The appointments included naming former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane to the Washtenaw County road commission board, to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. The remainder of that six-year term runs through Dec. 31, 2014. Unlike most other county appointed boards, road commissioners receive annual compensation of $10,500.

McFarlane was among 10 applicants for the position. Others who applied included former county commissioner Rob Turner; Mike Henry, chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party; and University Bank CEO Stephen Ranzini.

Nominations are made by the board chair. The current board chair is Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8). Before the vote on the road commission appointment, there was discussion about changing the process so that interviews with applicants would be held at a public meeting.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that the road commission would be the topic of a April 17 working session, which he chairs. He suggested continuing discussion of the issue at that time. The working session will also include a report from the subcommittee that is making recommendations on the future of the road commission. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission.”

Rabhi described the process of nominating a new road commissioner as a difficult one, and highlighted the need for a five-member road commission. Currently the road commission board consists of three members. It’s an issue that Rabhi plans to bring up at the April 17 working session.

Several other appointments were made on March 19 in a separate vote:

• Accommodations ordinance commission, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).
• Agricultural lands preservation advisory committee, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Erica Bloom (environmental/conservation group/natural resources professional).
• Workforce development board, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2016: John Haberthy (private sector) and Matthew Sandstrom (private sector).

In addition, five appointments were made to the Act 88 advisory committee, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2014. Three county commissioners – Conan Smith (D-District 9), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – were appointed, along with citizens Todd Clark and Art Serafinski.

Action on appointing the Act 88 advisory committee had been originally considered at the board’s Feb. 19, 2014 meeting. The item was postponed after Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns over the policy governing the committee’s role. The committee had been created at the board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, as part of a broader policy to help the board allocate revenues levied under Act 88 of 1913. No appointments had been made at that time, however. The county levies the tax to fund economic development and agricultural activities, including Ann Arbor SPARK. [.pdf of March 19 staff memo on Act 88]

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

Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College, was appointed to the county’s community action board during the Feb. 19 meeting of the county board of commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

The vote was unanimous, but came after Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the affordable housing component of the project. The planning process will use a $100,000 grant from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), with a stipulation that planning for the 13.5-acre property – south of Washtenaw Avenue – include consideration of affordable housing.

When debate was cut short through a procedural move, Peterson criticized commissioners for not spending more time on the topic – though it had been discussed at length during the board’s Feb. 5, 2014 meeting. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who is helping to lead the project and who serves as chair of the board’s working sessions, indicated support for discussing it further at an upcoming session.

Peterson also voiced concerns about a new Act 88 advisory committee, which resulted in a postponement of the first appointment to that group until March 19. The committee had been created at the board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, as part of a broader policy to help the board allocate revenues levied under Act 88 of 1913. No appointments have been made, however. The county levies the tax to fund economic development and agricultural activities, including Ann Arbor SPARK.

As he has in previous board discussions, Peterson expressed concern that the board was abdicating its responsibility to allocate funding. Other commissioners assured him that the committee will deliver recommendations, but the board retains authority for making the allocations.

In other action, the board gave authority to the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office to reduce the fee for expediting marriage licenses under certain circumstances – from $50 to 1 cent. The vote came over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), who argued that fees should be applied equally to all applicants – whatever the amount. He also didn’t think the criteria for applying the waiver were clear. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum cited some examples of when this fee reduction might be used. As one example, he noted that the vital records office anticipates moving later this year to the space where the deeds office currently is, so the office will likely be closed for more than three days.

Kestenbaum also reported that last year, his office had anticipated that a lot of people would want to get married right away because of a possible change in the state’s same-sex marriage law. He said he announced at that time that he intended to waive the fee, but “my authority to do that has been questioned.” He subsequently looked at the state statute, which requires a fee to be set by the county board and charged – whether it’s $5, or $50, or 1 cent. “It’s your authority to do this,” he told commissioners.

During the Feb. 19 meeting, commissioners also gave final approval to create a new dental clinic in Ypsilanti for low-income residents, and heard public commentary regarding the importance of the GED (general education diploma).

Updates and communications included news that the Sharon Township board of trustees had passed a resolution urging the board to keep the road commission as an independent entity. At the county board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, commissioners had created a seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” State legislation enacted in 2012 opened the possibility of absorbing the road commission into county operations, which would give county commissioners direct control over funding and operations now administered by the road commission.

However, it’s unlikely that will happen. During a 2.5-hour meeting on March 1, the subcommittee voted to recommend that the duties and responsibilities of the road commission should not be transferred to the county board of commissioners. Alicia Ping (R-District 3), who chairs the subcommittee, told The Chronicle that she’ll be bringing the recommendation to the board at its meeting on March 5.

Planning for Platt Road Site

At their Feb. 5, 2014 meeting, commissioners had given initial approval to a broad community planning process for the future of Platt Road property owned by Washtenaw County. The Feb. 19 agenda included a vote giving final approval to a set of recommendations made by a citizens advisory group.

The 13.5-acre site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road formerly housed the juvenile center. The advisory committee, which was created by the board on Sept. 18, 2013 and met three times late last year, recommended that the county use a $100,000 grant from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) to fund a community design process for the property.

The committee recommended that the county keep the property until a design process is completed, according to a committee report. Specifically:

The CAC identified through consensus a number of principles that could apply to the site including demonstration for green technologies and sustainable design, mixed use, mixed income including affordable and moderately priced housing, minimized parking spaces, alternative transit, varied types and forms of housing for people of different ages, an urban village, less impervious surface, lower auto footprint, integration with neighborhood, visionary design, draws people to the site, opportunities to grow businesses, and connections to County Farm Park. In order to fit into its surroundings, the final composition of this site should serve to transition from the commercial aspects of Washtenaw Ave., the residential aspects of the local neighborhoods and the natural aspects of the County Park facility. Finally, it should incorporate uses that reflect its value as a county property and bring the opportunity of use or value for all Washtenaw County residents.

The resolution directed the advisory committee to provide more detailed analysis and recommendations by Sept. 31, 2014.

Committee members are: Ron Emaus, Jeannine Palms, Vickie Wellman, Rob Burroughs, Amy Freundl, Pete Vincent, Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city councilmember), and Jennifer Hall (Ann Arbor housing commission director). Also serving on the committee were Washtenaw County staff members Meghan Bonfiglio of the county parks & recreation commission; Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management; and Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development. County commissioners on the committee are Yousef Rabhi and Andy LaBarre, who both represent districts in Ann Arbor.

Debate on the resolution at the board’s Feb. 5 meeting had focused on a resolved clause that would commit the county to using a portion of the property for affordable housing. At that meeting and on Feb. 19, the board was acting on the assumption that including affordable housing was a condition of accepting the $100,000 planning grant from MSHDA. The grant is part of a $3 million federal grant awarded to the county in 2011 and administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

A resolved clause stated:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners directs the CAC to assist in hosting an intensive multi-day community design process to create a plan for the site, inclusive of affordable housing;

However, Callan subsequently informed LaBarre via email on Feb. 27 that the $100,000 planning grant would not need to be repaid if the county decides not to use that property for affordable housing. From Callan’s email:

MSHDA, like HUD, typically has a claw back provision for funds that aren’t used for their intended purpose. In this case, the purpose of the MSHDA funding is to match/complement the $3,000,000 competitive HUD Sustainable Communities Planning Grant awarded to the county in 2011, and more specifically for a community design process that will result in affordable housing. To our surprise, MSHDA recently informed us that, because the funds were awarded for professional services to conduct planning, as opposed to acquisition, we would not be required to pay them back if the community design process doesn’t result in affordable housing development. MSHDA did reaffirm that the expectation to advance affordable housing as a part of larger community sustainability principles remains in place (though payback would not be required).

In her email, Callan included a reminder that the $3 million HUD grant clearly sets affordable housing as a priority, especially along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor. She included a copy of the grant application abstract in her email:

Washtenaw County is the perfect case study to address social equity issues through affordable housing choices, transportation, economic opportunities and healthy food access. Washtenaw County, Michigan is applying for $3,000,000 in HUD Community Challenge Planning Grant (CCPG) funds as the lead applicant in collaboration with several municipalities, the State of Michigan, non-profit agencies, private businesses, and educational institutions. This project focuses on the urbanized areas of Washtenaw County, with the goal of removing barriers to create a coordinated approach to expanding existing affordable and energy efficient housing options and connecting them to job centers and healthy food through an enhanced multi-modal transportation corridor.

Washtenaw County is primarily a rural county by land area. However, about 64% of the residents in Washtenaw County live in the urban core which runs from Ann Arbor (the largest City) to Ypsilanti (2nd largest City) connected by Washtenaw Avenue, a state trunk-line and business loop which runs seamlessly through Pittsfield and Ypsilanti Townships. This corridor is the busiest road in the County, with the greatest number and diversity of businesses, yet offers few housing options directly on the corridor and mostly low-density neighborhoods near the corridor. This proposed project would rectify the disparity between isolated segments of our community. It would provide a catalyst to set into motion renewed revitalization efforts with green building practices; increased energy efficiency and reduced housing costs in rental housing, and enhanced connections to job centers for low-income and working class residents by strengthening public transit and non-motorized options along the Washtenaw Corridor.

Planning for Platt Road Site: Public Commentary

Marian Laughlin, a board member of Religious Action for Affordable Housing (RAAH), hoped that the county would move forward with the study of using a portion of the Platt Road property for affordable housing. She hoped the vote that night would initiate a community planning process “that will lead to the thoughtful development of this very central property.” She knew the community advisory committee had discussed the issue, and she hoped that the conversation would become even broader to make people more aware of the issue and of how the county can contribute to increasing the affordable housing stock.

Laughlin described RAAH as a group that worked through the religious congregations in the entire county to increase awareness about housing issues, and that raises funds to support agencies that create affordable and supportive housing. Her colleagues on the RAAH board had urged her to come and speak to commissioners in support of using part of the Platt Road property for affordable housing.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Laughlin for her comments, and noted that he also serves on the RAAH board.

Planning for Platt Road Site: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked for this item to be pulled out of the agenda for separate consideration. He said he appreciated the advocacy for affordable housing in the Washtenaw Avenue area. His concern was about the cost to the county. He asked for some explanation about what the next steps would be, saying he had several questions about the process.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Peterson then criticized the previous board action to relinquish control of the Washtenaw Head Start program. [That decision was made in late 2011 after considerable debate. The Washtenaw Intermediate School District is now administering the local Head Start program.]

County government should support programs that help children, Peterson said, as well as affordable housing. But the county should be involved in affordable housing through partnerships, he added – it shouldn’t get into the affordable housing business. He said he supported Andy LaBarre’s efforts on the Platt Road property, but he pointed out that the argument for stopping support for Head Start had been that it wasn’t a core service for the county. The same is true for affordable housing, he noted.

The process being used on the Platt Road property circumvents the county’s own policy regarding the disposition of property, Peterson said, and someone needs to make sense of that. He said he wasn’t going to torpedo the proposal, but he had a lot of questions. Housing is more challenging than Head Start could ever be, he said.

As he’s done in the past, Peterson suggested selling the Platt Road property and putting the proceeds into affordable housing initiatives. He preferred that approach.

Peterson said he’d like to hear what other commissioners had to say. It’s a policy decision, he noted, so the board should discuss it.

At this point, Dan Smith (R-District) moved to call the question, a procedural move intended to force a vote. On a voice vote, the board voted to call the question, over dissent by Conan Smith (D-District 9). The board then voted on the item.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave final approval to the Platt Road planning effort.

Later in the meeting, Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he thought the issue of the county’s role in affordable housing warrants a good discussion. The Platt Road advisory committee is doing good work, he added, but it does represent a shift in how the county does business. He suggested having a working session that focused on that issue.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) talks with two Skyline High School students who were attending the Feb. 19 meeting as part of a class assignment.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) agreed, noting that this is just the first step in a process of engaging the community. “I think the board’s dialogue needs to be parallel to the community’s dialogue,” he said. No one has proposed that the county build and run affordable housing, Rabhi said. If the county does decide to pursue affordable housing, it’s a matter of partnering with other organizations, he said. The county wouldn’t be able to do it alone.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who chairs the board’s working sessions, said he’d be happy to add this as a topic for a future working session. He agreed with Rabhi that the county isn’t planning to run an affordable housing program. He emphasized that anything recommended by the advisory committee “would of course need board approval.”

LaBarre felt that some of the board’s conversation was “talking about this as if it’s happened” – but it hasn’t, he said.

Peterson joked that he was pleased when Dan Smith had made the motion to approve the Platt Road planning project, because as a Republican, Smith had “changed his spots” regarding the typical Republican stance toward affordable housing. “He’s just as close to a Democrat as he can be tonight, and I’m grateful for that,” Peterson said.

He then referred to Smith’s calling of the question, and described it as a “rude process to use.” He noted that the board spent less than 10 minutes talking about the disposal of land that’s worth at least $2 million – “and six of those minutes I took up,” he said. He cautioned against calling the question, when other commissioners still wanted to discuss the issue. He said if other commissioners wanted rude treatment, he was capable of that as well.

The property is worth millions of dollars, Peterson said, and deserves more discussion. If a developer is interested, he felt the board has basically closed the door on that possibility. “Let’s follow our policies – not by calling the question.”

Peterson concluded by saying he appreciated that Dan Smith supported this effort, adding that it was “good to have a Republican on our team.”

Appointments

Commissioners were asked to approve several appointments to various county board and committees. Nominations were brought forward by board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8). Several openings remain and will be reposted on the county’s website.

The nominations made on Feb. 19 were:

• Act 88 Advisory Committee, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Todd Clark.
• Community Action Board, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2016: Ivory Gaines (consumer); James Horton (consumer); Elizabeth Janovic (private sector); Jason Morgan (public sector).
• Local Emergency Planning Committee, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2016: Daniel Barbossa (broadcast media); Samantha Brandfon (hospital); Linda Dintenfass (first aid).
• Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), for terms ending March 31, 2017: Mark Creekmore and Linda King (county representatives).
• Washtenaw County/City of Ann Arbor Community Corrections Advisory Board, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2016: Judy Foy (communications/media).

Several openings remain, and have been reposted on the county’s website. Those include:

• Act 88 Advisory Committee: One position for a resident with experience in agriculture and/or tourism.
• Agricultural Lands Preservation Advisory Council: One position for an environmental/conservation group/natural resource professional.
• Community Action Board: One position for a consumer slot.
• Local Emergency Planning Committee: Several openings for people representing health and law enforcement (2), owner/operator of a Title III facility (2), firefighter (1), elected state official (1), first aid (1), civil defense for the city of Ann Arbor (1), transportation (1), print media (1), agricultural (1), and agricultural/Farm Bureau (1).
• Workforce Development Board: Two openings for people in the private sector.

Appointments: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked for Todd Clark’s nomination to the Act 88 advisory committee to be pulled out for a separate vote.

Outcome on all appointments other than Todd Clark: The appointments were approved unanimously.

Peterson recalled that the board had discussed the creation of an Act 88 advisory committee, but he’d been under the impression that more details about it would be forthcoming.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

By way of background, for the past few years the county has been levying a tax to fund economic development and agricultural activities, under Act 88 of 1913. The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 0.5 mills under Act 88 without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation enabling the county to levy this type of tax predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The amount levied by the county in December 2013 was 0.07 mills, raising about $972,000 to fund Ann Arbor SPARK, heritage tourism, and the Detroit Region Aerotropolis, among other entities.

As part of developing the 2014-2017 budget, the county board approved a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The policy was 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 also allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. That was the subject of some discussion on Nov. 6, 2013, with Dan Smith (R-District 2) noting that Act 88 authorizes only the board to direct how revenues are spent. Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger had told the board that by approving this policy, commissioners would be providing that direction – in essence, delegating it to the advisory committee.

The policy also allocated up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding. The Nov. 6 vote on the Act 88 policy was unanimous.

During discussion on Feb. 19, Peterson said he didn’t recall passing a resolution that gave criteria for the advisory committee in determining how to allocate the Act 88 revenues.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded, saying that the resolution creating the Act 88 advisory committee stipulated that the membership would include three commissioners and two residents – one least on of them having a background in agriculture or tourism.

Specifically, the policy adopted in 2013 outlined these guidelines regarding the advisory committee:

III. Act 88 Advisory Committee

a. An Act 88 Advisory Committee is created as a subcommittee of the Board of Commissioners and shall include three members of the Board as recommended by the Chair and approved a majority of the Board. The Committee shall have two additional residents of Washtenaw County, with at least one of those residents having expertise in agriculture and/or tourism. No recipients of Act 88 funds shall be a member of the Committee.

b. The Advisory Committee is charged with annually reviewing applications and recommending funding for Act 88 funds and overseeing and evaluating funding recipients.

c. As a committee of the Board of Commissioners, the Advisory Committee shall be governed by the Open Meetings Act.

d. The Advisory Committee shall annually prepare and present to the Board of Commissioners a report summarizing expenditures of Act 88 funds and assessing progress towards the goals adopted by the Board of Commissioners.

e. The Advisory Committee will annually recommend to the Board of Commissioners a process for evaluating applications that identifies priority outputs and includes a numerical scoring system for comparing applications.

f. The Office of Community and Economic Development will staff the Advisory Committee.

As he has in previous board discussions, Peterson expressed concern that the board was abdicating its responsibility to allocate funding. He said he could see supporting the work of the advisory committee if it were to develop criteria for allocating funds, which the board could then discuss and use in its own decisions. But he didn’t support having a committee that would receive grant applications on behalf of the board. He didn’t care who was appointed to the committee – the responsibility for allocating funds still rested with the board.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith responded, saying that it was never the intent for the advisory committee to take on the board’s responsibilities. Rather, the role of the committee would be to recommend the criteria and priorities for allocating Act 88 funds, he said. The board would then need to adopt those criteria, Smith continued. The committee would then develop a scoring matrix, based on the board-approved criteria. After the board approved that scoring matrix, Smith said, the committee would collect applications from entities that seek funding, evaluate those applications, and make recommendations about which entities should receive funding. All of this would happen annually.

