Camp Take Notice. She felt that ending homelessness probably won’t happen, and curbing homelessness is a better goal.

Communications & Commentary: Fracking

Felicia Brabec highlighted a letter that was included in the board’s meeting packet from Paxton Resources LLC, indicating that the company has filed an application with the state to drill an exploratory oil and gas well in Saline Township. [.pdf of Paxton letter]

Brabec said she was very concerned. A Paxton representative had attended a working session earlier this year, and Brabec characterized his remarks about the board’s concerns regarding fracking as very dismissive and flippant. She wanted to revisit the issue.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said he plans to schedule a session on the Pall/Gelman Sciences 1,4 dioxane contamination. That situation involves decades-long industrial contamination at the former Gelman Sciences manufacturing plant in Scio Township, now owned by Pall Corp., that spread to the aquifer. The company has implemented court-ordered remediation, overseen to some extent by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. Rabhi said he planned to invite members of the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD) to address the board.

He indicated that there might be a tie-in to the fracking issue, and that it could be handled in the same working session.

Communications & Commentary: IT Award

Kevin Moore was on hand to present the county with a 2012 Digital Counties award from the Center for Digital Government, Digital Communities program and the National Association of Counties (NACo). Washtenaw County ranked 9th in the the category of counties with a population between 250,000 to 499,000. Moore noted that Washtenaw County has ranked in the top 10 for 9 of the past 10 years.

Andy Brush, who leads the county’s IT staff, thanked Moore for coming into “hostile territory.” [Moore works for Quest Software, which is based in the Columbus, Ohio area. So it was an allusion to a college football rivalry between the university in that city and one located in Ann Arbor.] Brush also thanked the board for their support of technology, which he said helps make democracy accessible.

Leah Gunn thanked the IT staff for being gracious in helping “technological idiots like me.” Barbara Bergman also thanked the staff, noting that people in her generation are “digital immigrants,” unlike children who are “born with mice in their hands.” Conan Smith joked that he’d like to see the county advance above 8th place next year. [This is apparently a standard joke. When the county was awarded the 4th place ranking in 2011, Smith said he looked forward to the day that the county would be ranked No. 3.]

Communications & Commentary: Voting Rotation

During the meeting, Alicia Ping noted that in the past, votes had been taken by calling the commissioners’ names in rotation – that is, each roll call vote began with a different commissioner, so that the same person wouldn’t end up voting last each time. Now, the rotation doesn’t change, and Ping expressed a desire to return to the former practice. It makes a difference, especially on controversial votes, she said.

The task for administering the board’s roll call votes falls to Pete Simms of the Washtenaw County clerk’s office. Responding to an email from The Chronicle, Simms said the decision about rotating the vote is made by the county clerk [Larry Kestenbaum] clerk at the meeting. [Simms currently fills that role.] In the future, the voting order will be rotated, he said.

Communications & Commentary: November Election

Thomas Partridge spoke during the both opportunities for public commentary. He noted that it was an historic day – the eve of the Democratic National Convention’s nomination of the first African American U.S. president, Barack Obama, for a second term. It’s important to support Obama and all progressive Democratic candidates in the Nov. 6 election, he said. It’s important to put forward a plan that puts services for people first, and cast aside the Republicans and their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who put money before people, Partridge said. He also called for a commitment to end homelessness, and support for public transit. During his second turn at public commentary, Partridge said he planned to be a write-in candidate for either the District 53 state representative or Ann Arbor mayor. [Partridge had previously lost to incumbent state Rep. Jeff Irwin in the District 53 Democratic primary on Aug. 7.]

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

Absent: Ronnie Peterson

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 19, 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!

County commissioner Ronnie Peterson, right, talks with supporters of the Washtenaw Head Start program. (Photos by the writer.)

Although the budget calls for a net loss of 32.22 full-time-equivalent jobs, most of those positions are either already vacant or will be handled through retirements, McDaniel said. One significant retirement was recognized during the meeting: Donna Sabourin, executive director of the county’s community support & treatment services (CSTS) department, who’s worked for the county for 20 years. Commissioners awarded her a resolution of appreciation, and also gave final approval to the CSTS budget for the coming year.

But the meeting’s main focus was the proposed general fund budget, which was discussed at length and will be the topic of most board meetings and working sessions at least through November. The county budget is based on a calendar year, from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, and is developed in two-year cycles.

Among the recommended cuts is a reduction of $1.2 million to local nonprofits and other agencies. For example, funding for the Humane Society of Huron Valley’s contract is proposed to drop from $500,000 in 2011 to $250,000 in 2012 and 2013. The Delonis Center homeless shelter’s funding could decline from $160,000 to $25,000.