The board would retain complete control over those Act 88 funds, Smith said. To date, he noted, there hasn’t been an application process for funding. “I think that the committee has the potential to be very powerful and abuse its power, but I hope we put in enough oversight opportunities to make sure that doesn’t happen,” he said.

Peterson replied that the process Smith described sounded good, but he wondered where that was codified. There should be a document that clearly explains the committee’s charge, Peterson said, and that makes clear what the role of the committee is. Without that, he said he wasn’t comfortable voting for the appointment to the Act 88 committee.

Smith offered to amend the appointment resolution, incorporating the description of the committee that had been included in the policy passed by the board in November. His amendment included these elements as a charge for the committee: (1) annually reviewing applications and recommending funding for Act 88 funds and overseeing and evaluating funding recipients; (2) annually preparing and presenting to the board a report summarizing expenditures of Act 88 funds and assessing progress towards the goals adopted by the board; (3) annually recommending to the board a process for evaluating applications that identifies priority outputs and includes a numerical scoring system for comparing applications; and (4) recommending annual priorities for the use of Act 88 funds.

Peterson stressed the importance of stating that it was an advisory committee. Smith proposed adding a sentence to the advisory committee’s charge, stating that it’s an advisory committee to the board of commissioners and that the committee won’t be making decisions about the allocation of funds.

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

Dan Smith (R-District 2) made a motion to postpone the item until the March 5 meeting. Rabhi noted that one of the Act 88 committee positions was being reposted, and he didn’t expect a nomination would be made until March 19. So D. Smith withdrew his original motion, and moved to postpone until the March 19 meeting.

Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone Todd Clark’s appointment to the Act 88 advisory committee until March 19 passed on a 5-1 vote, over dissent from Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Marriage License Fees

A proposal giving authority to the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office to reduce the fee for expediting marriage licenses under certain circumstances – from $50 to 1 cent – was on the Feb. 19 agenda.

From left: County board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and county clerk Larry Kestenbaum.

Currently, the $50 fee is charged if applicants want to waive the statutory three-day marriage license waiting period. The resolution would authorize the county clerk, consulting with the county administrator, to establish a ”fee holiday” on the day preceding a period during which the office’s vital records division would be closed for four or more days, or when an unusual number of marriage license applicants are expected to appear. During a “fee holiday,” the charge for immediately processing a marriage license would be 1 cent.

According to a staff memo, waivers of the waiting period are requested between 5-15 times each month. Without a waiver, marriage licenses cost $20 per couple for Michigan residents, and $30 per couple for out-of-state residents – but the marriage must occur within Washtenaw County. More information is available on the county’s website.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, county clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum reported that marriage license revenue is about $40,000 annually. Last year, 1,938 licenses were issued, compared to 1,830 in 2012.

Marriage License Fees: Board Discussion

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) was concerned that by passing this resolution, the county board would be abdicating its responsibility for setting fees. He noted that the decision would be made by two individuals – the county clerk and county administrator. He said some of his constituents have indicated that the criteria for declaring a fee holiday are unclear. His sense is that this resolution was designed to help one particular group.

County clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum came to the podium to respond. He told commissioners that when he came into office, the fee for waiving the three-day waiting period was $5, based on a resolution adopted by the county board. [Kestenbaum was first elected as clerk/register of deeds in 2004.] He subsequently recommended that the board raise that fee to $50, and the board did that, he said.

It’s been the practice that when his office will be closed for a longer-than-normal period – like four days or more around the holidays – then his office would make some allowances for individuals who come in and want to get married before the office will reopen. He noted that the vital records office anticipates moving later this year to the space where the deeds office currently is, so the office will likely be closed for more than three days.

Kestenbaum said it’s come to his attention that under state statute, he doesn’t have the authority to waive that fee completely. The statute states that a fee, set by the county board, must be charged.

Kestenbaum was referring to this section of Michigan’s Public Act 128 of 1887:

551.103a Marriage license; time of delivery; solemnization of marriage required.

Sec. 3a. A marriage license shall not be delivered within a period of 3 days including the date of application. However, the county clerk of each county, for good and sufficient cause shown, may deliver the license immediately following the application. If the county clerk delivers the license immediately following the application, the person applying for the license shall pay a fee to be determined by the county board of commissioners, which the county clerk shall deposit into the general fund of the county. A marriage license issued is void unless a marriage is solemnized under the license within 33 days after the application.

So in consultation with his staff and some commissioners, including the board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Kestenbaum said they came up with the idea to instead impose a 1 cent fee under certain circumstances. The fee would be dropped to a penny when someone needed an expedited process, through no fault of their own, he said.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Kestenbaum said that several years ago he’d asked to raise the fee for expedited processing to $50 because previously, people would just pay the $5 fee even if they didn’t need a quick turnaround. “The $50 was designed so that people would at least think about it before asking for it,” he said. Generally, people request an expedited process because they’ve forgotten to get the license, and the wedding is being held before the three-day waiting period, he noted.

The other circumstance that might result in dropping the fee, which Kestenbaum said he didn’t expect to happen, is when a larger-than-normal number of people apply for licenses at the same time. For example, last year, his office anticipated that a lot of people would want to get married right away because of a possible change in the state’s same-sex marriage law. He said he announced at that time that he intended to waive the fee, but “my authority to do that has been questioned.”

He subsequently looked at the state statute, which requires a fee to be set by the county board and charged – whether it’s $5, or $50, or 1 cent. “It’s your authority to do this,” he told commissioners.

At this point, Kestenbaum expects that various legal challenges to same-sex marriage bans will wind their way through the federal court system, and there will either be a decision that affects every state, or not, he said. “There would be nothing unique about Michigan, in that circumstance,” he said, “and there won’t be any anxiety that the court would change its mind.” That means his office is unlikely to see a sudden influx of requests for same-sex marriage licenses.

Realizing now that he doesn’t have authority to waive the fee, Kestenbaum said, he’s asking the board for these changes. He noted that the original draft had stated that a waiver would be made in consultation with the county board chair, but it had been suggested to him that the county administrator should be consulted instead, and he agreed to that change.

Martinez-Kratz said Kestenbaum had answered some of his questions, but he didn’t see the urgency to finalize the change that night. [Typically, resolutions are given initial approval at a ways & means committee meeting, on which all commissioners serve, and then the item is brought back for a final vote two weeks later, at a regular board meeting. This resolution was on the Feb. 19 agendas for both the ways & means committee and the regular board meeting that same night.]

Martinez-Kratz said fees should be appropriate to the community as a whole, based on the same rationale for everyone. Setting the fees at $50 but waiving them to 1 cent sometimes is like “ping pong,” he said. “That doesn’t sit right with me.” He wasn’t going to support the resolution, because he didn’t think it wasn’t setting fees appropriately for all members of the community.

From left: County commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9), Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office, and corporation counsel Curt Hedger.

Kestenbaum replied, saying that the overwhelming majority of people coming into the office to apply for a marriage license won’t be affected by the fee waiver change. He said that the state statute would allow the county board to decline to set a fee for an expedited process. In that case, everyone would have to wait three days. “I would be opposed to that,” Kestenbaum said, “but that’s within your authority.”

It’s optional for the board of commissioners to set a fee, he added. But if there’s a fee, his office must collect it.

Martinez-Kratz reiterated that the problem for him is the non-standard way in which the fee could be applied. He wasn’t concerned about the amount of the fee. “But you want the power from our board to at times assess it at $50 and at times assess it for a penny,” Martinez-Kratz told Kestenbaum.

Kestenbaum noted that the board has the authority to adjust the fees based on “administrative practicalities.” When someone is putting a burden on the office by needing the license to be typed, proofed and processed – and there’s a line of people waiting behind them – then “the $50 fee is to inhibit them from asking for that casually,” he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he totally agreed with the premise put forward by Martinez-Kratz. The fee should be set appropriately and used appropriately. But he heard from Kestenbaum that the actual cost of processing is more burdensome on the office when it’s done arbitrarily and you can’t plan for it, Smith said. So when the clerk’s office can see in advance that there’s likely to be an influx of license requests, the office can staff up appropriately for that. In that case, they shouldn’t need to charge an “excessive” fee, Smith said. It might happen after the office has been closed for a long period, he said, or it might be brought about by other circumstances – like people wanting to get married on Valentine’s Day. Smith said he thought the fee structure was thoughtful and addresses these conditions.

Outcome: The proposal was approved on two 5-1 votes at both the ways & means committee meeting and at the regular board meeting later that evening. In both cases, Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) cast the only dissenting vote. Three commissioners – Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) – were absent.

Dental Clinic

Final approval for new dental clinic for low-income residents of Washtenaw County was on the Feb. 19 agenda. The project had received initial approval on Feb. 5, 2014.

Ellen Rabinowitz, interim health officer for Washtenaw County.

The project is estimated to cost $1.5 million, using funds from the public health Medicaid liability account ($814,786), the public health fund balance ($663,015) and Washtenaw Health Plan ($50,000). According to the county’s public health staff, 58,000 county residents either don’t have dental insurance or on Medicaid dental insurance. However, only a few private dentists accept Medicaid. When up and running, the dental clinic is expected to serve 6,000 patients annually, including residents with income at up to 200% of the poverty level.

It’s expected that federal matching funds would supplement Medicaid reimbursement rates to provide a sustainable long-term cash flow, according to a staff memo. [.pdf of staff memo]

The resolution authorizes contract negotiations with the nonprofit Michigan Community Dental Clinics Inc. to run the clinic and with St. Joseph Mercy Health System, which would contribute space at its Haab Building in Ypsilanti at little to no cost.

Staff from the county’s public health department attended the Feb. 19 meeting, but did not formally address the board.

Outcome: Without discussion, the resolution was approved on a 5-1 vote over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Three commissioners – Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) – were absent.

“Prescription for Health” Grant

A resolution on the Feb. 19 agenda was for initial approval to apply for accept a two-year $226,357 ”Prescription for Health” grant from the Kresge Foundation. It will fund a part-time staff position and requires a $54,250 match from the county’s public health department.

The county had previously received funding for this program, in the form of a two-year, $361,519 Kresge grant from Jan. 1, 2011 through Dec. 13, 2012. According to the program’s website, the purpose is ”to increase fruit and vegetable consumption among patients with low income, and to build capacity of clinics to expand the traditional medical model to include the food system.” The program also aims to strengthen relationships between clinics, farmers markets and the local food system. [.pdf of grant application]

According to a staff memo, analysis of feedback from 930 participants in 2011-2012 showed the following results:

Both years, the average daily consumption of fruits and vegetables increased by nearly one cup per day among patients who visited their local farmers market as measured by a pre- and post-program survey.

Participants overwhelmingly agreed that visiting the farmers market helped them and/or their family members eat more fruits and vegetables (96% Year 1; 94% Year 2).

Participants increased their awareness of other resources in the community. Both years, the number of participants who said they were aware that food stamps (Bridge/EBT cards) could be used at local farmers markets greatly increased from pre- to post-program (48% difference from pre to post Year 1; 43% difference Year 2).

Participants indicated that they were very likely to visit the farmers market again in the future at the conclusion of the program (98% Year 1; 97% Year 2).

The program had a positive economic impact on the local farmers markets, generating over $26,000 in new sales ($5,967 Year 1; $20,279 Year 2). Prescription for Health represented 9% of total sales at the Downtown Ypsilanti Market and accounted for 23% of the total sales at the Chelsea Bushel Basket Market.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave initial approval to this grant application. A final vote is expected on March 5.

Communications & Commentary

During the Feb. 19 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: Gravel Mining

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) highlighted a proposal by McCoig Materials Inc. to do gravel and sand mining in Lyndon Township, near Chelsea.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

He said he’s very concerned about this for the environment in Washtenaw County, and plans to learn more about the proposal. He said he’s likely to oppose it, because it’s near one of the “jewels” of parkland in the county – the Pinckney State Recreation Area and Waterloo Recreation Area. There are also county parks in that area too, he said. “I think it would be very damaging to the future of our community, Washtenaw County’s recreation opportunities, and the environment as a whole to allow that project to move forward,” Rabhi said. It would also impact the quality of life in Chelsea, with gravel-hauling trucks going through the city, he added.

Rabhi said about 200 people had shown up to a public hearing earlier in the month, and he hoped to be involved in the process as it moves forward.

The site is located on M-52 across from Green Lake. Another public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 13 at 7 p.m. at the Washington Street Education Center Auditorium, 500 Washington St., 100 Building in Chelsea.

Communications & Commentary: Road Commission

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d received a letter from the Sharon Township supervisor, Peter Psarouthakis, indicating that the township’s board of trustees had voted not to support efforts to dissolve the Washtenaw County road commission.

By way of background, at their Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, commissioners created a seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” Members appointed at that time included four county commissioners: Alicia Ping of Saline (R-District 3), Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9), Dan Smith of Northfield Township (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. of Ypsilanti Township (D-District 5). Ping serves as chair. Other members include three township supervisors: John Stanowski of York Township, Ken Schwartz of Superior Township and Pat Kelly of Dexter Township. For more details about this work, see Chronicle coverage: “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

The subcommittee’s most recent meeting was on Saturday, March 1 at 9 a.m. in the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. During the 2.5-hour session, the group voted to recommend that the duties and responsibilities of the road commission should not be transferred to the county board of commissioners. Ping told The Chronicle after the March 1 meeting that unless given further direction from the board, the subcommittee’s work is done.

Communications & Commentary: Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) reported that a committee has been working on policy recommendations regarding tax increment financing (TIF) projects, and will be bringing forward its recommendations soon.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked LaBarre for “throwing yourself on a grenade there for us.”

The county’s need for a policy to guide decisions related to TIF proposals was discussed last year in the context of Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA), which the county board agreed to participate in. From Chronicle coverage of the board’s Nov. 20, 2013 meeting:

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked whether a policy would be developed to guide the review of TIF proposals when they come forward. The board had previously discussed that approach. He noted that the board’s vote on the Pittsfield Township CIA still stands, and he’s in support of that. But a lot of questions have been raised by other commissioners, he added, and any community could come forward with the same kind of TIF proposal.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he’s spoken to staff members who are working on a policy. The staff from the county’s equalization department, the office of community & economic development, and the brownfield authority board are collaborating to develop a TIF policy. He hoped that staff would have something for the board to review later this year or in early 2014. It’s important to have a good rationale for approving these agreements, Rabhi said.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary – GEDs

During the evening’s first opportunity for public commentary, Allison Tucker of Manchester spoke about the GED (general education diploma), saying she wanted to share some insights about how the GED can improve society. She said she was a GED graduate, and it’s helped her tremendously. She’s able to attend college now and subsequently will have more job opportunities. The GED is essential to the economy, she said, because it allows people who have aged out of school to continue working when new educational requirements are imposed. Children of graduates are less likely to be taken into a foster program due to having parents who aren’t able to provide for them.

Bonnie Truhn, manager of adult transitions programs at Washtenaw Community College.

The GED should be more affordable, Tucker said, because it’s essential for people who are in a bad financial situation, if they want to improve their lives. It can provide a second chance for people with substance abuse issues or who are ex-prisoners to discontinue their cycle of self-harm and build a better future, she said. Tucker concluded that the GED is a great way to improve the economy, people’s skills and general lives, because the most effective way to do all these things is through education. It’s time for the stigma around the GED to stop, and for it to be presented as what it is, she said: A stepping stone in life.

In responding to Tucker’s commentary, Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked her for raising this issue. He reported that Washtenaw County is in the early stages of a regional effort that also involves Livingston and Jackson counties to look at how adult education is delivered. For a lot of people, the system is difficult to access, he said, because it’s fragmented in terms of where services are delivered. He said he was in a meeting recently about this with Mary Jo Callan, the county’s director of the office of community and economic development, and the issue of certification programs also was addressed. Such programs should step beyond what the GED has to offer. He told Tucker that if she’s interested, the county could find a way for her to be involved in this project.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also thanked Tucker, and noted that he’d met her at a recent YouthSpeak forum that was held in the county administration building earlier this year. Elected officials had come to hear students speak about their experiences and to give suggestions for improving the education system.

During the second opportunity for public commentary, Bonnie Truhn, a Milan resident, said she was there to support Tucker, who is in the adult transitions program at Washtenaw Community College. Truhn is manager of that program. She noted that Tucker had spoken at the recent Washtenaw Alliance for Children & Youth (WACY) event, and had been encouraged to share her views with the county board, too. The program at WCC is not just for GED, Truhn said. It’s a career guidance program, and she thought commissioners would agree that this is what they want for the county. People should fully understand the challenges that are faced by students as well as those who are trying to provide instruction in the program. It’s important to provide opportunities for people who will earn their GED, as well as for those who won’t earn it, Truhn said, but who also need jobs.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) replied that Truhn’s comments are well-received. He noted that Jason Morgan, WCC’s director of government relations, was attending the meeting for another reason. [Morgan was appointed during the meeting to the county's community action board.] LaBarre said he was sure that Morgan would take back Truhn’s remarks to the WCC administration.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said that sometimes people wonder how their tax dollars are spent. Someone like Tucker shows that the county is able to lend support to “those who sometimes have those trips and falls along the way,” Peterson said, and to make sure they had a second chance.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge complained about the huge amounts of snow that had piled up at intersections and parking lots. He advocated for a countywide public transit system, and more funding for education, services for homelessness, and affordable housing. Partridge also called for a countywide public art program. He urged commissioners to address these issues.

During the evening’s second opportunity for public commentary, Partridge called for a more people-friendly democratic society, and to fully fund affordable housing. He asked how a county as wealthy as Washtenaw County could stand by when there are so many people who can’t afford a place to live. There needs to be a countywide affordable housing commission to address this problem, he said, as well as a countywide affordable public transportation commission, and a countywide justice commission to oversee the courts.

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

Absent: Felicia Brabec, Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). (Photos by the writer.)

Following about three hours of debate and some minor amendments, commissioners gave initial approval to the proposed four-year general fund budget, for the years 2014-2017. The 7-2 vote came over the dissent of Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), who cited concerns over a budget cycle extending for four years rather than two.

Much of the budget discussion focused on the sheriff’s operations. No layoffs are proposed, but 8.47 FTE positions would be kept unfilled. Most of those are in the sheriff’s office, which has a targeted budget reduction of $1.34 million. Sheriff Jerry Clayton, an elected official, attended the Nov. 6 meeting and addressed the board, telling commissioners that his office can’t continue to absorb budget cuts without affecting services. “For me not to tell you what I believe the impact on public safety is, if you make those cuts, would be negligent in my responsibility as the county sheriff.”

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) countered that every department head could make arguments against budget cuts. Noting that more revenues are needed, Rabhi said he hoped commissioners would support putting a countywide public safety millage on the ballot.

During public commentary after the budget debate, county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie told commissioners that they had a difficult job, but that they were making it harder than it needed to be. He suggested looking for guidance in the state constitution, and relying on the experience of county administrator Verna McDaniel. Mackie also questioned whether commissioners were truly committed to public safety as a priority. He praised Clayton, noting that the sheriff is a respected figure with a national reputation. “He might know more about safety and criminal justice than you do,” Mackie said.

The budget must be given final approval by the end of the year, and only two more board meetings scheduled: On Nov. 20 and Dec. 4. The board will also hold a second public hearing on the budget on Nov. 20.

Several other agenda items related directly or indirectly to the county’s budget. On a 7-1 vote, the board gave final approval to an increase in the levy of the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills. Dan Smith (R-District 2) dissented and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting by the time the vote occurred, just after midnight. Smith questioned the constitutionality of the county levying this tax, as well as the legality of how the revenues are spent.

During public commentary, the board also heard from two people who objected to the tax levy, including Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United. McMaster, who helped lead the statewide campaign that resulted in passage of the Headlee Amendment in 1978, noted during public commentary that there’s a provision in the law allowing for legal action if taxes are raised without voter approval. It’s an action “which we will pursue,” he said.

The board also unanimously approved a tax-sharing agreement to allow a portion of county taxes to be captured by Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA). Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal addressed commissioners during public commentary, thanking them for their support of the CIA. One opponent to the CIA – former township official Christina Lirones – spoke during two opportunities for public commentary, urging the board to opt out of the CIA.

Other items handled during the Nov. 6 meeting included (1) final approval to extend the coordinated funding approach for human services, as well as to authorize some changes in that funding model; (2) appointment of an advisory committee to propose options for county property on Platt Road; (3) final approval of a brownfield plan for Chelsea Milling Co. (Jiffy Mix); and (4) appointment of Ellen Rabinowitz as temporary health officer to replace Dick Fleece, who’s retiring at the end of 2013.

Communications during the meeting included public commentary from supporters of the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor, and concerns about state standards for permissible levels of 1,4-dioxane.

2014-2017 County Budget

The proposed four-year general fund budget, for the years 2014-2017, was on the agenda for initial approval.

County administrator Verna McDaniel had presented the budget to the board 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]

Most of the 8.47 FTEs that are proposed to be kept unfilled are in the sheriff’s office. Sheriff Jerry Clayton attended the Nov. 6 meeting and addressed the board, telling commissioners that his office can’t continue to absorb budget cuts without affecting services.

Aside from discussing the sheriff’s concerns, much of the board’s discussion focused on the issue of a four-year budget, which is being proposed for the first time as a way to improve long-term planning and stability. Ronnie Peterson in particular objected strongly to that approach, and prefers to maintain the current two-year budget process.

A public hearing was held on Oct. 15, 2013 but it was held after midnight and no one spoke. In a separate resolution on Nov. 6, the board set a second budget hearing for Nov. 20.

2014-2017 County Budget: Initial Public Commentary

During the first opportunity for public commentary, Doug Smith told commissioners that he’d asked them about a month ago to pass a resolution stating that no vacant county position would be filled until Jan. 1, 2014 unless approved by the board. Commissioners haven’t passed such a resolution, he noted. His suggestion was made so that the county would save money in the already-underfunded retirement accounts, Smith said. Every employee added to the current defined benefit pension plan will cost the county money for about 30 years, he noted.

In January 2014, Smith said, he plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to find out how many employees have been hired in the last quarter of 2013. He then plans to calculate the money that’s been wasted, and post that information on the Washtenaw Watchdogs website, for all constituents to see. The website has had more than 100,000 visits in its first four months, he said, and some of the most popular posts are ones about the county board wasting taxpayers’ money. He again urged commissioners to reconsider hiring anyone until the county’s defined contribution plan takes effect on Jan. 1.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Four-Year Budget

Conan Smith (D-District 9) began by saying he’s been getting a “full-court press” from the board leadership about the four-year budget, and he’s had some really intriguing conversations about it. He said he’s not been supportive of a four-year budget because the board hadn’t developed community impacts and outcomes to guide their budget decisions. The transition from an investment in activities to an investment in outcomes is the right direction, he said, and it needs to be clearly articulated with an achievable set of metrics.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The board doesn’t have a process by tradition or policy for continual engagement in the budget, he noted, so without having that process in place, he said, a four-year budget compromises future boards and doesn’t help achieve the community outcomes. So Smith wanted to see language about that community outcomes process in the budget document, to ensure that future boards will have clearly articulated ways for engaging in the county’s investment strategy.

Smith noted that it’s a long process to engage the county’s staff in implementing the board’s desired outcomes. He indicated he’s been criticized for wanting everything to happen right away, “which is absolutely true.” But he acknowledged that it might not be possible or healthy for the organization to implement this process quickly. A longer-term budget process would offer stability and predictability, and working on these other issues in a more incremental way might be less threatening and more palatable to staff who provide services to residents and who need to be engaged in the strategic planning process, which takes a lot of emotional and intellectual energy, he said.

In that context, C. Smith said he was being persuaded about the value of a longer-term budget.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) noted that setting the budget is the most important job of the board, and he apologized to people who were attending the meeting for other reasons if he took more time talking about it. He agreed with C. Smith about concerns over the four-year budget, saying that he thought Washtenaw County would be the only one in the country to have such a long-term budget. The board had been surprised about the cost of the pension and retiree health care liabilities earlier this year, he said. He wondered what would happen to the four-year budget if they discovered there was additional debt that they don’t know about yet. [For background on the retiree liability issue, see Chronicle coverage: "County to Push Back Vote on Bond Proposal."]

Peterson noted that the county’s equalization office had reported that it’s not possible to know what the revenues are until several months into each year. So the county is spending money before it knows how much there is to spend, he said. The board has made some major changes over the years during the economic downturn, he noted, and they’ve asked employees to take unpaid furlough days to help cut costs. That was unprecedented, he said. He was concerned that potential furlough days were part of the proposed budget.

County administrator Verna McDaniel clarified that the furlough days remain in the previously approved labor contracts, but the proposed budget does not assume that those furlough days will be used.

Peterson also noted that revenues from Act 88 and the veterans relief millage are included in each of the four years of the budget. Those millages have to be approved by the board each year, he said, so he didn’t know how it was possible to base the budget on that. If any new board decides not to support those millages, it would impact the budget. He indicated that programs and services that are supported by those millages should be funded through general fund revenues.

Regarding the sheriff’s budget, Peterson asked for clarification about the labor contracts that are currently being negotiated. He also wondered about the contracts with local municipalities that pay the sheriff’s office for deputy services, and how the four-year budget would be affected by that.

McDaniel reported that the contracts with townships for sheriff deputies are part of the budget, under the revenue line item for fees. Those contracts bring in about $12 million in revenue annually, she said.

For the labor agreements, McDaniel said the current contracts for the Police Officers Association of Michigan union (POAM) expire at the end of 2014. The contracts for the Command Officers Association of Michigan union (COAM) expire at the end of 2015. Peterson wondered how the budget can account for the labor costs in the county’s contracts with the townships, if the labor agreements for POAM and COAM haven’t been settled. McDaniel said the labor costs have been projected, based on salary estimates and trends for fringe benefits. There’s been a 1% annual increase through 2016 calculated into the agreements with local municipalities who contract for sheriff deputy services.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Peterson wondered what would happen if those labor costs increase by more than 1%. McDaniel said that a police services steering committee, which includes representatives from the contracting municipalities, discusses this issue. The committee’s projections are aligned with the county’s budget projections, she said. Peterson was concerned that the amount could increase, and he cautioned that local communities might not have the budget flexibility to absorb the increases. There’s a lot of uncertainty over what the costs will be, he said, but he’s sure the increases would be higher than 1%.

Peterson then asked about what the county’s potential loss would be if voters don’t approve a replacement to the personal property tax next year. McDaniel acknowledged some uncertainty from the state on this issue, so that’s something to monitor. Budget projections include personal property tax revenue of $5.5 million in 2014, although there’s some uncertainty beyond that, because the tax will be phased out through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for August 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources. It’s unclear what will happen if that voter referendum fails.

McDaniel also said the budget assumes that the state will maintain the incentive program that replaced state-revenue sharing, for $5.5 million annually. This approach requires the county to meet certain state requirements. Under the previous state revenue-sharing approach, the county received about $6.8 million annually.

Peterson argued that there was too much uncertainty in a four-year budget, because it was too difficult to project how much revenue the county would receive. He was concerned about the amount of unfunded retiree liabilities. Commissioners are only elected to two-year terms – and that’s another factor, he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he took Peterson’s concerns seriously, saying that Peterson has a track record of fighting for his constituents and all residents of the county. LaBarre also agreed with C. Smith’s call to make the budget focused on outcomes – that’s critical. Being pro-active is one of the reasons why he ran for office, LaBarre said.

For the last six years, the county was forced to steer from iceberg to iceberg, LaBarre said, “and we hit each one.” He worries that the two-year budget process doesn’t provide enough time to plan for things that come up, anything from large economic forces to changes in state policy. He said he was excited to try something new, to set a four-year course. Each year, the board would meet its constitutional requirement to approve the next year’s budget and make adjustments – that provides a safety valve for the four-year budget framework. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction, he said. The four-year budget helps focus on outcomes, not just spending money.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded to some of the previous comments. He was excited about changes that will allow for fiscal stability and staff security, resulting in programs and services that residents can count on. “It’s an opportunity to revolutionize the way county government is done,” he said. He wants the board to be engaged in the budget every year, calling it a “living document.” It’s important that commissioners develop a calendar of events for each year of the four-year budget, he said, focusing on board priorities and community outcomes. He offered to work with administration to build that into the budget resolution.

From left: Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the board’s ways & means committee.

Rabhi also pointed out that commissioners are part-time, and they need additional support staff to help them focus on these community outcomes. They can’t do it alone.

Already, the board has to adjust the budget every year based on the outcome of the equalization report, Rabhi noted. Why not have a process in place so that the board is better engaged in that process? He believed a four-year budget can be transformative. Washtenaw County government and residents believe in innovation and in being cutting edge. “That’s what this four-year budget is all about,” he said. Rabhi alluded to an interview he’d recently heard with California governor Jerry Brown, who said that society is like an organism with a certain kind of DNA. Washtenaw County needs to build the DNA for change to happen – that’s the potential that a four-year budget represents, he said.

Conan Smith referred to Peterson’s remarks about the uncertainty of Act 88 and veterans relief millages, and advocated to see whether the staff who are currently supported by those millage revenues could be funded through other sources instead. He wasn’t sure it was possible, but he wanted to look into it. The current approach puts undue stress on staff, he said.

C. Smith added that he hadn’t anticipated voting on the budget that night, but he had some issues he wanted to bring forward for discussion.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) also expressed concerns about a four-year budget. His preference is to adopt a two-year budget, then call the next two years a proposal or projection. He was interested in hearing C. Smith’s ideas for being more actively engaged in the budget process, although he didn’t support making dramatic changes to the budget after it’s adopted. If the budget is not relatively stable, he noted, there’s no point in doing longer-term budgets.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Employees Per Capita)

The budget document, in a section on financial trends, included an indicator of employees per capita. C. Smith noted that the document indicates that the trend is positive if there are fewer employees per capita. “I don’t believe that that’s necessarily the case,” he said. In delivering services to residents, having fewer people to do that doesn’t make sense, he said. This data has been in the budget document for years, he noted, but it doesn’t relate to the way the county does business. The administration has indicated that this indicator not used to determine staffing levels. He wanted to see it removed from the budget book, and he made a motion to do that.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said it’s one of many trends that’s recommended by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), but only if an organization finds it useful. She said that C. Smith was correct – the administration doesn’t use it to determine staffing levels.

C. Smith said that including it sends the wrong message to the community.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to remove the employees-per-capita section from the budget document.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Organizational Survey)

C. Smith noted that the county previously used an organizational capabilities survey to gauge employee attitudes. The survey was perviously done every two years, but for budgetary reasons it hasn’t been done since 2008. He called it a fantastic tool that wasn’t too expensive to implement – between $10,000 and $50,000 each year.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, indicated the cost had been about $50,000 for the first year, and about $35,000 each time after that. She wasn’t sure how much work it would take to restart the survey, or what the current costs would be.

C. Smith thought it was a manageable amount, and he wanted to add a line in the budget document that stated the county would do these surveys again. After some additional back-and-forth with administration, he suggested waiting until the Nov. 20 meeting to figure out how this might be incorporated into the budget.

Outcome: No formal action was taken on this proposal.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Affordable Care Act)

Yousef Rabhi said he still wasn’t comfortable with an item added to the budget policy regarding the Affordable Care Act. He was referring to this item, which had also been discussed at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting:

16. To be in compliance with federal health care reform and the Affordable Care Act effective 1-1-14, the Board of Commissioners reaffirms Resolution #13-TBD that part time employees are not permitted to work more than 25 hours per week. Any part time employee hired, shall not work more than 25 hours per week.

Rabhi didn’t feel this approach was in the spirit of the federal legislation, nor was it the right thing to do for county employees. Conan Smith agreed, noting that the board has discussed issues like a living wage and having health insurance as a right. Health care is important, he said, and the county shouldn’t be trying to figure out how not to give people health insurance.

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said the intent is to alert departments about this potential issue as a liability that could affect their budgets, if employees work more than 30 hours per week. Starting in 2015, the Affordable Care Act will require the county to offer health insurance to anyone who works 30 hours or more per week during a specified period. It doesn’t mean that the employee has to buy the health insurance, Heidt explained, but the county must offer it. This will affect primarily the parks & recreation staff, sheriff’s office, the water resources commissioner, and the community support & treatment services (CSTS) unit – units that use more part-time employees.

After additional discussion, C. Smith moved to delete this item from the budget document, noting that it wouldn’t be an issue until 2015. That will give the county more time to figure out how to address it, he said.

Rabhi said he wanted to have a broader conversation about the county’s part-time employees, not just focusing on health care.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to eliminate the policy item regarding the Affordable Care Act.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Fund Balance Reserves

Conan Smith alerted commissioners that he plans to bring an amendment forward at the Nov. 20 meeting regarding the fund balance reserves. He referred to this item in the budget document:

12. The Board of Commissioners commits to long-term budget flexibility and sustainability, and an adequate level of cash flow with its attention to fund balance. A healthy fund balance is an essential ingredient and the following was considered to determine an appropriate level as a target: an appropriate level to fund at least 60 days of operations, to help offset negative cash flow (primarily from the seven month delay in property tax collections after incurred expenses), and to assist buffering any unexpected downturns. Therefore, the Board shall plan future budgets to meet the goal of a Reserve for Subsequent Years representing at least 20.0% of General Fund expenditures, net of indirect costs. To accomplish this any excess property tax revenue above projected budget (assumptions), but excluding the fiscal years that have structural salary increases tied to property tax revenue growth per labor agreements, as well as any year-end surplus of which 70% will be contributed to fund balance until the reserve goal is met and 30% to be determined by Board of Commissioner authorization.

He said he’s talked with the administration about this, and has come to agree with them about the 20% target. [The existing target is 8%.] One strategy for dealing with the county’s annual cash flow challenge is to increase fund reserves, he noted. Another strategy is to borrow internally from other county funds, and a third strategy is to issue tax anticipation notes, which results in an additional borrowing cost.

The easiest approach by far is to increase the fund reserves, he said. However, he’s reluctant to lock in a formula of allocating funds to that. He thought the allocation of surplus revenue should happen through a process with a thorough board debate.

C. Smith said he planned to work with administration to bring forward a proposal on Nov. 20.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Revenue Increase)

Dan Smith proposed adjusting the revenue line item for general fund taxes and penalties to increase the projected revenues by $449,813 over the four-year period from 2014-2017.

Chart by Dan Smith showing his budget amendment to increase projected revenues.

He further proposed allocating the increased revenues in this way: (1) $100,000 each year to the sheriff’s office; (2) change the “Other Services & Charges for the Board of Commissioners” to add $26,230 for dues to the Michigan Association of Counties (MAC) and to cut the convention and conferences line item by half – to $12,275.

D. Smith explained that he had tried to come up with a way to address concerns about the public safety budget, as well as some interest by other commissioners in restoring the county’s membership in MAC. The projected increases in revenues are tweaked slightly to achieve the extra revenues that can then be allocated toward the sheriff’s budget and MAC.