The budget also calls for the county to relinquish its status as the federal “grantee” for the Head Start program in Washtenaw County, which would trigger a process to find a replacement entity. The county has administered the program for 46 years. About a dozen Head Start supporters showed up to Wednesday’s meeting, and urged commissioners to continue support for the program.

Though commissioners had several questions and comments about the 2012-2013 budget, several of them expressed even more concern for what’s on the horizon: Projected deficits of $11.6 million in 2014 and $14.7 million in 2015.

Board chair Conan Smith characterized the 2012-2013 budget as a recommendation that’s “ripe for public discussion at this point.” Everything is still on the table, he said. The board is expected to take up the topic again at its Oct. 5 meeting, and a public hearing on the budget is set for Oct. 19. The target date for approving the budget is Nov. 16.

There was no vote taken on the 2012-2013 budget directly, but the board took action on several other budget-related items. Among them, commissioners gave final approval to levy two taxes: for (1) services for indigent veterans; and (2) economic development and agriculture.

The board also passed a resolution in support of developing a regional transportation authority, after a failed attempt to postpone the vote. The resolution is a prelude to a Sept. 30 summit with Detroit and the counties of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and St. Clair, which will focus on region transit issues.

Two issues of note did not come before the board as expected. A proposed reorganization of county administration was pulled from the agenda at the start of the meeting. It would have replaced the deputy administrator position by giving additional responsibilities to four managers, paying them annual stipends of $15,000 each. The stipends were a sticking point – during public commentary, AFSCME Local 2733 president Caryette Fenner objected to the timing of that pay, in light of recent labor concessions made by employees.

And not on the agenda was an anticipated proposal by the Washtenaw County Road Commission, which was discussed by the board at its Sept. 8 working session. The road commission is presenting a request for a countywide millage to help pay for road repair. It’s a tax that the county board could impose without seeking voter approval. The plan was subsequently submitted to the county clerk on Friday, and could be addressed at the board’s Oct. 5 meeting.

Admin Reorganization Postponed

One of the first actions of the meeting was to pull off the agenda a resolution regarding the reorganization of administrative positions proposed by Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel. Details of the restructuring had been part of the board’s packet of meeting materials, including a proposal to pay annual stipends of $15,000 to each of four managers who would be taking on additional responsibilities.

The proposed changes, which could be introduced at a later date, were expected to save $120,962 and were part of a broader 2012-2013 budget proposal. The reorganization would have put the deputy county administrator’s position – which has been unfilled since the departure of Bill Reynolds earlier this year – on hold/vacant status. A new “cross lateral” team was proposed with four members: Kelly Belknap, director of finance; Greg Dill, infrastructure management director (a new position); Curtis Hedger, corporation counsel; and Diane Heidt, director of human resources and labor relations.

Greg Dill, director of administrative operations for the sheriff’s office, is likely to be appointed as the county’s infrastructure management director. He was working on his iPad before the meeting.

Dill is currently director of administrative operations for the sheriff’s office. A resolution for his new appointment – to the newly created job of infrastructure management director, with a salary of $116,75 – was also pulled from the agenda of Wednesday’s meeting. His new responsibilities would include those previously assigned to the county’s information & technology manager, a position that’s been eliminated following the departure of James McFarlane earlier this year.

According to a staff memo, the cross lateral team was intended to split the duties formerly handled by the deputy administrator. Department heads would be assigned to a team leader and report to that person for non-critical issues.

The proposal called for each team member to receive a $15,000 stipend in addition to their salaries, which would be capped at $125,000 unless a higher salary is authorized by the county board. If the combination of salary and stipend exceeded $125,000, the excess would be paid as a contribution into the employee’s deferred compensation retirement plan.

Other changes in the proposal included eliminating an administrative coordinator position, and creating a new management analyst job.

Admin Reorganization: Public Commentary

There was no discussion on the topic among commissioners, but during public commentary later in the meeting, AFSCME Local 2733 president Caryette Fenner objected to the $15,000 stipend that had been proposed. She noted that her membership and most employees had made concessions to address the projected two-year budget deficit. It wasn’t that these team leaders didn’t deserve the stipend, she said, but it wasn’t the right time for it.

2012-2013 Washtenaw County Budget

After discussing budget priorities and challenges for over a year, commissioners formally received a recommended budget for 2012-2013 at Wednesday’s meeting, which calls for a total net loss of 32.22 full-time-equivalent jobs and cuts to a range of programs and services. [.pdf of draft 2012-2013 budget]

County administrator Verna McDaniel and the county’s finance staff gave a presentation during the meeting, showing how the administration proposes to balance the budget. Previously, an estimated $17.5 million deficit had been projected for that two-year period.