From left: Commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Conan Smith called the proposed increase in projected revenues “negligible,” saying that it isn’t any more or less accurate than what’s currently projected. That’s not the issue. But he worried about the precedent of the board making this kind of change, rather than the professional finance staff. C. Smith also said he didn’t support joining MAC, saying he didn’t think the county got $26,230 worth of good service out of that organization. He didn’t think MAC was an effective advocate or an articulate representative for the values of Washtenaw County.

In response to a question from C. Smith, D. Smith said he’s previously mentioned concerns about a reduction to the sheriff’s department budget. That reduction makes it difficult for pro-active policing to be done, he said. The sheriff’s office has already been cut in previous budget cycles, he noted, and the proposed cuts will have a very adverse effect on public safety across the county.

D. Smith indicated that he’d be receptive if C. Smith wanted to propose an amendment to his amendment, eliminating the proposed restoration of MAC dues.

C. Smith said he was intrigued by D. Smith’s proposal, but wanted to postpone it until Nov. 20 in order to have time to talk with the sheriff.

Outcome: On a voice vote, the board voted to postpone action on D. Smith’s proposed amendment until the Nov. 20 meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) voted against postponement.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Coordinated Funding)

Dan Smith put forward an amendment to decrease funding to the line item for coordinated funding from $1.015 million annually to $915,000. The $100,000 cut would be allocated to the sheriff’s office. Coordinated funding supports local nonprofits that provide human services, through a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw Urban County, United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The program is administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

In introducing this amendment, D. Smith said he hears from people that public safety is one of the top concerns, and the board has also stated that public safety is a priority. He has great concerns about the proposed reductions to the sheriff’s department.

Outcome: D. Smith’s motion did not receive a second, so it died for lack of support.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Sheriff’s Office

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) asked county administrator Verna McDaniel if it was true that the sheriff’s department has a $500,000 automatic budget reduction each year. McDaniel said that during the first year that sheriff Jerry Clayton was in office (2009), his budget was cut by $500,000. But she contended it hasn’t been reduced by that amount in subsequent years.

Sizemore noted that the initial $500,000 cut occurred under the previous county administrator (Bob Guenzel). He wondered if that same amount was cut each year. McDaniel described that initial $500,000 as a structural cut. She noted that since 2008, the county has needed to cut budgets and the sheriff has cooperated. Because the $500,000 was structural, it carries through to subsequent years, she said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel and board chair Yousef Rabhi.

McDaniel confirmed that the administration is asking for a reduction in eight positions from the sheriff’s department, but she stated that those positions are currently vacant. Sizemore said he wouldn’t support that reduction.

Ronnie Peterson wondered what the effect would be on cutting those positions, and the impact it would have on public safety. He said he’d be interested in hearing from the sheriff.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton told commissioners that a couple of things about the budget deeply concerned him. He said he understands the broader budget context, and the role that his office plays. They’ve stepped up in finding reductions and increasing revenue. But at this point, continued cuts will greatly impact the ability of his office to provide services and to manage the police services contracts with other municipalities.

The administration’s assertion that the proposed cut of eight positions won’t have an impact is not true, Clayton said. It’s true that the positions are currently vacant, for a variety of reasons – including retirements and people quitting – but there are plans to fill those spots. He noted that a previous board of commissioners had approved a jail expansion. His office had been asked to conduct a staffing study, which determined that it would take 36 correction officers to staff the facility. The county board had approved that, and a hiring process has been ongoing. The sheriff’s office has over 420 employees, Clayton said, including full-time, part-time and seasonal workers. Given that number, there will always be a certain amount of turnover. There will always be vacant positions, he said. When the office is fully staffed, they can realize the level of services that are needed, Clayton said.

Clayton also addressed the question of the $500,000 annual reduction. He said when he came into office, he had agreed to it with the prior county administrator. But there was no agreement that it would be in perpetuity, Clayton said, “at least not in my mind. My mistake was in not getting it in writing.” At this point, his office can’t meet the proposed expenditure target, he said, so that puts them in a position of being over budget or reducing the services they provide.

Clayton referred to a letter he’d written to McDaniel, and cc-ed to the board leadership, in response to the budget proposal. The proposed budget reduction of $1.34 million for the sheriff’s office would significantly compromise public safety, he said. Although he could “grudgingly” agree to putting the eight positions on hold vacant status, he said, in exchange he wanted the administration to start eliminating the $500,000 automatic lump sum reduction that’s built into the sheriff’s office budget. He also hoped to be able to fill those vacant positions, if the county’s economic circumstances improve.

Clayton noted that some parts of the county government have been “held harmless” or have even seen increases. It’s not for him to judge whether that’s appropriate, he said, but it is his role to ask how the board can agree to reductions that will impact public safety, while stating that public safety is a priority.

Even local governments that have their own public safety departments still rely on the sheriff’s office as an additional public safety net, he said. As an example, he cited the recent murder of an Eastern Michigan University student. The sheriff’s office is involved in providing increased security in that area, and in helping coordinate other public safety entities. He gave another example of assisting a recent Ann Arbor investigation. “Because we’re a countywide jurisdiction, we’re able to connect the dots.” Criminals and crime don’t have jurisdictional boundaries, so public safety in Washtenaw County affects everyone, Clayton said. The county has a well-deserved reputation as a great place to live, in part because it’s a very safe and secure community. “That does not happen by accident,” he said. It requires a commitment to public safety.

Jerry Clayton, Washtenaw County sheriff.

As a countywide elected official, Clayton said it’s his responsibility to inform the board – which makes budget decisions – that if they continue along this path, they won’t be able to sustain public safety in a manner that residents are used to, and Washtenaw County might become a community that’s considered unsafe. There might be some areas that are insulated, “but we all know if there’s a part of Washtenaw County that’s considered unsafe, it affects us all.”

Yousef Rabhi thanked Clayton, but said he wanted to push back a little. He said he prioritized public safety and thinks it’s important. But he thinks a lot of things that the county does are important. The county doesn’t have the funding to do everything it used to do, he said, and there are tough decisions to make. If every department head had the chance to come forward, they’d give the same impassioned plea that the sheriff gave, Rabhi said, and the board needs to understand that fully.

The only way to sustain services in all areas is to get more revenue, Rabhi said. If the county prioritizes public safety, as it should, then residents should support a public safety millage to support the sheriff’s operations, he said. The county government has its hands tied by the state, Rabhi noted, and revenue streams are declining. There are few options, so he hoped commissioners would support putting a new millage on the ballot. Meanwhile, the board needs to make responsible budget cuts to balance its budget.

Clayton responded, saying it’s the board’s prerogative whether to invite every department head to talk with them. As for his own remarks, “it’s not an impassioned plea – I’m just stating the facts,” he said. Oftentimes the board doesn’t hear from people who are affected by budget cuts. It’s not possible to gauge the impact of budget cuts and outcomes if the board doesn’t have all the information from people who are affected, Clayton said. Nonprofit leaders come to the board and make those impassioned pleas, he added, “and you make decisions based on that. So don’t single me out. You asked me. I’m telling you what the impact is. For me not to tell you what I believe the impact on public safety is, if you make those cuts, would be negligent in my responsibility as the county sheriff.”

Sizemore thanked Clayton for coming, and said he’d like to be included in any future communication about the sheriff’s office budget.

Conan Smith said he was glad they were having this conversation, but was sorry that it’s happening in November. The board couldn’t have a better partner than the sheriff’s office in thinking through how to invest strategically. Clayton had actually inspired a lot of the processes that the board is now going through, Smith said, and Clayton’s team has played a leadership role. But Rabhi is right, Smith added, in that any department head could make a case for why their activities are important, and the county doesn’t have a rubric for evaluating why one activity is more important than another. “We’re trying to get there,” he said.

Clayton replied that he didn’t say public safety was more important than anything else – as he wasn’t making comparisons. His point was that it’s a priority to the county, but it’s still up to the board to decide how to prioritize the value of public safety, in terms of budgeting. If the board ends up cutting the sheriff’s budget, “we’ll live with it,” Clayton said. But he wanted the board and the public to know what’s likely to happen if cuts are made.

Clayton then gave some examples of how the sheriff’s office has collaborated to reduce expenses. Four SWAT teams supported by different governmental units were combined into one team, which reduced costs. Partnering with the city of Ann Arbor on dispatch operations saved the city almost $500,000, he said. He noted that previous discussions have connected economic development to the community’s sense of safety.

Conan Smith asked whether Clayton had talked to the administration about how the county can reduce expenses by decreasing the demand for the sheriff’s office services. Has the discussion occurred about where the county should be strategically investing to make that happen? Clayton said they’re working on that, but it’s a long-term approach that requires resources to achieve. Part of the office’s community engagement strategy is getting into the neighborhoods and working with residents to address root cause problems that change the dynamics of the community. That includes partnering with schools and human service agencies of all kinds, he said. Short of not getting re-elected, Clayton joked, he said he’d love to work himself out of a job.

Conan Smith then shifted to the issue of labor contract negotiations with POAM and COAM. The last contract with the sheriff’s deputies was “more lucrative” than what was implemented with other labor units, C. Smith said. Does this budget anticipate parity with other labor unions? he asked.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Clayton reminded the board that the POAM and COAM agreements were negotiated first, before other units. He assumed that the administration had an overall target of concessions for all units. The POAM came to the table seeing what they could get, and they reached an agreement that was ratified by the board. As subsequent negotiations took place, it’s not fair to tell POAM that they didn’t step up, Clayton said. “They stepped up to what you asked. If you’d asked for more, then they could have had those negotiations.”

That said, Clayton reported that POAM and COAM are aware that all of these things are connected, including the impact on police services contracts with other municipalities. They understand that there’s a balance, he said.

Regarding the police services contracts, C. Smith wondered if the county has optimized that delivery of service, in terms of reducing the impact of those contracts on general fund allocations to public safety. The price point to municipalities can’t be so high that it’s unaffordable, he said, but he indicated there’s more that could be done – like multi-jurisdictional contracting, and innovative policing approaches.

Clayton said that multi-jurisdictional contracting is not something that the sheriff’s office can decide – that’s up to the different local governments. In terms of optimizing staffing, he noted that there’s been a lot of consolidation already. He addressed a complaint he’s heard about the sheriff’s office being top-heavy with management. When he took office, he was asked whether the sheriff’s office could assume responsibility for community corrections. It made sense so that happened, but a manager came with it. The same thing happened with emergency services, and a director came with that transition.

Clayton also said he’s had some conversations with local government officials who pay for police services, and he’d told them that the contract language might have to be revisited. That’s because if staffing is reduced, he’s not sure his office can meet the staffing levels that are laid out in the police services contracts. He didn’t want to set expectations at a level that he couldn’t meet.

Conan Smith said he was very supportive of a public safety millage. It would address the financial challenge as well as the policy tension that exists. Speaking as an Ann Arbor resident, C. Smith said he knows the sheriff’s office works with the city, but it’s much more palatable to invest in other communities’ public safety using the county’s general fund if there’s been a vote by residents to do that.

C. Smith noted that Dan Smith had raised the possibility of allocating an additional $100,000 to the sheriff’s department. How would Clayton use those funds, if available? Clayton replied that he’d restore the lost FTEs to put boots on the ground and staff in the jail. When staffing levels are lowered, his office becomes a reactive organization, he said.

Andy LaBarre asked Clayton how the board can deal with the disparity of views regarding the $500,000 budget cut that began in 2009. LaBarre didn’t think it was good to have a countywide elected sheriff and the county administrator on different pages regarding that issue. Clayton reiterated that it was an agreement made with the previous administrator, and that his assumption had been that it was just for a single two-year budget cycle – saying that’s how it had been presented to him. It was never his understanding that the cut was structural, so his question is whether the office can sustain that ongoing cut as well as additional reductions that are being requested.

The options are to reduce services, Clayton said, or to work with the administration over the next four years and restore that $500,000 to the budget – $125,000 each year. He realized that it couldn’t happen immediately.

LaBarre agreed with C. Smith about the importance of social services and human services, and he acknowledged that the sheriff’s office has worked on these issues – in particular, Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff’s office, has been integral for that, LaBarre noted. He hoped a solution could be worked out as quickly as possible regarding the structural budget question.

Clayton replied that his office will always remain a partner in this process, even if they don’t agree on the outcome.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Legal Fees)

Dan Smith pointed to an appropriation in the budget document of $100,000 to cover “litigation matters involving the County as Plaintiff, to be overseen by the County Administrator.” He said he’s not a fan of lawsuits, noting the only people who really come out ahead are lawyers on both sides.

Curtis Hedger, Washtenaw County’s corporation counsel.

He didn’t want to see a recurrence of a recent situation when taxpayer dollars were spent on outside counsel. [This was likely an allusion to the county engaging outside legal counsel after being sued over the board's resolution opposing the state's Stand Your Ground law.]

D. Smith thought the county board meets regularly enough to appropriate funds when necessary, and the corporation counsel is competent to deal with matters until the board can act. He moved for that item to be stricken from the budget document.

Responding to a question from Conan Smith, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said the need to use these funds doesn’t occur frequently. The item gives the administration some flexibility.

C. Smith thought that if the county is the plaintiff, that it ought to be a board discussion about whether to sue, or it should at least be a discussion for the board leadership.

Hedger said if something came up during the summer months when the board meets less frequently, this item would allow the administration to address it. Generally the cases are enforcement-related, tied to building code or soil erosion violations, for example. The intent is to give the administration some flexibility, Hedger said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked why enforcement couldn’t be handled through civil infractions. Hedger reminded the board that they just recently passed an ordinance allowing for civil infractions, but the ability to issue civil infractions for specific violations isn’t yet in place. In the future, having the ability to issue civil infractions will likely allow the county to avoid suing, he said.

Responding to a query from C. Smith, county administrator Verna McDaniel noted that she is authorized to make expenditures up to $100,000 for contracts without board approval.

In that case, C. Smith felt this item was already taken care of in the county’s existing policies.

Yousef Rabhi didn’t understand why they would remove the item, if it doesn’t matter one way or another. Why not just leave it in? He asked Hedger about the policy and process for litigating. Hedger replied that the county sues so infrequently that there isn’t a policy. Usually, the county is the defendant.

Rabhi then said he felt it was important to keep the item in place, to show that the board approves spending up to that amount on litigation. He thought that removing the language would hamstring the county’s ability to be legally nimble. He didn’t think the amendment was productive or made sense.

Rabhi noted that being a plaintiff doesn’t just mean the county is suing. It could also mean that the county joins in with other entities to take legal action, for public health and environmental protection – for example, seeking reparations for an oil spill on the Huron River. The board could still allocate money to fight it, he acknowledged, but it’s harder to stomach doing that if there isn’t a line item for it. “Things come up, folks, and we need to have the dollars budgeted to help to bring justice to people of Washtenaw County,” Rabhi said.

C. Smith said he looked at it as an encumbrance that gets baked into the budget. It’s money that’s not being allocated somewhere else. He noted that the office of corporation counsel has a $2.4 million budget. Was the $100,000 part of that amount? Financial analyst Tina Gavalier clarified that there actually is no line item encumbering these funds. If used, the amount would be taken from the general fund reserves. “In which case, I’m agnostic,” C. Smith said.

From left: Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

Andy LaBarre wondered why it couldn’t be made a smaller amount, like $10,000. Hedger replied that it’s just been part of the budget document for a long time at that amount. Hedger wanted to make sure there’s enough to cover any potential litigation, because it varies from year to year.

D. Smith said this amendment wasn’t trying to undermine public health and safety. Rather, it’s a way to ensure that if the county is going to engage in significant litigation as a plaintiff, that it’s a board decision. It’s already been established that smaller amounts can be handled at the administrator’s discretion.

After further discussion, Hedger indicated he’d be willing to develop a policy on this issue for the board to review. If the item is removed from the budget document, it wouldn’t necessarily hamper his ability to initiate litigation, he said. If something happens that’s a true public safety issue, he’d move ahead anyway and “I’ll worry about where the money’s coming from later.”

Outcome: The amendment failed on a 4-5 vote. Supporting the amendment were Dan Smith, Alicia Ping, Ronnie Peterson, and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the amendment were Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec, and Andy LaBarre.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Motion to Postpone

Dan Smith moved to postpone an initial vote on the budget until the board’s Nov. 20 meeting. There are several things that commissioners have said they’d like to work out, he noted, and one amendment had been postponed already.

Outcome on postponement: The motion failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from Dan Smith and Ronnie Peterson.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Final Deliberations

Discussion continued. Alicia Ping identified an item in the budget document that was unclear:

13. The Board of Commissioners authorizes the County Administrator to continue the necessary match. The summary shall separately specify any proposed match in excess of the minimum required.

Verna McDaniel indicated that it was inadvertently included, and should be removed. No amendment was necessary to do that.

Ronnie Peterson said he wanted to support his colleagues, but he wouldn’t follow them over a cliff. He spoke at length, restating his concerns about a four-year budget. He noted that the board’s main responsibility is to set the budget, so if they do a four-year budget now, what are they being paid to do in the coming years? Anyone who votes for a four-year budget should cut their salaries in half, he said, because they’re delegating away their responsibility. He was upset that they were getting ready to vote, even though he said his concerns hadn’t been addressed.

Andy LaBarre responded to some of the concerns raised by Peterson. He noted that the budget assumes the status quo in terms of state and federal funding. Rather than paying off its pension liabilities at one time through bonding, the county has decided to handle those obligations on a year-by-year basis “in a somewhat blind manner,” he said, because the annual actuarial payment can’t be determined in advance. LaBarre said the scariest thing for him in not doing a four-year budget is to see the kinds of deeper cuts they’d have to make if they didn’t take this approach.

At the request of LaBarre, county finance director Kelly Belknap reviewed that approach. She noted that with the two-year budget approach, the county would have needed to make cuts of $2.6 million in 2014 and another $3.9 million in 2015. But if structural reductions are front-loaded in 2014, over the four-year budget period the overall amount of cuts will be reduced, she said. [The budget presented to the board on Oct. 2, 2013 identified $4.13 million in operating cost reductions. Those include: (1) $2.89 million in proposed departmental reductions; (2) $688,000 in estimated increased revenues from fees and services; (3) $450,000 in reductions to county infrastructure allocations; and (4) $100,000 in cuts to “outside agency” allocations.]

LaBarre said that’s the reason he’ll be supporting the four-year budget.

Felicia Brabec thanked commissioners for their input, and supported the four-year approach, saying it allows for strategic, long-term decisions. She felt it would be transformative and was the prudent thing to do. It’s a big change, and will entail a lot more work. In contrast to Peterson’s belief that salaries should be cut, she thought it made more sense for salaries to be doubled, because of the extra work.

Dan Smith called the question, a procedural move intended to force a vote. The vote on calling the question was unanimous.

Outcome on 2014-2017 budget as amended: Initial approval of the 2014-2017 budget was given on a 7-2 vote, over the dissent of Dan Smith and Ronnie Peterson.

2014-2017 County Budget: Final Public Commentary

Brian Mackie introduced himself by giving his Ann Arbor address, saying that makes him a resident of Washtenaw County. He noted that he’s also an elected official, and “I hope that doesn’t disqualify me from speaking.” [Mackie is the county's prosecuting attorney.] The board has been talking about the budget since January, he observed, and now it seems the discussions are getting more pointed and serious. It’s a difficult job, he said, “but I would suggest to you that you are making this much harder than it needs to be.”

There are a couple of places to look for guidance, he said. One is the state constitution. Mackie recalled how earlier this year at a budget retreat, one commissioner had said he didn’t give a crap about what the state says about mandates. [That commissioner was Conan Smith (D-District 9), who made this statement at a March 7, 2013 budget retreat: “I don’t give a crap about what the state tells me to do anymore; they clearly don’t have the prosperity of my community in mind.” He was referring to state mandates, arguing that state-mandated service levels should be interpreted at the “absolute possible minimum.”] Mackie pointed out that county government is a unit of state government. It’s how services are delivered to citizens, and it’s essential in our scheme of government, he said.

Mackie also said that the board should rely on the county’s “excellent administrator,” Verna McDaniel. She’s been working in county government for a long time, he noted, and knows what she’s doing. He didn’t believe there was tension between the sheriff and administrator. There’s a difference of opinion, he added, and he thought McDaniel was trying to carry out the wishes of the board. “Because frankly, I don’t believe public [safety], in spite what is said, is really backed by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Some of you certainly do. Some of you do not.” He also urged the board to listen to the sheriff. He indicated that the sheriff hadn’t been treated as well as others who’ve come before the board. Sheriff Jerry Clayton has a national reputation, Mackie noted. “He’s not only a good sheriff for Washtenaw County, he’s not only better than his predecessor in many ways, but he’s a national figure,” Mackie said. Clayton is called upon to train sheriffs nationwide. “He might know more about safety and criminal justice than you do,” Mackie told the board.

Mackie also talked about public safety in terms of working with the mentally ill, which he said was near and dear to the hearts of many commissioners. He encouraged them to listen to 911 calls. In a given hour, the sheriff’s dispatchers get calls from Ann Arbor three times an hour about a suicidal subject, he said. People call 911 because they’re desperate and they need help keeping someone alive. “So think about that, please,” he concluded.

Third-Quarter Budget Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel and the finance staff delivered a third-quarter 2013 budget update during the Nov. 6 meeting. The administration is projecting a budget surplus of $1,079,748.

The expected surplus is higher than the one projected earlier this year. During a second-quarter 2013 budget update that the county’s financial staff delivered on Aug. 7, 2013, a $245,814 general fund surplus was projected for the year.

The surplus is attributed in part to higher-than-expected general fund revenues of $103,805,884 – compared to $99,722,141 in the 2013 budget that county commissioners approved late last year. Total expenditures are expected to reach $102,726,136.

The surplus means that the county will not need to tap its fund balance in 2013 in order to balance the budget, as it had originally planned to do. By the end of 2013, the general fund’s fund balance is projected to stand at $17,867,835 or 17.3% of general fund expenditures and transfers out.

There are three areas that staff will be monitoring, which could affect the budget: (1) fringe benefit projections; (2) personal property tax reform; and (3) the impact of federal sequestration. [.pdf of third-quarter budget update presentation]

Third-Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about a projected $65,000 over-expenditure in the 14A District Court. She wondered how that happened. Finance analyst Tina Gavalier replied that it’s primarily caused by overtime costs due staff shortages and staff medical leave. She noted that earlier this year, a $100,000 over-expenditure had been expected – so the $65,000 is actually an improvement, she said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Gavalier said the District Court has a budgeted lump sum reduction of $109,000 for 2013. One could argue, she said, that the court is meeting part of its lump sum reduction by having lower-than-projected over-expenditures. Ping wondered how overspending can result in a credit to the court’s lump sum reduction. Gavalier replied that the lump sum reduction was budgeted as an over-expenditure.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said the administration is working with the court to help identify ways to reduce expenditures. This has been ongoing over the last two years, she said. The court administration has been cooperative, she added.

Ping said she thought the courts had agreed to a $200,000 lump sum reduction. McDaniel clarified that Ping was referring to the Washtenaw Trial Court, not the District Court.

Ping asked whether the county would need to notify both courts, if the board wanted to give notice of an intent to eliminate the lump sum budgeting approach. McDaniel pointed out that there will be a new chief judge as of January 2014. [David S. Swartz was recently named chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court, effective Jan. 1, 2014. The appointment was made by the Michigan Supreme Court. Swartz will replace current chief judge Donald Shelton, who has served in that position for four years.]

McDaniel said there might be some “different ways” to work things out with the new court leadership, and indicated that she’d like some time to give that a chance. [For more background on the lump sum agreement, see Chronicle coverage: "County to Keep Trial Court Budget Agreement."]

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the projection for the end-of-year fund balance. Gavalier replied that assuming their projections are correct, the fund balance would be $17,867,835 as of Dec. 31, or 17.3% of general fund expenditures and transfers out.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Act 88 Tax Hike & Policy

Two items related to a tax to support economic development and agriculture were on the Nov. 6 agenda.

The board was asked to give final approval to an increase in the levy of the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills.

The millage will be levied in December 2013 and raise an estimated $972,635. Initial approval to the increase had been given by the board on Oct. 16, 2013. The funds will be allocated to the following groups:

• $408,135: Washtenaw County office of community & economic development (OCED)
• $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
• $15,000: MSU Extension for food systems-related economic development activities

The initial approval had allocated $423,135 to OCED. Based on a recommendation from OCED, an amendment approved unanimously on Nov. 6 shifted $15,000 from that allocation to fund food systems-related economic development. A second amendment, also passed unanimously, corrected the original resolution, which had stated that the millage would only be assessed against real property in Washtenaw County. The amendment clarified that the millage will be assessed against all taxable property located in the county.

The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 0.5 mills under Act 88 without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax, which predates the state’s Headlee Amendment.

Also on Nov. 6, the board was asked to give final approval to a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9) and given initial approval on Oct. 16. [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy includes 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.

Act 88 Tax Hike & Policy: Public Commentary

Doug Smith pointed out that Act 88 only authorizes three activities. Two activities are advertisement, and the third is support of exhibitions of county products. He thought there was some confusion about the phrase that talks about increasing trade for county products. If you look at the structure of the sentence, that phrase refers to the purpose of supporting exhibitions of products, he said. “It’s not a standalone phrase.” The act doesn’t say anything about economic development, or giving money to startups or support of new companies, or subsidizing training programs. These economic development uses aren’t authorized by Act 88, he said.

Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United.

Regarding the board’s Act 88 policy, Smith noted that it uses the language of the law. The problem is that the contract that the county has with Ann Arbor SPARK doesn’t use the same language – it uses language of economic development. In addition, there’s no requirement for any kind of reporting for what the money will be spent on by SPARK. It all goes into one pot, he said, so the county can’t tell whether the spending complies with the law. The same is true for the $50,000 membership to the Detroit Region Aerotropolis, Smith said. What is that money being spent on? He asked commissioners not to use the Act 88 millage to support economic development.

Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United told commissioners that he’d helped Dick Headlee with the statewide campaigns in 1976, 1977 and 1978 that ultimately resulted in what’s known as the Headlee Amendment. The first year they tried, in 1976, the proposal only got 40% of the vote. In 1978, it received 58% of the vote statewide.

The people who voted were looking for tax limitation, he said. One of the real surprises that’s emerged since then is the “innovative use” of past legislation in an attempt to get around the Headlee Amendment, he said. The state constitution reigns supreme, McMaster said. When you refer to a 100-year-old bill, it’s “much subservient” to the constitution, he noted, because it’s a piece of legislation and in no way equates to the power of the constitution. He called the county’s attempt to levy a $1 million tax on Washtenaw County residents – without a vote of the people – an “ambush.” He urged the board not to pass the Act 88 levy or the policy. It’s not constitutional without a vote of the people, he said.

McMaster concluded by saying that part of the Headlee Amendment has a provision for a lawsuit, starting in the court of appeals “which we will pursue.”

Act 88 Tax Hike: Board Discussion – Move to Table

Dan Smith said he might have a lot to say about this item, but he first wanted to “consider something else I have in mind,” so he moved to table the resolution.

Outcome: The motion to table failed on a voice vote.

Act 88 Tax Hike: Board Discussion – Constitutional?

As he has on previous occasions, Dan Smith raised questions about whether levying this kind of tax is constitutional, because it would exceed constitutional limits on the amount of property tax that can be levied without voter approval. He also questioned 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. Those eligible uses are laid out in a long run-on sentence that’s difficult to parse, he noted, but if you read it very carefully, the use of the funds is quite limited.

The law states:

AN ACT empowering the board of supervisors of any of the several counties of the state of Michigan to levy a special tax, or by appropriating from the general fund 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.

“So not only are we quite likely levying these funds unconstitutionally,” Smith said, “once we levy them unconstitutionally, we then go and spend them illegally.”

Smith has been advocating for written clarification from the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, that would explicitly state the county’s position on the legality of this levy. That hasn’t happened, Smith said.

Hedger maintains that he can provide that kind of written legal opinion only under direction from the entire board. Smith questioned whether it takes a vote of the board to request a legal opinion. Another Michigan county has a policy that interprets MCL 49.155 in such a way that a commissioner could apply on behalf of the entire board for a legal opinion, Smith reported.

MCL 49.155 states:

The prosecuting attorney, or county corporation counsel in a county which has employed an attorney in lieu of the prosecuting attorney to represent the county in civil matters, shall give opinions, in cases where this state, a county, or a county officer may be a party or interested, when required by a civil officer in the discharge of the officer’s respective official duties relating to an interest of the state or county.

Smith said he’s not even really looking for a legal opinion. He just wants additional clarification regarding the Act 88 levy specifically, similar to what’s provided in other cover memos. It’s certainly unclear whether this levy is 100% legal, he said. He noted that on the issue of the State Street corridor improvement authority, he didn’t have concerns about its legality. His concerns with the CIA were policy-related, he noted.

But for Act 88, he can’t get past the legal concerns in order to discuss the policy. The board is essentially saying “Sue us and we’ll let the court sort this out,” Smith said. That’s not the right approach. Taxpayers are forced to pay this tax under threat of foreclosure – if they don’t pay their taxes, the county can foreclose on their property. “That is a very very heavy threat from government to tax somebody,” he said, so the board should be very sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it’s legal.

He concluded by saying he can’t support the way the county is levying this tax, and he can’t support the way the money is spent after it’s collected.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Conan Smith said he appreciated D. Smith’s passion on this issue. He noted that last year, the state legislature took up a proposal to eliminate Act 88. There was a robust discussion and public hearings, but the legislature ultimately took no action and left it in place. He said he’s comfortable that if the state legislature is satisfied that Act 88 comports with the constitution, then that’s the case “until a court determines otherwise.” He agreed that the bar is high in taking the government to court, but his priority isn’t in determining the constitutionality of this law. His priority is in investing in the economic outcomes that these dollars can provide for county residents.

C. Smith called the language of the Act 88 law “one of the worst run-on sentences” and that makes it tough to determine what exactly the funds can be used for. It’s reasonably arguable that increasing trade in the county is a central tenet of the act, he said, and that affords some leeway in interpreting how those funds are used, including making the kinds of investments that the county is considering.

C. Smith agreed with Doug Smith’s point during public commentary that there aren’t controls in place to see exactly how some organizations are spending the Act 88 funds that the county provides. However, in looking at each organization’s strategic plan, you can make a “reasonable inference” that the funds are being invested in a way that comports with Act 88. He said he appreciates the complexity of this issue, and that as a pre-Headlee statute its applicability is “somewhat convoluted.” However, he’s comfortable that the board has the authority to do this and he’d support the resolution, even though he would prefer to levy an even higher rate.

Andy LaBarre asked Hedger what it would entail, in terms of time and effort, to produce a legal opinion. Hedger replied that it would take some time to write up an opinion, but that he’d already done the research. One challenge is that there’s not much guidance as far as case law, because it hasn’t been challenged in court. There’s a lot of statutory interpretation that would be required, and that would take some time to figure out how to make it as clear as possible, Hedger said.

Hedger noted that any opinion wouldn’t apply just to Act 88. It would also apply to the veterans relief millage that the county levies, as well as some other levies.

Ronnie Peterson cautioned that getting a legal opinion “opens up a big door.” He noted that Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United might get a legal opinion, “but it won’t be from us.” The ramifications would be very challenging, Peterson said, and the board needs to consider that as they deliberate on a four-year budget.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, the board gave final approval to an increase in the Act 88 levy. Dan Smith (R-District 2) dissented and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting by the time the vote occurred, just after midnight.

Act 88 Policy: Board Discussion

Regarding the Act 88 policy, Dan Smith said he had several concerns about it. As an example, he highlighted the policy that would allow the advisory committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. He noted that Act 88 authorizes only the board to direct how revenues are spent: The wording in the statute is very specific, he said.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger responded that by approving this policy, the board would be providing that direction – in essence, delegating it to the advisory committee. It’s one step removed, Hedger said, but it’s “not just coming out of the blue.”

Alicia Ping wondered why the amount of 10% was designated. Conan Smith replied that there are “leveraging opportunities that rise up with relative immediacy,” like matching grants or event sponsorship. Some of these things don’t warrant board approval, he said. Small amounts are spent regularly through the county administrator’s discretion, he noted. The committee could also give money directly to an organization, if it sees fit to do that and if the organization provides programs or services that fit with the Act 88 allowed uses.

Ping wondered if the full board would get a report on how that 10% would be allocated. C. Smith pointed out that the policy includes a requirement for an annual report about how all Act 88 expenditures were made, and assessing whether those investments were effective.

Yousef Rabhi said every agency that’s funded with public dollars should be accountable for how those dollars are spent. There’s been some citizen feedback that some of the agencies funded by the county don’t have enough accountability, he said. “We need to make sure that they are accountable for public dollars that we allocate to them.” This policy helps accomplish that, Rabhi concluded.

Outcome: The Act 88 policy was unanimously approved. Rolland Sizemore Jr. had left the meeting and did not vote.

Act 88 Policy: Request for Legal Opinion

In introducing this item, Dan Smith said he believed the Act 88 statute is constitutional, but that the county isn’t using it constitutionally because the county is already at its maximum allowable levy. One reason why the state legislature didn’t repeal Act 88 is that the law is constitutional for counties that haven’t reached their maximum allowable levy amount, he said.

It’s critical to sort this out, he added, because if these levies are legal, then about three-quarters of a billion dollars could be raised across the state to fix roads – raised locally and controlled locally. Everyone who drives on roads knows that this needs to be done, he said. “If this is a solution that can be used across the state, we need to make people aware of it.” If it’s not, “we need to know that too.”

He brought forward a resolution directing corporation counsel to provide an opinion on taxes levied in excess of constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

Outcome: The motion died for lack of a second.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA

On the Nov. 6 agenda was a resolution for final approval of a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA), which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] An initial vote had been taken on Oct. 16, 2013, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

The resolution authorizes the county administrator to sign the tax-sharing agreement, which 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 to support participation in the CIA at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting. 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 voted to approve its own tax-sharing agreement at a meeting on Nov. 11, 2013. At its Nov. 12 meeting, the Saline library board voted to opt out of the CIA. The metroparks board also decided to opt out, with a vote at its Nov. 14 meeting. No action has been taken by the WCC board of trustees, which next meets on Nov. 26.

On Oct. 16, Dan Smith had moved a substitute resolution. It stated 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. He also pointed out that if the county participated in the CIA, the county would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. In addition, the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, he said, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point.

The Oct. 16 vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Public Commentary

Mandy Grewal addressed the board during public commentary, thanking them for their support of the CIA. She introduced several other township officials who attended the meeting but who did not formally address commissioners, including treasurer Patricia Scribner; CIA board member Claudia Kretschmer of Gym America; Craig Lyon, the township’s director of utilities and municipal services; and consultant Dick Carlisle. She indicated that county commissioner Felicia Brabec would soon be appointed to the CIA board. She hoped that the county commissioners would support the CIA.

County commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal.