The board is expected to take up the topic again at its Oct. 5 meeting, and a public hearing on the budget is set for the board’s Oct. 19 meeting.

Commissioners asked questions both at Wednesday’s meeting and during a working session the following day, on Sept. 22.

2012-2013 Washtenaw County Budget: Presentation

The proposed budget is based on a forecast in general fund revenues of $97,714,410 in 2012 and $96,937,530 in 2013 – down from $101,250,268 this year. The budget includes cutting 28.36 full-time-equivalent jobs, creating 5.5 FTEs, putting 11 FTE positions on hold/vacant status, and removing 1.64 FTEs out of hold/vacant. In addition to the 25.36 jobs that are already vacant, another 14 of the job cuts are expected to be handled mostly through retirements. Currently the county employs 1,369 people.

WEMU’s Andy Cluley interviews Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel after the Sept. 21 board of commissioners meeting.

The biggest cuts are proposed to come from the sheriff’s office in positions represented by the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM), with a net loss of 12 jobs, and in positions represented by AFSCME 2733 Unit B, with a net loss of 10 positions.

Earlier this year, McDaniel told commissioners that she hoped to gain $8 million in labor concessions from employees. New labor contracts have now been finalized with 90% of the county’s employees, for a total of $4 million in savings both budget years from changes to compensation and benefits. The board had approved a new contract with its largest labor union – AFSCME Local 2733 – at a special meeting on Sept. 13.

The budget also reflects $4.1 million more in additional revenues from property taxes. Those tax revenues are now projected to be higher than previously estimated. The budget also identifies $8.2 million from organizational and structural changes.

The budget includes a total of $1,239,859 in cuts to funding for local nonprofits and other agencies. Examples of the most dramatic changes include funding for Humane Society of Huron Valley’s contract (from $500,000 in fiscal 2011 to $250,000 in fiscal 2012 and 2013), the Delonis Center homeless shelter (from $160,000 to $25,000), and the Safe House domestic violence shelter (from $96,000 to $48,000). [.pdf of six-page response to the proposed cuts by Tanya Hilgendorf, executive director of the Humane Society of Huron Valley. ]

Items proposed to be cut completely include $125,000 to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), $200,000 for the county’s reserve for housing, and $110,000 for a housing contingency fund. Money for the county’s coordinated funding of human services will drop by $128,538 (from $1,015,000 to $886,462). [.pdf chart of nonprofit/agency allocations]

Looking beyond this two-year budget cycle, the report also projects deficits of $11.6 million in 2014 and $14.7 million in 2015.

During the presentation to commissioners at their Sept. 21 meeting, McDaniel, finance director Kelly Belknap and finance analyst Tina Gavalier summarized the proposed reductions and revenue sources for the coming two years. [.pdf of budget presentation highlights]

In addition to a working session on Sept. 22, other budget-related dates include:

• Oct. 6: Working session on a county building/space plan.
• Oct. 19: Public hearing on the 2012-2013 budget.
• Nov. 2: Budget update for the third quarter of 2011.
• Nov. 16: Target date for board vote on 2012-2013 budget.

2012-2013 Washtenaw County Budget:  Commissioner Discussion

Yousef Rabhi began by thanking county staff for their work in developing the budget, and thanking employees for the contract concessions they made. “People have given, and given a lot,” he said.

Leah Gunn described this budget as “the hardest budget I’ve ever worked on” during her 15-year tenure on the board, but noted that even more challenges are in the wings. If the state legislature eliminates the personal property tax, that will be another major hit to the revenues of local governments, she said. Gunn urged people to contact their legislators in Lansing and beg them not to repeal the tax, “or we lose government services.”

Wes Prater first asked for more details on the 80% in budget reductions that McDaniel had categorized as structural – she said she’d get that information to the board.

Prater then turned to the projections for 2014-2015, when deficits of $11.6 million and $14.7 million, respectively, are expected. Why are expenditures projected to increase? Revenue estimates are much lower, he noted – falling 8.21% in 2014 to $88.975 million, and staying flat the following year. Why aren’t expenditures in line with that? The staff needs to look at revenue realistically, he said, then prepare a budget that’s based on those realistic revenue estimates.

McDaniel said that as they get closer to those years, they’ll have a better handle on projections and will make revisions. She acknowledged that it was disheartening to see additional projected deficits, but said the staff would be remiss if they didn’t point it out. The county will work to bring expenditures in line with revenues for those years, she said – they are required to present a balanced budget.