Christina Lirones introduced herself as a Pittsfield Township resident and former township clerk, treasurer and chair of the planning commission. She’s very opposed to the CIA proposal and she hoped the board would opt out. The township held a public hearing on Oct. 9, and she noted that she’d emailed commissioners a copy of the statement she’d made at that meeting. [.pdf of Lirones' statement at Oct. 9 township public hearing] There are other ways that road improvements could be funded, she said, and past township administrations avoided these kinds of TIF funding arrangements. As someone who supports county services and who voted for the county parks millage, Lirones said she’s deeply concerned that tax dollars that should support residents and parks will be diverted in part for road expansion. In most sections, the road already has three lanes or more, she noted, and it’s in much better shape than many other county roads. That part of the township would increase in value, regardless of the road expansion.

The CIA TIF is being rushed through, Lirones contended, in order to get it on the tax rolls this year. There’s no benefit to the county, she argued, only the loss of tax revenue. Businesses that move to the corridor already receive tax abatements from the current township board, she said, and a TIF would cut revenues further. In the past, developers have funded road improvements based on projected traffic counts, but the CIA TIF would reverse this policy and shift the expense onto taxpayers. It’s unfair to responsible developers who’ve paid for this in the past, she argued, and it’s unfair to residents and taxpayers. It’s also unfair to taxing entities that are giving up their tax revenues. She said the residents who live on State Street were not invited to serve on the CIA board and they don’t support this project. She said she and her husband were the only members of the public who attended all the meetings related to the CIA, which she characterized as poorly noticed and held during the day.

Lirones spoke again at the second opportunity for public commentary later in the evening, after the board’s budget discussion. She noted that the CIA tax-sharing agreement limits the amount of tax capture to $3.8 million from Washtenaw County tax revenues. At first, she said, she thought perhaps it’s a small amount of money for the county. But it turns out that based on their budget discussion, the county is in some dire financial straits, she said, so the $3.8 million is a significant amount that would be lost to the county operating budget. It’s money that the sheriff’s department and human services could use, she said. Lirones hoped the board would decide to opt out. She restated many of the reasons she’d previously mentioned for opposing the CIA, including the fact that the corridor is already being developed even without the road improvements. It’s important for tax dollars to be used for their original intent. “I’m afraid it’s only the first in a series of tax increment finance and capture districts,” she concluded.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Board Discussion

There was minimal discussion before the final vote on Nov. 6. Dan Smith pointed out that the board was voting on the tax-sharing agreement. It states that the amount of tax capture will be 50%, not the full 100% that would be allowed by law. Procedurally, it was not an “opt-in” vote, he noted.

Conan Smith said he was glad that the board leadership and administration will be developing a policy regarding tax increment financing districts.

Outcome: The tax-sharing agreement for the State Street CIA was unanimously approved.

Coordinated Funding

On the agenda was a resolution for final approval to extend the coordinated funding approach for human services, as well as to authorize some changes in that funding model. Initial approval had been given on Oct. 16, 2013, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

No dollar amounts were allocated, but the resolution authorizes the allocation of children’s well-being and human services funding for 2014 through 2016. It authorizes 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 will 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.

During a discussion on this item at the county board’s Oct. 16 meeting, some commissioners expressed concern about controlling the allocation process related to the county’s contribution. Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, reported that she’d be bringing back recommendations to the board for approval, prior to any allocation of funding. This has also been the process in previous years.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion – Community Outcomes

On Nov. 6, Callan reviewed the process and provided additional details about how allocations are made. She also provided a handout with information about community outcomes for coordinated funding. [.pdf of outcomes handout]

Callan explained that the approach of looking at community-level outcomes is new, but it has been discussed for some time. It aligns with the board’s own initiative to look at outcomes when determining budget allocations for the general fund, she noted. The level of investment in the coordinated funding approach is up to the board, she said. But one of the points of five different funding sources – working together – is to eliminate the need for a nonprofit to apply five different places in order to get funded. County dollars go into the six areas that have been identified as priorities, Callan said.

From left: Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and county administrator Verna McDaniel. Both serve on the coordinated funding leadership team.

During the last funding round, there were about three times as many applications as there were entities that ultimately received funding, she noted. The application review and scoring process is very transparent, she added.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) wondered how the board can become engaged in that process. Callan reported that Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) serves on a coordinated funding leadership team, as does county administrator Verna McDaniel. Weight is given to organizations serving those residents who are most at risk and impoverished, Callan said.

Callan said she hoped the board wasn’t interested in becoming involved in the operation details of how scoring rubrics are created for request for proposals. But the board’s priorities for funding anti-poverty efforts and root causes are very clear, she said, and are reflected in all of the coordinated funding work. Every single community outcome is about preventing, reducing or eliminating poverty, Callan said.

Conan Smith said he felt the scoring rubric really needs to be shared with the board before it’s adopted, because that’s how dollars get allocated.

C. Smith also raised the issue that smaller, innovative nonprofits often don’t compete well in the coordinated funding allocation. He asked Callan to address that issue. That’s been an enduring concern, she replied, and in general the larger, more established agencies do tend to get funded. In this upcoming cycle, a couple of things have changed, she said. A new funder, RNR Foundation, has joined the coordinated funding initiative. That family foundation wants to provide capacity-building dollars to smaller nonprofits so they can compete in this funding process.

Additionally, requiring a third-party independent audit is very onerous and costly for smaller nonprofits. So the coordinated funders have changed the threshold for requiring an audit – to agencies with budgets of $500,000 or more. For agencies with budgets between $250,000 and $500,000, an independent financial review is now acceptable. Nonprofits with budgets under $250,000 can provide the 990 forms that are filed with the IRS, as well as the most recent financial statements that are submitted to that nonprofit’s board. All of this is an attempt to lessen the burden on smaller organizations, she said.

C. Smith asked when the coordinated funding reviewers are appointed. In about a month, Callan replied. A request for information (RFI) has already been issued for nonprofits that hope to get funding. The RFP to solicit applications for funding will be released in January or early February of 2014, she reported. It’s up to each funding organization to appoint their reviewers, she said, but in the past those appointments have been recommended by OCED. It’s important for the group of reviewers in aggregate to have a diverse skill set, she said. C. Smith noted that having diverse perspectives is also important.

C. Smith said when funding recommendations are brought to the board, it feels like a rubber stamp at that point. In reality, Callan said, the board can decide how to invest the funds. The vote they’d be taking that night was about whether they want to stay at the table. Other input includes making clear the board’s funding priorities and appointing reviewers. She said she understands that the board feels its hands are tied sometimes, because of the complexity of the process.

C. Smith said the board’s input at the end of the process – in approving the funding allocation – isn’t meaningful. He’d rather see the board be more involved in the front end. He wanted commissioners to really talk about the funding priorities and the reviewers as a board, so that they can make more of an impact. He noted that the board has never changed a single allocation for coordinated funding.

In response to another question from C. Smith, Callan noted that OCED staffs seven community advisory boards, including the Ann Arbor housing and human services advisory board and the county community action board. Input from those boards is integrated into the coordinated funding process, too.

C. Smith concluded by saying his comments were meant to improve the process, which he thought had taken a step forward during this cycle. Callan replied that she welcomes suggestions for improvement. “I would encourage you and the board to use the same rigor with all of your investments,” she said.

Ronnie Peterson spoke at length about the importance of ending poverty, and the county’s role in making that happen.

Outcome: The board gave final approval to extend the coordinated funding approach. The vote was unanimous, but Rolland Sizemore Jr. had left the meeting when this vote was taken at nearly midnight.

Platt Road Advisory Committee

Commissioners were asked to appoint members of a 13-member advisory committee to look at options for the county-owned Platt Road site in Ann Arbor, where the old juvenile center was located.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Members are: county commissioners Yousef Rabhi and Andy LaBarre, who both represent districts in Ann Arbor; Ann Arbor city councilmember Christopher Taylor; three county senior managers – Bob Tetens, Mary Jo Callan and Greg Dill; Jennifer Hall, director of the Ann Arbor housing commission; and six residents – Jeannine Palms, Vickie Wellman, Amy Freundl, Ron Emaus, Peter Vincent and Robb Burroughs.

The board had voted to create the committee at its Sept. 18, 2013 meeting. The idea of an advisory committee to help with the dispensation of this property – at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road – was first discussed at the board’s July 10, 2013 meeting. It was included in an overall strategic space plan for county facilities, which proposed demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee would be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, was an item to be worked out for a board vote at a later date.

On Sept. 4, a debate on the advisory committee proposal lasted about an hour, with concerns raised about the resolution’s focus on affordable housing. A staff memo listed several elements that would be explored, including: (1) affordable rental housing by the Ann Arbor housing commission; (2) an affordable housing green demonstration pilot project; (3) connection to the adjacent County Farm Park; (4) ReImagine Washtenaw Avenue design principles; and (5) other identified community priorities, such as geothermal, solar panels or community gardens.

According to that staff memo, this visioning work will be funded by $100,000 in grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, with funds to support the development of affordable housing. The money was part of a $3 million federal grant awarded to the county in 2011 and administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

On Sept. 4, several commissioners expressed interest in exploring a broader set of options, beyond affordable housing – including the possible sale of the property. Ultimately, the item was postponed at that meeting. Board chair Yousef Rabhi had directed Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to work with commissioners and staff to bring forward an alternative resolution on Sept. 18.

However, when the Sept. 18 agenda was posted online, the resolution remained unchanged, aside from the amendment made on Sept. 4.

A couple of hours prior to the start of the Sept. 18 meeting, LaBarre emailed commissioners and The Chronicle with a substitute resolution that he brought forward during the meeting. It was much more general in its direction, stripping out most of the details related to the affordable housing focus. In addition to the composition of the community advisory committee (CAC), the new resolution’s main directive was stated this way:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners directs the CAC to provide recommendations to the Board of Commissioners relative to disposition, including an alternatives analysis; and preferred methods of community engagement for the Board of Commissioners to undertake during the disposition process;

The Sept. 18 resolution also set a deadline of Dec. 31, 2013 for the committee to deliver its analysis and recommendations to the board. [.pdf of substitute resolution] That resolution passed unanimously on Sept. 18, with three commissioners absent.

There was no discussion on this item during the Nov. 6 meeting.

Outcome: Appointments of the Platt Road advisory committee passed unanimously.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield Status

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a brownfield plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix. Initial approval had been given on Oct. 16, 2013. [.pdf of brownfield plan]

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.

Brownfield status allows 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.

A public hearing took place at the board’s Oct. 16 meeting. It occurred 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.

There was no board discussion on this item.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to give final approval to the brownfield plan.

Interim Public Health Officer

Ellen Rabinowitz was nominated to serve as interim health officer for Washtenaw County. She currently serves as executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, a job she’ll continue to hold. [.pdf of Rabinowitz resumé]

Ellen Rabinowitz, executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan and new interim public health officer.

The appointment is spurred by the retirement of current health officer Dick Fleece, effective Dec. 28. The position is mandated by the state, and requires a graduate degree and 5 years of full-time public health administration. Responsibilities include overseeing the county’s public health department.

According to a memo that accompanied the appointment resolution, the interim status will allow for time to make a decision about the permanent appointment. Both the interim and permanent appointments require approval by the state Dept. of Community Health. The staff memo also states that any savings received during the interim appointment will go toward reducing the use of fund balance projected in the 2013/2014 public health budget.

Before the Nov. 6 vote, Rabinowitz and Fleece both addressed the board. Rabinowitz told commissioners that Fleece’s retirement will leave a big hole, as he’s done some amazing work over the last five years. She said he’s leaving the department in great shape. It’s clearly a dynamic time in the field of health care, with the Affordable Care Act changing the nature of health care service delivery, she said. It opens up a lot of opportunities for the field of public health.

Commissioners praised both Rabinowitz and Fleece for their service. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) recalled that former county administrator Bob Guenzel often used Fleece as a model for those in public service. Fleece never failed to respond to a citizen’s request, Peterson said, and he’ll be deeply missed.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) told Rabinowitz that he really wants to see a public health board created. He asked her to report back to the board about what a public health board would mean to the department, and the process required to set it up. Rabinowitz replied that it’s an important issue to explore. The possibility of pulling together a board of experts is something she’s interested in exploring. Peterson said it should be a goal to establish such a board by the end of 2013, because public health advocates who might serve on the board should be involved in selecting a permanent director.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked county administrator Verna McDaniel for an update on possible restructuring of the public health department at the board’s Nov. 20 meeting.

Fleece told commissioners that he gave his full support to Rabinowitz, calling her the perfect person at the perfect time to take on this role, citing her connections to the health care field and her managerial abilities.

Regarding a public health board, Fleece said he’s heard varying opinions. Some people say that such boards require a lot of care and feeding to the extent that the board becomes a burden on staff. In other cases, the board can be an advocate and serve as a good source of information. There will be decisions to make regarding how much authority to give a public health board, he noted.

Fleece also pointed out that the county’s public health department already seeks advice from many sources, including the University of Michigan School of Public Health. He said he’d do everything he can to help with this process.

Commissioners gave Fleece a round of applause.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to appoint Ellen Rabinowitz as interim health officer.

Public Hearings Set

The board was ask to set two public hearings: (1) on Nov. 20 to get input on the 2014-2017 budget for Washtenaw County; and (2) on Jan. 8, 2014 to get feedback on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog.

Hearings on both of these items were already held on Oct. 16, 2013. However, no one spoke at those hearings, which were held after midnight as part of a meeting that lasted over six hours.

County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff had presented the budget on Oct. 2, 2013. Earlier on Nov. 6 the board gave initial approval to the budget, with some amendments, on a 7-2 vote over the dissent of Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

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]

The proposed ordinance to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees. [.pdf of dog license ordinance] [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Outcome: Without discussion, the board set both public hearings for Nov. 20.

Tax for Indigent Veterans Services

Commissioners were asked to approve an amendment to a resolution that authorized the levy of a millage for services to indigent veterans. Commissioners had passed the original resolution on Oct. 16, 2013.

That original resolution stated that the millage would only be assessed against real property in Washtenaw County. In fact, the intent is to assess the millage against all property located in the county. The resolution approved on Nov. 6 clarifies that intent.

The county will levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services. The new rate of 1/30th of a mill will be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The previous rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 this year.

Outcome: The amendment passed unanimously, without discussion.

Proposal to Rescind “Stand Your Ground” Resolution

At the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, commissioners had passed a resolution – on a 5-4 vote – urging the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of the Stand Your Ground law. They heard extensive public commentary on the issue at that meeting as well as at earlier meetings this fall, much of it from supporters of Stand Your Ground.

On Nov. 6, Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that corporation counsel Curtis Hedger had informed the board that a lawsuit had been filed against the county and that Hedger needed to retain outside counsel to defend the county. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Board Sued Over Stand Your Ground."]

The lawsuit was a direct result non-binding action that the board took that passed by one vote, Smith noted. If the lawsuit defense was handled internally, it wouldn’t be a concern, he said. But it’s being handled by an outside attorney who’s billing the county by the hour, he noted.

Because of that, he said, he was presenting a resolution to rescind the anti-Stand Your Ground resolution.

Outcome: No one seconded Smith’s motion, so the motion died for lack of support.

Stormwater/Asset Management Grant

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to applying for and accepting a state grant through the Stormwater/Asset Management program for $1.1 million over three years – from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017.

From left: Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Evan Pratt, and Harry Sheehan, the office’s environmental manager.

The grant is available through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and would be used by the county office of the water resources commissioner to develop a combined stormwater/asset management plan for Washtenaw County drains.

The funds are part of a broader SAW program – stormwater, asset management and wastewater – that Gov. Rick Snyder authorized in January 2013 to provide $420 million in grants and loans for water quality improvements.

According to a staff memo, the grant would “fund staffing, consulting, software and hardware to implement an asset management system, including inventory, condition assessment, criticality of assets, operation and maintenance planning, and capital improvements.” The intent of the plan is to “strengthen local units of government to make informed decisions with regard to stormwater collection, treatment, master planning, zoning and site plan review.”

Water resources commissioner Evan Pratt and Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the county office of the water resources commissioner, both attended the Nov. 6 board meeting but did not formally address the board.

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to this grant application. A final vote is expected on Nov. 20.

Emergency Management Performance Grant

The board considered a resolution to approve the acceptance of pass-through funds from the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security to support county emergency management operations. The funding of up to $86,677 would be used for the salary and fringe benefits for the county’s emergency management director. That position, part of the sheriff’s office, is held by Marc Breckenridge.

Breckenridge attended the Nov. 6 board meeting but did not formally address the board. Nor did commissioners raise any questions on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the emergency management performance grant. A final vote is expected on Nov. 20.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Delonis Center, Barrier Busters

Four people spoke about social services during the first opportunity for public commentary, including three people who represented the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor.

Martin Delonis addressed the county board on Nov. 6, thanking the county for its financial support of the Robert J. Delonis Center, a homeless shelter in Ann Arbor that’s named after his father. Martin Delonis serves on the board of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the center.

Ellen Schulmeister, the association’s CEO, read a thank-you letter from a former client of the Delonis Center – a former teacher and legal secretary in her mid-50s, who attempted suicide twice because of reoccurring homelessness. This woman also struggled with health issues, but during her stay at the Delonis Center she got the help she needed and is now living in her own apartment. Schulmeister told the board that this woman had specifically asked that her story be shared with the entities that support the center, which includes the county.

Martin Delonis told commissioners that the Robert J. Delonis Center is named after his father. Delonis said he recently followed in his father’s footsteps by joining the shelter association’s board. He thanked the board on behalf of his family, the Delonis Center, and the people that the center serves. He paraphrased a prayer that he said was important to his family: “We should not hope for tasks that are equal to our powers, but instead, powers equal to our tasks.” The county supports the shelter and helps its task of ending homelessness one person at a time, he said. He thanked commissioners for their continued commitment.