Prater complained that originally, the administration had projected a $20 million deficit for 2012-2013. Then in the spring, that deficit had been revised to $17.5 million. But revenues are only down $1.7 million from 2011, he said.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, explained that the projected deficit was based on anticipated expenses and revenues. It wasn’t comparing 2012 to 2011, she said. McDaniel added that the county would “be in a pickle” if they made rosy projections. She assured Prater that the staff wasn’t playing games to make things look worse. It’s difficult to make projections, she said, and she acknowledged that revenues for the current year showed less of a decline than anticipated. But she indicated that it’s better to be prepared for a steeper decline than to suddenly be faced with a crisis, if projections turn out to be overly optimistic.

Prater replied that in the past couple of years, projections have missed the mark so much, that some people think county officials don’t know what they’re doing.

From left: Commissioners Rob Turner, Yousef Rabhi and Dan Smith.

Dan Smith observed that it seemed the county was jumping from one emergency now to another in 2014-2015. He asked the staff to explain why revenues are expected to decline, and where some of the expenditure increases are coming from. Expenses are projected to rise from $96.93 million in 2013 to $103.72 million in 2015.

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, confirmed for Smith that most of the revenue declines reflect an anticipated drop in property tax revenues and a loss of state revenue sharing. Current union contracts run through 2013, she noted, so the projected expenses assume that concessions made for the coming two years will end. That means step increases, longevity pay and other aspects of the previous contract will resume, unless labor unions agree to additional concessions. Gavalier also noted that health care costs are projected to increase 12%.

Gavalier also pointed out that earlier this year, the staff had projected deficits of $27.7 million in 2014 and $34.3 million in 2015. Since then, based in part on updated estimates of property tax revenues, those deficits are now projected to be lower.

Conan Smith took issue with Prater’s characterization that previous revenue projections had been way off. In fact, Smith said, the projections were fairly accurate – off by less than 1% in 2010 and by about 1.5% this year. On the revenue side, the board needs to project worst-case scenarios, he said. For expenses, they assume the status quo from the previous budget cycle as a starting point. Of course expenditures will be adjusted, he said – the county is legally obligated to present a balanced budget.

Alicia Ping asked a series of questions also related to how the projections are made, wondering why the previously projected $17.5 million deficit was no longer reflected in the 2012-2013 budget. Belknap clarified for Ping that the deficits are based on projected expenses if the county takes no action. Conan Smith added that the budget that’s now presented to the board reflects adjustments they’ve made – including labor concessions, for example – that helped them overcome that deficit and align expenses with revenues. You don’t see the $17.5 million deficit because the county has taken action to address it, he said.

Barbara Bergman thanked the unions and other employees for their sacrifices, and said that at a later date the board needs to talk about making a sacrifice, too. She didn’t want to make commissioners’ salaries so low that people couldn’t afford to serve, she said, but they needed to talk about adjustments.

Rob Turner noted that the daunting task before them is the 2014-2015 budget, with a two-year $26 million deficit. Given that they’ve just made serious cuts in the current budget cycle, cutting another $26 million “is just a scary thought,” he said. Turner agreed with Bergman that they needed to look at the line items for commissioners too. They can’t just sit back and hope that property taxes will increase – they need to look ahead.

Ronnie Peterson observed that public employees are “taking it in the neck,” and that people often point to those employees as being responsible for the deficit. But employees are responsible for coming to work and doing their jobs, he said – it’s the responsibility of the board to manage the budget and protect the future of local government, so that employees can feel secure. He clarified with McDaniel that additional board meetings and working sessions will focus on specific aspects of the 2012-2013 budget.

Peterson said it felt like the county was just putting a finger in the dike. Some commissioners had courage, while others didn’t, he said. Commissioners should lead the way, but everyone needed to sacrifice – and he didn’t see that that was happening.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he wanted to look at the issue of part-time employees. He also noted that not all of the departments led by other elected officials were getting budget cuts. [Those elected officials are the prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie; water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin; county treasurer Catherine McClary; clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum; and sheriff Jerry Clayton.]

McDaniel replied that in developing the budget, finance and administrative staff looked at a variety of factors, including cuts taken by departments in previous years, and budgets in comparable departments. The budget didn’t make broad, across-the-board cuts, she said, but rather reflected strategic decisions.

Proposed general fund budgets for departments led by other elected officials are:

Office       2011      2012     2013

Pros Atty   $5.44M    $5.88M   $5.94M

Water Res   $2.59M    $2.46M   $2.54M

Treas       $1.31M    $1.51M   $1.55M

Clerk       $2.36M    $2.64M   $2.53M

Sheriff    $40.89M   $43.41M  $44.92M

-

The sheriff also oversees the budget for emergency services, which is budgeted for $2.77 million in 2011, $2.53 million in 2012, and $2.63 million in 2013.

Returning to the overall budget, Conan Smith elicited from McDaniel that budget increases for certain departments reflect higher cost allocation plan (CAP) payments that these departments are being asked to make. The CAP is an amount charged to each department for items like the county attorney and administration.