Debbie Beuche introduced herself as president of the shelter association’s board. She thanked commissioners for their support, saying that it means a lot for the community. She hoped they would continue that support.

Harriet Bakalar told commissioners that she’d been a social worker in this area since 1971, and wanted to speak about the importance of funding Barrier Busters. She’d heard there was some consideration about reducing funding for that program. For the last 13 years she’s worked for the Housing Bureau for Seniors, and has helped seniors as they make transitions. Many people in the county are extremely vulnerable to homelessness, she said. Many people work here but can’t afford to live here. Barrier Busters is a lifeline to many of the seniors that she works with, and the program has helped stabilize people’s housing situations. She didn’t think anyone would want to see seniors on the streets, so she encouraged commissioners to continue support of the Barrier Busters fund.

Communications & Commentary: 1,4 Dioxane

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) brought up the ongoing cleanup of the 1,4 dioxane plume. The environmental contamination is related to past activities of the former Gelman Sciences manufacturing operations in Scio Township. Gelman was later bought by Pall Corp. Martinez-Kratz serves on the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD), which is calling for better cleanup standards.

Martinez-Kratz said he was frustrated that the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) hasn’t yet updated the toxicity levels for 1,4 dioxane. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb. The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and set a new deadline for December 2013. The MDEQ is now proposing to leave the standards unchanged.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Martinez-Kratz noted that this affects residents in his district, but it’s difficult to inform them of the danger because of the different standards being used by the EPA and MDEQ. He’d been hoping the MDEQ would update its standards.

By way of background, a public hearing was held this month in Lansing on this issue, drawing several local residents and elected officials, including state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-District 53) of Ann Arbor.

The county board of commissioners has also previously taken a stance on this issue. At their Sept. 18, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to direct staff to explore options – including possible legal action – to help set cleanup criteria in Michigan for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane. In part, the item relates to a 1,4 dioxane plume stemming from contaminants at the former Gelman Sciences plant.

On Nov. 6, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Martinez-Kratz for his leadership on CARD. Rabhi had served on CARD during his first two years in office, he noted, and he knew he was passing it off to someone who’s passionate about this issue.

Later in the meeting, outgoing public health officer Dick Fleece noted that he’d been working on the issue of 1,4 dioxane for decades. “Good luck with that,” he quipped. It’s something where there’s a lot of work but not a lot of results. He said he’d make sure the board’s Sept. 18 resolution on this issue gets into the public record as part of the public hearings that were taking place in Lansing.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Tom Partridge spoke during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary. He told commissioners he was advocating for the county’s most vulnerable residents, who need affordable housing, shelter for the homeless, health care, and public transportation. It’s dishonorable for commissioners to come to these meetings and disregard the needs of people who are virtually on the steps of the county administration building, he said.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 20, 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!

Kate Murphy, left, and Anne Alatalo attended the county board's Oct. 13 working session to voice support for funding the Humane Society of Huron Valley. (Photos by the writer.)

HSHV, which is under contract with the county to provide state-mandated animal control services, is among several outside agencies that the county funds. The proposed two-year budget for 2012 and 2013 includes a total of $1.2 million in annual cuts to outside agencies – the county budget would drop HSHV’s annual funding from $500,000 to $250,000. HSHV’s current contract with the county ends on Dec. 31. Some commissioners expressed dismay, but indicated that in light of other pressing needs – like food and shelter for struggling families – the cuts to HSHV are appropriate.

The other outside agency item that received attention on Thursday was the county’s $125,000 membership with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, as well as $10,000 for water quality work provided by SEMCOG. Paul Tait, SEMCOG’s executive director, attended the meeting with two other staff members to answer questions and urge commissioners to retain their participation in the regional planning group. None of the six other counties who are part of SEMOG are withdrawing their membership, Tait said.

Several other budget cuts are proposed in this category, including a decrease in funding to the Delonis Center homeless shelter (from $160,000 to $25,000) and the Safe House domestic violence shelter (from $96,000 to $48,000). Money for the county’s coordinated funding of human services – targeting six priority areas, including housing and food – will drop by $128,538 (from $1,015,000 to $886,462).

But most of Thursday’s discussion by the board focused on the two areas that received attention during public commentary: SEMCOG and HSHV. In addition, Chuck Warpehoski, director of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, spoke on behalf of 94 co-signers of a letter urging the county to continue funding human services.

The board will also hold a public hearing on the budget at its Oct. 19 meeting, and it’s likely that supporters from other groups will address the board at that time.

Setting the stage for the board’s discussion on Thursday, commissioners got a staff update on the need for basic assistance in the county. It was not encouraging news.

Update on Need for Human Services

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, was asked to give commissioners an update on the demand for food, shelter and other basic needs in Washtenaw County. She’d been part of a presentation on the same issue at the board’s Sept. 8 working session, and began her remarks on Thursday by noting that the news since then isn’t encouraging.

Emergency services like those provided at the county’s Harriet Street community services office or by the Barrier Busters network are in greater demand. There’s been an unprecedented number of calls, Callan said, and state and federal funding is diminished. Local nonprofit agencies are bracing for funding cuts from the county, she said, and the county itself expects cuts in state and federal funds it receives for these services.

Callan reminded commissioners that the state legislature has passed a 48-month lifetime limit for receiving cash assistance from the state Dept. of Human Services (DHS), which was to take effect Oct. 1 and will affect 72 low-income households in Washtenaw County. [By comparison, 6,560 families in Wayne County will be affected.] A court had ruled that people receiving this aid hadn’t been properly notified about the cutoff, so families and individuals got payments in October, but will be cut off on Nov. 1. Each month after that, about 10-12 additional families will be cut off in the county, she said.

The local DHS office has a caseload of 54,000 cases, Callan said. Of those, 40,000 relate to food stamps. DHS has now instituted an asset test for people to qualify for food assistance – you can’t have more than $5,000 in assets, excluding your home. This new layer has added to the difficulty of processing cases and is costing more in staff time than the money it’s saving, Callan said. That, in turn, is impacting local agencies that provide food assistance, like Food Gatherers. [The asset test was criticized in an Oct. 14 opinion piece by three former state budget directors, published in the Detroit News. The writers urged Gov. Rick Snyder's administration to reconsider the test.]

Food Gatherers is also facing severe cuts from some of its funding sources, even as demand increases, Callan said. She noted that the state has eliminated the tax credit for food banks, which will also impact funding.

Regarding the homeless in Washtenaw County, Callan said that last year, 4,700 people were homeless – 55% of those for the first time. Shelters are reporting increased demand compared to last year, but fundraising is more difficult because tax credits for shelters have been eliminated too. The Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center shelter in Ann Arbor, is reporting that it won’t be able to afford to open its warming center this winter, unless additional funding is raised. [At the Ann Arbor city council's Oct. 17 meeting, $25,000 was authorized to fill in the gap between private donations and the roughly $81,000 budget for the warming center.]

The area’s rent burden remains high, Callan said. The average rent and utilities is about $1,000 per month. For a family of three with an income of $18,500, that means they’re paying about 70% of their income on housing, with only about $500 per month left over for food, clothing and other needs.

Callan said that SOS Community Services has become the single point-of-entry for people seeking housing assistance. [Its housing access phone number is 734-961-1999.] Last week, SOS fielded 195 calls for help with housing – 38% of those were from people facing eviction, 33% were seeking shelter, and 11% were homeless seeking permanent housing. For about half of the calls, the resources weren’t available to help and people were turned away, Callan said.

In summarizing other funding cuts, Callan said that DHS is cutting childcare assistance by 5-15%, and reducing the number of hours covered from 90 to 80 per week. That decrease is especially difficult for parents who must take the bus to work, she said.

Callan also reported that at the end of September, unemployment insurance for more than 800 people in the county expired. About 800 more are expected to time-out in each of the coming months.

She concluded by noting that her office is developing a job training program for the east side of the county, where unemployment is highest. Commissioners can expect to see a fleshed-out proposal at their Nov. 2 meeting.

Outside Agency Funding: Overview

Tina Gavalier of the county’s finance office gave a brief summary of the administration’s budget proposal regarding outside agency funding. To help address a projected $17.5 million two-year budget deficit, the county’s original goal was to cut $1 million from its spending on outside agencies. That category includes dues, agencies that provide human services like housing and childcare, and special initiatives like support for the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK. [.pdf list of all outside agency funding]

The proposed budget allocates a total of $1.855 million to outside agencies in 2012 and 2013. That’s down from $3.095 million in 2011 – a $1.2 million decrease per year.

The most dramatic cuts include eliminating the county’s $125,000 annual membership in the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), cutting funding for the Humane Society of Huron Valley’s contract from $500,000 in 2011 to $250,000, and cutting funding to the Delonis Center homeless shelter from $160,000 to $25,000. Funding for the Safe House domestic violence shelter would drop from $96,000 to $48,000.

Also eliminated completely would be payments to the Huron River Watershed Council ($11,892), the NEW Center ($21,000), and the Area Agency on Aging ($23,712). The $200,000 for the county’s reserve for housing would be cut, as would $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).

The packet of materials for commissioners also included a five-year funding history for outside agencies. [.pdf of five-year funding] In 2006, funding in that category totaled $1.158 million, reaching a high in 2011 of $3.095 million. The proposed $1.855 million would return funding to roughly 2010 levels.

Outside Agency Funding: SEMCOG

The proposed 2012 and 2013 budget proposes eliminating the county’s $125,000 membership with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, as well as $10,000 for water quality work provided by SEMCOG.

Outside Agency Funding: SEMCOG – Public Commentary

Paul Tait, executive director for the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), told commissioners that he understood they had difficult decisions to make – these are not easy times. He referenced the memo he had sent to the board outlining benefits of SEMCOG membership. [.pdf of Tait's letter] Because of the agency’s ability to leverage regional economies of scale to obtain federal grants, he said, they are able to return value to the county 10 times in excess of the county’s dues. [The memo lists items totaling $1,355,500 that SEMCOG brings to Washtenaw County, including data collection, and work developing commuter rail and the Detroit Regional Aerotropolis.] Tait noted that the county’s dues to SEMCOG have actually dropped by 13% in recent years.

Washtenaw County is part of the region, Tait said – 35% of workers in the county commute here from other areas, and nearly 24% of Washtenaw County residents commute to jobs in nearby counties. Washtenaw County officials need to be at the table, he said. It’s also an investment in the county’s future, he said, and he urged commissioners to retain their membership.

Outside Agency Funding: Commissioner Discussion – SEMCOG

Wes Prater asked Tait to answer some questions. Referring to Tait’s list of services that SEMCOG provides, Prater noted that it states the county would pay $325,000 for activities that SEMCOG now does related to developing commuter rail from Ann Arbor to Detroit. If the county drops its SEMCOG membership, who’ll pick up that cost? Prater asked.

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, right, chairs the board's working sessions. At right, Paul Tait, executive director of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, lobbied for the county to continue its membership in SEMCOG.

Tait said that SEMCOG has taken the lead on that project, along with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. SEMCOGS been doing it on a shoestring since there’s been no dedicated funding, he said, but the project is close to getting federal dollars. By early 2012, there might even be demo service, he said. The project needs a champion, Tait said, and he didn’t know who would fill that role if SEMCOG didn’t.

Prater said he was concerned about dropping membership. He questioned whether the county would need to get certified in order to receive certain federal transportation grants – would the county road commission be capable of that? He felt there needed to be more of a conversation about the implications of leaving SEMCOG.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d continue discussions with SEMCOG executives and county commissioners on the issue.

Ronnie Peterson noted that SEMCOG is one of the few organizations that puts multiple local governments in the same room, including six other counties as well as townships and cities. He asked whether other counties are cutting their memberships. No, Tait said – only Washtenaw County is considering that. Tait added that SEMCOG would continue to provide services to local municipalities within the county that are also members, like Ann Arbor. But it’s the regional, long-term efforts – like commuter rail – that benefit from having county officials at the table, he said.

Peterson requested seeing a 10-year list of services that SEMCOG has provided to the county. It’s more than just transportation, he said. Tait replied that SEMCOG works with the county’s water resources commissioner on various projects, and provides discounted aerial photography, among a host of other services.

Peterson said he can’t imagine walking way with six other counties in the room. What would be the substitute for regional planning? he asked.

Yousef Rabhi said the ultimate question is this: If the board decides to keep the $125,000 membership, then where will that amount be cut elsewhere in the budget? Peterson replied that the buck stops with the board, not the administration. The board is responsible for dealing with the budget, and they need all the facts they can get before making a decision about SEMCOG.

Rabhi noted that the budget discussion certainly will continue, regarding SEMCOG and all other items. He’s been attending SEMCOG meetings on behalf of the board since he was elected, and one value is being part of a regional conversation that includes Detroit, Oakland County and Macomb County, among others. They don’t always agree, but it’s a productive conversation. If Washtenaw County decides to remain a member, Rabhi added, there are ways to derive more benefits than they currently are. SEMCOG offers services like training programs and workshops that they could take more advantage of, he said. But ultimately, it’s about finding the money.

Prater told his board colleagues that if there’s value in SEMCOG, he didn’t want to lose that opportunity. They needed more information before deciding to withdraw.

Alicia Ping suggested perhaps withdrawing membership for a couple of years, then rejoining. It’s not like the whole county would go without SEMCOG’s services, she said – other municipalities are members, too.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith recalled that Gov. Rick Snyder had proposed legislation regarding the creation of metro governments. He said he hadn’t heard anything about it recently, but that might serve as an alternative to SEMCOG.

By way of background, Snyder outlined his proposal for metropolitan authorities in a March 21, 2011 message regarding community development and local government reforms. An excerpt:

We should permit open minds across the state to not only enter into collaborations, but to consolidate governmental units and activities as appropriate in their respective communities. The final decision regarding such consolidation should be left at the local level, but the consideration of such consolidation must not be prevented or discouraged by state government. I will support new legislation that permits the establishment of metropolitan government as a metropolitan authority in Michigan. Under such legislation, existing county government would be superseded by the new metropolitan government, with all the functions of the county and city government performed instead by the metropolitan government. In addition, the legislative and executive powers of the city would be transferred to the metropolitan government.

I want to emphasize again that such legislation cannot and should not be mandatory. Rather, it should be drafted in a way that permits broader discussion about consolidation at the local level.

Outside Agency Funding: Humane Society, Human Services

Several human services agencies that receive support from the county are facing cuts in the proposed 2012 and 2013 budget. In addition, the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which is under contract with the county to provide state-mandated animal control services, is slated for a cut in annual funding from $500,000 to $250,000. HSHV’s current contract with the county ends on Dec. 31.

Outside Agency Funding: HSHV, Human Services – Public Commentary

Six people spoke on behalf of the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV), and one person spoke on behalf of 94 others in the community who signed a letter of support for human services funding.

Kate Murphy said she lives in Livingston County so she doesn’t have the opportunity to vote for or against any of the commissioners. But she does spend a substantial percentage of her entertainment and charitable giving budget in Washtenaw County, she said, adding that she hoped that gave her some standing for her comments. She also noted that her experience as a former administrator at Michigan State University and as someone who ran for public office makes her aware of the financial challenges that the county faces. Even so, the proposed 50% cut to HSHV funding “seems beyond drastic to me.”

At least two commissioners appear to be under the impression that there’s no mandate to fund services for abandoned and abused animals, Murphy said, but that’s wrong. If the funding cuts go through, who will take care of the 4,500 abandoned and abused animals that were rescued by HSHV last year? She wanted to hear their plans. Murphy gave examples of three dogs who had been saved by HSHV, and asked what would have become of them otherwise.  She also noted that in Livingston County, a pack of wild dogs have attacked and killed two people – dogs left in the wild will form packs, and it’s dangerous. She urged commissioners to rethink cuts to the HSHV contract.

Jerry Nordblom of Webster Township noted that he’s a volunteer for seven local nonprofits, including HSHV. He told commissioners that a raccoon had come onto the deck of his house and was dying – he called the humane society and they came out within an hour, took the animal back to their facility and put it out of its misery. Nordblom also described the saga of a dog named Brownie, who was beaten with a tire iron and dumped by a man who also abused his girlfriend. The man, who at that time was out on parole for another crime, eventually pled guilty to a charge of animal torture – a felony.

Nordblom said the humane society helped him prepare a victim impact statement for the dog, describing how animal abuse is a symptom of the same pathological problem that leads to other violent crimes. Judge Schwartz agreed with him vigorously, Norblum said, and gave the maximum sentence. Meanwhile, Brownie has been renamed and is now a trained therapy dog, visiting nursing homes and children in schools. Nordblom said when he joked in an email that the dog would be available to commissioners for therapy, he didn’t mean to imply that they had dementia or acted like children.

Jo-Anne Julius of Pittsfield Township said she’s one of more than 500 volunteers for HSHV, and worked for them when the nonprofit was still operating out of a “shanty,” before its new facility was built. The buildings had been deplorable but the care was stellar, she said. Julius encouraged commissioners to visit the new facility, saying that it’s not a place where animals go to die. The kill rate is 18% – the lowest in the state.

Customer service is a priority, and she’s proud to be part of it, Julius said. Children and neighborhoods are safe because of HSHV’s animal control service. There are families that are having their homes foreclosed and can’t keep their pets. Who will they call? Who’ll take the 1,200 calls each year for help with abandoned and injured animals or diseased wildlife? It will fall to the county, she said. Julius said she wouldn’t mind paying more taxes to support such an efficient, essential organization. Please uphold the county’s end of the contract, she said.