Yousef Rabhi clarified with McDaniel that nearly all of the positions being eliminated were already vacant or were planned retirements. McDaniel said there may be one “bump,” but that doesn’t mean the person will hit the streets. The administration is working hard to find another assignment for that person, she said.

Rob Turner noted that the county’s “rainy day” fund – its general fund reserves – would be decreasing in the coming years. It’s important to remember to maintain it in case the state does something drastic that would affect the budget, he said. At the same time, it’s important to note that the county isn’t keeping a fat balance, he said.

Mention of the state prompted Ping to comment on the personal property tax (PPT) issue. She noted that Gunn had mentioned it earlier in the meeting, adding that everyone is shocked that the proposal seems to have legs. Although it seems like the momentum is now behind reducing the tax, not eliminating it, there’s no revenue replacement plan being put forward, Ping said, and that’s wrong. “Again, Lansing needs to be minding their own business,” she said. Ping asked staff to provide information about how eliminating the PPT would affect the county’s revenues.

Prater returned to the issue of revenue projections, and noted that the county’s equalization staff “really missed the mark” in projecting the decline of property tax revenue for 2011. The 2011 budget had been built on the assumption of an 8.5% drop in property tax revenues, but in fact revenues fell only 2.85%. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw County's Taxable Value Falls"]

Gunn commented that for decades, property tax revenues did nothing but increase. Then revenues plunged, and the county has had to deal with it, she said. Predicting it is almost impossible, she added, and the equalization report for the year doesn’t get completed until April – four months into the fiscal year. Given those constraints, it’s always better to be conservative in projecting revenues, she concluded.

McDaniel noted that the board had agreed to build the budget based on worst-case scenarios. Otherwise, they might be faced with sudden, unanticipated cuts, she said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to move the budget agenda item to its Oct. 5 meeting. No initial vote was taken on the 2012-2013 budget itself .

After the vote, Peterson asked about a building space plan that McDaniel is preparing, which will be presented at the Oct. 6 working session and is likely to include recommendations about what to do with certain county facilities that might be sold. Was that plan factored into the budget? McDaniel responded that it’s not part of the budget, because commissioners would need to provide direction to staff about how to proceed. It’s more related to future planning than to the 2012-2013 budget, she said.

2012-2013 Washtenaw County Budget: Public Commentary – General

Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, expressed concern that information about retirements had been made public before the union leadership was informed. She hadn’t heard about it previously.

Following up to her commentary, Yousef Rabhi said he’d like to see better communication between the unions and county administration. He hoped that the proposed cross lateral managers would help facilitate communication with union leaders and employees.

2012-2013 Washtenaw County Budget: Head Start

During public commentary after the budget discussion, Shirley Beckley told commissioners she is the parent and grandparent of children who had benefited from Washtenaw Head Start. She wondered what the status of the program was, in layman’s terms – had it been cut from the budget, or had the board reconsidered that decision?

Public commentary is typically a formal process, with speakers alloted a set amount of time – three minutes at Ways & Means Committee meetings, or five minutes at regular board meetings. After all public commenters have spoken, commissioners have the opportunity to respond, if they choose.

However, during this public commentary on Head Start there was considerable – and uncharacteristic – back-and-forth.

By way of additional background, the board held a working session on July 21, 2011 devoted to the future of Washtenaw Head Start. From that report:

The presentation stressed that Head Start – which serves over 500 preschool children of low-income families in the county – would not be eliminated. Rather, the county would relinquish its status as the program’s federal “grantee,” triggering a process to find a replacement entity. Federal Head Start officials would be responsible for selecting another agency to take over from the county.

The county currently spends about $900,000 each year in support of Head Start, which has a local budget of $4.8 million – the bulk of its funding comes from federal sources. In addition, the county owes $2.68 million in bond payments related to an Ypsilanti facility it built for Head Start in 2002-03.

Seven of the board’s 11 commissioners attended the working session, and several expressed support for exploring the transition. They praised the program, which has been recognized nationally for its performance, but noted that education isn’t part of the county’s core mission. Some suggested that an organization like the Washtenaw Intermediate School District would be a better fit to administer the program.

At Wednesday’s meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel told Beckley that there’s still time to discuss budget decisions, and that meetings of the board are open to the public, with opportunities for public commentary. Beckley replied that she didn’t think the county understood the impact of its decision to cut funding for the program. She hoped that they could come to some kind of understanding with Head Start, rather than cutting it. She wondered if Head Start were cut from the county, would it get a new name?

McDaniel said she couldn’t answer that question. The federal government would take responsibility for finding a new agency to sponsor it, if the county decided not to host the program.

Beckley indicated that she was confused about the process. Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. replied “sometimes we are, too.”

The next speaker was Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733. Among her budget-related concerns, Fenner said she thought that the executive director of Washtenaw Head Start – Pat Horne McGee – would be returning to the board to propose budget cuts that would still allow the county to retain the program. She hoped the board would take another look at Head Start and see if there was any way to help.

Sizemore characterized Head Start as a great program – a comment that elicited applause from supporters in the audience. He said the county has to look at all its options, and that there’s the possibility of another provider taking over the program.

Conan Smith noted that the board will hold a public hearing on the 2012-2013 budget at its Oct. 19 meeting. That’s a great opportunity to talk about it, he said. Public commentary also could be made at any of the board’s other meetings, he said, including upcoming working sessions devoted to the budget. Or people could talk to commissioners directly, he noted.

Everything is still on the table, Conan Smith said. The board has a budget that’s recommended by the county administration, he added, and ”that is ripe for public discussion at this point.”

Ronnie Peterson, who had spoken at length during the July working session about his support of Head Start, reiterated his support for the program. It seems to the public that the county has already decided to cut ties with Head Start, he said, but he hoped that commissioners hadn’t made up their minds. There are a lot of other things that the county subsidizes, he said, and he wanted to talk about those, too.

Peterson said he planned to work on the issue of Head Start, as well as funding for outside agencies. The board didn’t have to adopt the budget until the end of the year, he said, and commissioners need to have a proper discussion about it. He indicated his belief that Head Start should stay with the county – and received applause from the audience.

Act 88, Veterans Relief Millages

Several other items on the agenda also related to the 2012-2013 budget. Commissioners were asked to take a final vote to approve levying two taxes in December 2011: (1) 0.05 mills for support of economic development and agriculture; and (2) 0.025 mills to pay for services for indigent veterans. Because the Michigan statutes that authorize these millages predate the state’s Headlee Amendment, they can be approved by the board without a voter referendum. Initial approval and public hearings on these millages occurred at the board’s Sept. 7 meeting.

The indigent veterans millage will cost homeowners about $2.50 for every $100,000 of a home’s taxable value. It’s expected to raise $344,486 – about $11,000 less than in 2010, due to projected decreases of property values. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the resolution to levy the millage for indigent veterans services, with dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Kristin Judge (D-District 7) was absent.

The millage for economic development and agriculture – authorized under the state’s Act 88 – will cost homeowners $5 for each $100,000 of their home’s taxable value. It was also given initial approval at the board’s Sept. 7 meeting, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Nine people spoke during public commentary at that meeting, all supportive of the tax – including several people from organizations that will be funded from it.

The anticipated $688,913 in millage proceeds will be allocated to several local entities: Ann Arbor SPARK ($230,000), SPARK East ($50,000), the county’s dept. of community & economic development ($131,149), Eastern Leaders Group ($100,000), promotion of heritage tourism ($65,264), Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP – $15,000), Washtenaw 4-H ($82,500) and Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show ($15,000).

On Sept. 21, Dan Smith said he would again be voting against the Act 88 millage, as he had on the initial Sept. 7 vote. He read from the 1978 Headlee Amendment ballot language, which was passed by voters and amended the state constitution. The ballot language stated, in part, that the amendment would “prohibit local government from adding new or increasing existing taxes without voter approval.”

Act 88: Public Commentary

As she had at the board’s Sept. 7 meeting, on Sept. 21 Jennifer Fike – executive director of the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) – thanked commissioners for their past support of FSEP, and encouraged them to approve the millage again. FSEP leverages the funds it receives from the millage to attract and support food businesses in this region, she said, and she provided several examples of that.

After her commentary, board chair Conan Smith noted that Fike is also a member of the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Outcome: The Act 88 millage was approved on a 7-to-3 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Wes Prater (D-District 4), and Dan Smith (R-District 2). Kristin Judge (D-District 7) was absent.

Support of Regional Transit

At the Sept. 7 meeting, board chair Conan Smith had indicated he would be bringing forward a resolution in support of a regional transportation authority for southeast Michigan. That resolution was on the Sept. 21 agenda.

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 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.

Support of Regional Transit: Commissioner Discussion

Leah Gunn moved to table a vote on the resolution, saying she had a lot of questions about it and it needed a complete discussion. For one, she wanted to know what the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority thought about it. [AATA is leading an effort to develop a countywide transit authority.]

Outcome on motion to table: The motion failed on a 5-5 vote, with support from Leah Gunn (D-District 9), Barbara Bergman (D-District 8), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Wes Prater (D-District 4). Kristin Judge (D-District 7) was absent.

Ronnie Peterson asked Conan Smith to provide more details about the resolution. Smith reviewed that for the past decade, leaders of the counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb, and the city of Detroit had been meeting to discuss issues common to that region. This year, Washtenaw and St. Clair counties were also invited, he said, and the focus will be on regional transportation. Each county was asked to bring a resolution of support on that issue. This resolution acknowledges that Washtenaw County supports having a conversation about creating a regional transportation authority, he said.

Barbara Bergman noted that there wasn’t mention of a budget for this in the resolution. In the past, she said, some issues have ended up consuming considerable staff time, and she didn’t want that to be the case. Bergman said she’d consider supporting the resolution if it were amended to indicate there would be no money budgeted for the effort at this point.

C. Smith said he had no intention of spending money on it. He asked if anyone objected to adding Bergman’s suggestion as a friendly amendment – there were no objections.

Peterson clarified with C. Smith that they weren’t joining a consortium at this point, but rather simply supporting the idea of discussing it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he was tired of reading articles in the Detroit papers that don’t mention Washtenaw County. He viewed this as an opportunity to advertise the county while working with other communities, something he said he keeps “harping about.”

Outcome: As part of the consent agenda, the resolution was approved unanimously.

Bonds for Western Washtenaw Recycling

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to authorize issuance of $2.7 million in bonds, backed by the county’s full faith and credit, to help pay for a $3.2 million facility operated by the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority (WWRA).

The WWRA plans to use $500,000 from its reserves to fund part of the project. The $2.7 million in bonds would be repaid through special assessments on households in participating WWRA communities – the city of Chelsea, Dexter Township, Lima Township, Lyndon Township, and Manchester Township. Bridgewater Township is participating in the WWRA, but will not help fund the new facility. The village of Manchester and Sylvan Township have withdrawn from the WWRA.

County commissioners had been briefed on the proposal at their July 7, 2011 working session. Since then, the WWRA board has approved adding a county commissioner to their board. Rob Turner – a Republican representing District 1, which covers large portions of western Washtenaw – will serve in that role.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to authorize bonds for the WWRA facility.

Accommodation Tax Contract Amended

A contract amendment regarding the distribution of the county’s accommodations tax was on the agenda for final approval by the board.

The county collects a 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.

The contract amendment addresses 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.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave final approval to the accommodation tax contract amendment.

CUB Contracts Suspended

At their Sept. 21 meeting, commissioners were asked to give final approval to suspend the county’s use of Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreements, pending the outcome of litigation that’s challenging the validity of the state’s Public Act 98.

CUB agreements are negotiated between local trade unions and contractors, and 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.

However, Act 98 of 2011 – which became effective July 19, 2011 – prohibits 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 prohibits discrimination against contractors based on willingness or non-willingness to enter into such agreements.

The law is being 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 are seeking to rule the law invalid, alleging that it is pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act.

At the board’s Sept. 7 meeting, when commissioners took initial action on this issue, Yousef Rabhi had proposed two amendments to the resolution: (1) to assert the effectiveness of CUB agreements in ensuring a fair and cooperative workplace; and (2) to affirm that the county would reinstate CUB agreements when it becomes possible to do so. Those amendments had been approved on an 8-2 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith and Alicia Ping.

On Sept. 21, Dan Smith said he still opposed the way that the resolution had been modified – he had objected to the second amendment, which he believed inappropriately commented on the value of CUB agreements. However, he said the No. 1 priority is to look out for taxpayer dollars and to prevent the county from being sued, so he would be supporting the resolution.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to suspend the county’s use of CUB agreements.

Public Health Budget

On the agenda was a resolution giving final approval to the county’s 2011-2012 public health budget, which includes elimination of a net of nearly seven full-time positions.

The $11,839,496 budget includes a $3,553,575 allocation from the county’s general fund – a net decrease of $583,597 from the previous year. Unlike the county’s general fund budget, which is aligned to the calendar year, the public health budget runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30, in sync with the state’s fiscal year.

Though a total of nearly 12 full-time-equivalent positions (a combination of part-time and full-time jobs) will be eliminated in the proposed budget, five positions will be created or reclassified, for a net loss of nearly seven FTEs.

The budget also calls for a raft of new fees and fee increases. Effective Jan. 1, 2012, new fees will be required for a change of restaurant ownership ($250), a temporary food license late fee ($60), a time-of-sale authorization extension fee ($50), and a pollution prevention late reporting fee ($25).

A sampling of the fee increases includes a septic tank only permit (from $52 to $100), a new-build well permit (from $187 to $250), and a swimming pool inspection (from $56 to $150). Cremation permit fees will be increased from $40 to $50.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners voted unanimously to give final approval to the county’s public health budget.

CSTS Budget, Director Retires

A resolution for final approval of the 2011-2012 budget for Washtenaw County’s community support & treatment services (CSTS) department was on the Sept. 21 agenda. The budget includes a net loss of five full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions.

The proposed $26,838,557 CSTS budget calls for eliminating seven FTEs and putting one position on hold/vacant status, but creating three new FTE positions, for a net loss of five FTEs. In addition, 19 FTE positions will be reclassified. Though CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, it receives 98.8% of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. Commissioners were briefed on a reorganization of the WCHO at a July 7, 2011 working session. The changes are aimed at limiting the county’s financial liabilities.

The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. At this point, WCHO “leases” its employees from the county, and contracts for services through CSTS.

The CSTS budget runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30, in sync with the state’s fiscal year. The county operates on a calendar year cycle.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously supported the resolution giving final approval to the CTST budget.

Donna Sabourin, executive director of the county’s community support & treatment services (CSTS) department, who’s retiring after working for the county for 20 years.

CSTS executive director Donna Sabourin, who is retiring after working for the county for 20 years, was acknowledged at the Sept. 21 meeting. She’s been executive director of CSTS since 2002. The board approved a resolution of appreciation in her honor. [.pdf of resolution of appreciation] Commissioner Barbara Bergman said it was a sad pleasure to present the resolution, noting that she and Sabourin had worked closely together for many years.

Sabourin spoke briefly, saying there’s never been a day when she hasn’t felt proud to be a county employee. She thanked the board for their continued commitment to the services provided by CSTS. Even the hardest decisions that commissioners had made were done with compassion and concern, she said. Sabourin also thanked CSTS employees, and wished them well as they meet the challenges of the coming years. She said she felt tremendous gratitude for her time with the county.

Sabourin told The Chronicle that after her retirement, she plans to work managing vendors at the Town Peddler Craft & Antique Mall in Livonia.

Insurance Providers Selected

Commissioners were asked to accept proposed quotes for insurance coverage in seven areas, totaling $1,021,275 in premiums.

The Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Agency has proposed obtaining coverage from several providers for the areas of: (1) property coverage, including boiler and machinery – Chubb Insurance Co.; (2) general liability, law enforcement liability, public officials liability, and auto liability – Genesis Insurance Co.; (3) crime – Great American Insurance Co.; (4) fiduciary liability – Chubb Insurance Co.; (5) lawyers professional liability – Underwriters at Lloyd’s London; (6) judicial liability – Underwriters at Lloyd’s London; and (7) medical professional – Hudson Insurance Co.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to accept the proposed insurance quotes.

Appointments

In an item added late to the agenda, board chair Conan Smith moved two sets of appointments:

• Republican Melody Gable and Democrat Ulla Roth to the county board of canvassers, both for four-year terms starting Nov. 1, 2011.
• Republican Barbara Johnson and Democrats Rachel Bendit and Rose Toth to the county jury board. Johnson’s term expires April 30, 2017. Terms for Bendit and Toth also expire April 30, but in 2014 and 2015, respectively.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved the appointments.

Misc. Public Commentary

In addition to the speakers reported above, Thomas Partridge spoke at three of the four opportunities for public commentary during the evening. Saying he advocated for those who were affected by decreased services, Partridge urged commissioners to develop a plan to raise revenues by seeking grants, working to expand the number of entertainment venues in the county, and asking the wealthiest individuals and businesses in the county – including football and basketball fans – to contribute. Eight of the board’s 11 commissioners are Democrats, he noted, but no one had put forward a plan to raise revenues. He called on the board to pass a resolution asking employers locally, in the state and nationwide to hire more workers here, rather than expanding in places like China and India.

Partridge also urged commissioners to fund co-ops that would providing living spaces and employment for people in need, and he argued that a countywide drug policy is needed to combat increased property crimes and robberies caused by people using illegal drugs, including marijuana. None of the law enforcement agencies are handling this, he said, not even the sheriff’s office.

Partridge also criticized Barbara Bergman and Leah Gunn – two of the four commissioners who represent Ann Arbor district – calling them puppets of mayor John Hieftje.

Both of the other two Ann Arbor commissioners responded, somewhat indirectly, to Partridge’s final comments. Yousef Rabhi said he’d recently been interviewed by the Ann Arbor Observer for an article that the publication is doing on Bergman and Gunn. Both have announced plans not to seek re-election in 2012. He said he’d been skeptical when he came on the board – Rabhi was first elected in November 2010 – but they are phenomenal commissioners and strong supporters of human services.

Conan Smith joked that Bergman and Gunn are more like the mayor’s marionettes.

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

Absent: Kristin Judge.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011 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 comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

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!