Heather Karschner of Ann Arbor told commissioners that she works in the nonprofit sector and understands the challenges that the county faces. Some causes will inevitably lose funding. But HSHV is a smart investment, she said. It’s an innovative, effective organization with one of the highest save rates in the state. They take care of basic services, and conduct about 500 cruelty investigations each year. Working for them as a volunteer, Karschner said she can attest that there’s not a lot of waste in the organization. They use their resources well, their workers are dedicated, and the volunteers equal about 17 full-time workers, she said.

Anne Alatalo, a Superior Township resident, said she adopted her first pet from the humane society in 1957 – she’s a lifelong county resident. What message are they giving if the county doesn’t support this service? she asked. She’s especially concerned about cruelty cases. HSHV has a room full of unadoptable cats who were rescued from a hoarder, she said. It’s important to be compassionate. Alatalo also noted that many people believe HSHV gets funding from other sources, like the federal government, the U.S. Humane Society or the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). They don’t, she said. What’s more, the $500,000 from the county is something that HSHV has counted on in its planning – she urged commissioners to continue their support.

John Koselka identified himself as an attorney and Scio Township resident. He said he reviewed a recent article about the county’s funding for HSHV, noting there were some incorrect statements. The county is not giving a charitable contribution to HSHV – it’s paying a low amount for services that the county is mandated to provide. If the county provided those same services, rather than contract with HSHV, it would cost much more, he said. The HSHV estimates that it would cost the county $1.5 million annually to provide the mandated services itself – and that doesn’t include the cost of building a facility. If HSHV tells the county it can’t provide the services for $250,000, then what?

There are about 10 cruelty cases every year, and the county must house those animals in a humane way until the court case is over, Koselka said. Who will do that? What if the county had to house 350 animals at a private facility for $12 per day, with an average stay of 90 days? He noted that last year the county paid $180,000 for two animal control officers. But mostly what they do is pick up animals and drop them off at HSHV, he said.

Though she did not attend Thursday’s working session, HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf had prepared a six-page letter earlier this month that responded to the proposed cuts. [.pdf of Hilgendorf's letter] In part, the letter states:

When
 we
 were 
planning
 to 
build 
our 
new
 animal
 shelter, our
 contract 
with 
the
 County 
was 
$200,000 
annually
 for
these 
services 
–
  a 
level 
we
 knew
 we
 absolutely 
could 
not
sustain 
going 
forward. 

Therefore, 
we
 offered 
the 
County 
the
 option 
to 
either 
pay 
us 
a 
fair 
amount
 closer 
to 
actual 
costs 
or 
to 
make 
plans 
to 
build 
and 
run
 their 
own
 animal 
control 
facility.

 This 
was 
a 
very 
important 
turning 
point.

 HSHV 
would 
have
 needed 
a 
shelter 
only
 half 
the
 size 
and
 half 
the
 cost 
if 
we 
weren’t 
providing 
contracted 
County
 services.

Then 
County 
Administrator
 Bob
 Guenzel
 and 
the 
Board 
of
 Commissioners 
said
 unequivocally
 they
 did
 not 
want 
to
 provide 
this 
service 
themselves
 and
 understood 
the
 vast
 cost 
savings 
and 
benefits 
to
 the 
community 
in 
this
 contractual 
arrangement – a
 clear
 win/win.
 As
 such,
 we
 kindly
 agreed
 to 
a 
multi‐year, 
incremental
 strategy
 that
allowed 
the 
County
 to
 increase 
our 
contract 
over
 four
 years 
until 
finally 
reaching 
$500,000 
in 
2010.
 After
 that,
 we
 agreed
 that 
HSHV 
would 
get
 an 
annual
 cost 
of 
living 
increase 
so 
that 
in
 10 
years 
we
 would 
not 
find 
ourselves 
in 
the
 same 
compromising
 financial 
position.

Last week 
the 
County 
Commissioners unilaterally 
changed
 that 
agreement 
without
 renegotiation
 or 
even 
notifying
 the 
HSHV.
 So 
today, 
we 
are
 at
 another 
crossroads 
and 
the
 County 
will
 need
 to 
decide
 whether 
they 
want 
to 
provide
 HSHV 
fair 
payment
 for 
services 
rendered 
or 
they
 want 
to 
provide 
some 
or 
all 
of
 the
 services 
themselves.

The HSHV board president Michael Walsh has also sent a letter to commissioners, stating that the humane society’s board and staff were shocked to hear of the funding cuts. [.pdf of Walsh's letter] Attachments to the letter included (1) a financial and legal analysis by HSHV of the services it provides to the county; (2) a May 1, 2008 letter from then-county administrator Bob Guenzel to University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman, which references a 10-year contract with HSHV; and (3) a chart comparing the cost of animal control services provided by HSHV compared to other counties.

Speaking in support of human services funding, Chuck Warpehoski, director of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, told commissioners on Thursday that he was there on behalf of 94 co-signers of a letter urging the county to continue funding human services. [.pdf of joint letter] The letter makes three points, he said. It thanks the county for supporting the social safety net, which is important for the community. It acknowledges that the commissioners have difficult decisions ahead. For his final point, Warpehoski unfurled the letter with the 94 signatures, and asked that the county not balance its budget on the backs of the poor.

The commissioners are hearing from groups like SEMCOG, which says it does important work, he noted. But it’s also important that children whose parents have lost their jobs have food on the table, he said. Yes, it’s important that the humane society takes care of animals that have suffered abuse, but it’s also important the Safe House can provide support for victims of domestic violence. Warpehoski urged commissioners to continue their support for human services.

Outside Agency Funding: HSHV, Human Services – Commissioner Discussion

Barbara Bergman said her first concern is for the well-being of children and families in this county. There’s a real food scarcity, and whenever anyone asks her what they can do to help, she tells them to write a check to their local food bank.

Bergman said she grew up on a farm in Livingston County and has had a dog almost all of her adult life, though she doesn’t have one now. She knows that rogue animals present a serious problem, but it’s also a problem if children don’t get the support they need – they sometimes grow up and do horrible things, she said, even though they don’t bite.

She noted that humans are the singular beings who understand their own mortality. Her dogs did not understand that, when she’s had to put them down. The animals don’t deserve to suffer. She described one dog she had that was “snarky” – whenever she left it with sitters, she made sure they understood that their safety came first.

The county’s contract with HSHV ends on Dec. 31 of this year, Bergman noted. The county previously had offered a 10-year contract, but the humane society didn’t want that, she said. Bergman said she’ll be among those commissioners who’ll ask the county administration to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for the animal control services that are mandated by the state. She’s pleased that the HSHV doesn’t kill animals unless forced to, but if it’s a choice between that and supporting families, then it’s really no choice.

Bergman said she doesn’t know what the county will be able to buy for $250,000, but they should find out. It probably won’t be luxurious for animals, and she’s sorry about that. It will be humane, but they probably won’t be able to save as many animals as they have in the past. But again, she said, animals don’t have intimations of mortality. And on a hierarchy of needs, she said, the needs that take priority are those supported by the 94 people who signed a letter of support for human services.

Alicia Ping described this meeting as the worst one she’s attended in her 12 years of public services. [Prior to her election in 2010 as county commissioner, Ping served on the Saline city council.] Unfortunately, when you allocate money, people get used to that level of funding, she said. And now, the money isn’t there. The humane society funding is what bothers her most, she said, because she’s passionate for those who can’t speak for themselves – animals and children. It was breaking her heart, but they needed to fund immediate needs more so than initiatives that are farther out, like SEMCOG. She noted that the county can’t even afford to repair its roads.

Dan Smith observed that in looking at the five-year funding levels, some of the 2012-2013 recommendations are simply taking funding levels back to what they were three or four years ago. While severe, that’s the reality that the county is facing, and nobody likes it. He also noted that Act 88 restricts the uses on which millage proceeds can be used – it’s for economic development and agriculture, and can’t support human services.

Yousef Rabhi said the funding cuts aren’t just numbers – they represent people, and animals. For him, the funding cuts to the Delonis Center and to coordinated funding stood out, because those areas support people who are facing challenges. The Delonis shelter funding is being proposed to drop from $160,000 to $25,000. “To me, that’s wrong,” Rabhi said. [Coordinated funding – the county's share of pooled resources with the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw United Way and the Washtenaw Urban County, to fund prioritized human services – would drop from $1.015 million this year to $886,462 in 2012 and 2013.]

Rabhi said he’d rather see the county eliminate its $26,230 annual dues to the Michigan Association of Counties. It’s better to spend that money on coordinated funding or services for the homeless, he said. The county already hires a lobbyist in Lansing to advocate for the county’s specific interests, he said, and it’s not clear that the more general advocacy that MAC provides is necessary. [At its Oct. 5 meeting, the board gave initial approval of a two-year contract renewal for Governmental Consultant Services Inc. – lobbyist Kirk Profit is a director of the Lansing-based firm. A final vote on the contract is expected on Oct. 19.]

Bergman also said she questioned the county’s membership in the National Association of Counties, but she didn’t see the dues listed in the budget. She agreed with Ping – these are difficult times. Bergman said the state needs a progressive income tax – people like her, who live in the lap of luxury compared to most of the world, should pay more, she said.

Ronnie Peterson wanted to know the specifics of the county’s contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley. Was the county fulfilling its end? He also wondered who would provide those services, if HSHV did not. It’s one thing to talk about funding, he said, but first the board needs to talk about their obligations. County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d provide that information to the board. [.pdf of current contract]

By way of background, the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, prepared a memo of points related to the county’s relationship with HSHV that had been emailed to commissioners the previous day, on Oct. 12. [.pdf of Hedger's memo] Points made in the memo include:

• There is no mandate in the state Dog Law of 1919 indicating how long a county must hold a stray or unlicensed dog before it may be euthanized.
• The county is not responsible for stray cats, raccoons or any other species of animal.
• Under the Dangerous Animals Act (MCLA 287.321 et seq), a dangerous animal may be ordered by a court to be placed in a facility, including a humane society building, pending the outcome of the legal proceeding involving that animal. The owner, however, not the county or Humane Society, is financially responsible for the boarding of the animal during this period.
• The county paid $1 million toward the $7.5 million cost of the new HSHV facility, and issued bonds for the remaining $6.5 million. HSHV is making payments on those bonds, and is saving $682,000 over the seven-year repayment of the bond because the county’s bond ratings resulted in lower interest rates.
• Funding to HSHV from the county over the past decade has ranged from $159,000 in 2001 to $500,000 in 2011.
• In the fall of 2007, the county discussed funding the HSHV via a 10-year contract beginning in 2008 with the HSHV receiving $300,000 in 2008, $400,000 in 2009 and $500,000 per year for the remainder of the contract, with a 3% cost of living increase per year. However, the board never approved a 10-year contract and instead continued to execute 2-year contracts with the HSHV – including the current one that expires at the end of 2011. HSHV did not object when the proposed 10-year deal did not materialize in 2008, and agreed to the 2-year deal.

Peterson said he didn’t blame the county administration for proposing the HSHV cuts, but someone else had suggested it and it wasn’t him – his fingerprints aren’t on it, he said. HSHV supporters wouldn’t be sending emails to commissioners if this proposal had previously been discussed in public view, he said. If that had happened, the board wouldn’t have to face this “embarrassment of protests,” he said. When had this been deliberated? If it happened in private, that troubled him.

The HSHV is highly praised throughout the state and is a model for other organizations, he said. The relationship with the county needs to be clarified by the corporation counsel, he added. Hedger “does work for the board, doesn’t he?” Peterson asked.

McDaniel replied that she and her staff would provide detailed information to commissioners, but she cautioned against relying on verbal legal opinion. The reason to provide the corporation counsel’s legal opinion in writing is that it gives him the opportunity to conduct thorough research, she said.

Peterson argued that the HSHV contract should have been provided to the board in its meeting packet of materials. The board needs to be clear on what the relationship is, before voting on the budget. He said he’s independent in his thinking, “unbossed and uncontrolled” – and he likes it that way. HSHV and SEMCOG provide services that can’t be found elsewhere, yet they’ve been lumped into the same category as other types of funding, he said.

Peterson also said he wants to revisit the way the county handles coordinated funding. [The coordinated funding approach was approved unanimously by the board earlier this year, though Peterson has previously expressed reservations about the process. It involves a partnership of the county, city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw United Way and other entities to award funding based on a set of community priorities. The six priorities are housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health safety net, and food. The process is managed by the office of community development, a joint county/city of Ann Arbor department. For an overview, see Chronicle coverage: "Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned"]

There will never be enough money, Peterson said, but the current system pits HSHV against other agencies – and the humane society will never win if they’re competing against food for children. The county needs to sit down with representatives from the University of Michigan, United Way, the chamber of commerce and other entities to address this problem, he said. Literacy is another important need, he said.

Bergman clarified with Hedger that the commissioners had been sent a communication about the HSHV contract status. Hedger replied that he also planned to follow-up with additional research.

Rabhi said it’s unfortunate they’ve come to this point. The budget decisions are obviously difficult, and many people have taken cuts – county employees, the Delonis Center, Safe House and others, he noted. No one on the board is an animal hater, he said. There is a state mandate for the county to provide certain animal control services, he said, and he wanted to find out exactly what that mandate is, and how much it should cost the county. After that basic service is provided – via HSHV or another entity – then the county can look at doing something beyond that, if they want, he said.

Rabhi also noted that this discussion needed to be held in the context of the long-term support that the county has provided HSHV. That includes giving the nonprofit $1 million toward construction of the new facility, and issuing the bonds – saving nearly $700,000 off the cost of the debt. That’s all in addition to annual financial allocations in the budget, he said. He’s proud of that relationship, but he doesn’t like it when HSHV supporters talk about walking away from it if they don’t get as much money as they want. ”Put the guns down,” he said. “We can work together.”

Peterson said it’s not about the funding – it’s about the contractual agreement. Your word should be your bond, he said – that’s integrity, and it would matter to him in determining how he’ll vote.

Outside Agency Funding: Agriculture & Economic Development

Alicia Ping asked several questions related to the Food Systems Economic Partners (FSEP). The county has allocated $15,000 for the organization. What does FSEP do? she asked. County administrator Verna McDaniel described it as an excellent program providing support for the regional food network, and said she could provide more detailed information if Ping wanted it.

McDaniel noted that FSEP is funded by the county with proceeds from the Act 88 millage. [At its Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, the board voted to levy 0.05 mills for support of economic development and agriculture. The millage is expected to raise $688,913 – much of it will be used to fund Ann Arbor SPARK, the area's economic development agency. Jennifer Fike, FSEP's executive director, spoke during public commentary at the Sept. 21 meeting as well as other board meetings this year. Because the Michigan statute that authorizes this millage predates the state’s Headlee Amendment, it can be approved by the board without a voter referendum. Ping voted against the Act 88 levy.]

Ping asked whether FSEP feeds anyone, or does it help children get access to healthier food. McDaniel replied that the agency provides agricultural-related education and training, and that one of its missions is to support work like the Farm to School program.

Ping also asked about funding for the law library – $12,400 annually. McDaniel said that’s a state-mandated service that the county must provide, giving access to legal research for local attorneys. [The library is located next to the Washtenaw County Bar Association office in the county courthouse at 101 N. Huron in Ann Arbor. It has two computers with access to several legal research databases.] In response to a query from Ping, McDaniel said she didn’t know if the library is open to the general public.

Ping then objected to increased funding for Ann Arbor SPARK – from $200,000 to $230,000. McDaniel said it wasn’t actually an increase, but that $30,000 had dropped off from another county funding source, so the Act 88 millage was adjusted to cover that amount. The administration felt it was critical to continue employment-related funding. Ping said she opposed the Act 88 millage, and said that everyone was experiencing cuts – SPARK should be no different.

Dan Smith agreed with a comment that Barbara Bergman had made earlier in the meeting – he encouraged residents to write checks to causes that they support. Most of the county’s revenues come from property taxes, he noted, and property values have declined. His own house is worth 20% less than when he bought it 11 years ago. That’s great for him personally since he has to pay lower taxes, he said, but that’s also why the county is facing cuts.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith.

Absent: Leah Gunn, Conan Smith, Rob Turner.

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

Ann Arbor city council chambers on Aug. 15, 2011. Despite appearances, the city of Ann Arbor does not currently have a balloon payment due that will put the city up against its debt ceiling. (Photo by the writer).

The city council originally gave its approval to the selection of Village Green as the purchaser of the city-owned First and Washington lot back in 2006. To make up for the fact that the First and Washington deal has not yet been finalized, on Monday the council approved a $3 million inter-fund loan from its pooled investment fund. The money is needed to pay construction bills for the city’s new municipal center.

A year earlier, in 2005, the city received a recommendation from a blue-ribbon task force to change the composition of the board of trustees for its retirement system – to a mix on the board that is less heavily weighted towards members who are beneficiaries of the system. And on Monday, the council approved the Nov. 8 ballot language that will ask voters to change the city charter, which specifies the composition of the board.

A year before that, in 2004, the city council gave direction to city staff to develop an ordinance that would regulate idling vehicles. On Monday, the city council formally received – but took no action on – a resolution from its environmental commission recommending a draft anti-idling ordinance.

Likely dating back even earlier was an agenda item that addresses a point of ongoing friction between the city and the University of Michigan: reimbursement for the costs associated with traffic control during home football games. On Monday, the council approved a resolution that sets Aug. 25 as a deadline for completing a contract that reimburses the city for those costs. Otherwise, the city administrator is directed not to provide the signs and signals operations during home games.

In other business, the council gave final approval to the reapportionment of the five city wards, which will take effect after the Nov. 8 election. The council also set the application fee for medical marijuana business licenses at $600. The city’s medical marijuana licensing legislation, approved in June, takes effect later this month. Mayor John Hieftje also announced nominations for four of the five slots on the newly-established medical marijuana licensing board.

The mayor also announced nominations to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. Joan Lowenstein and John Mouat were nominated for reappointment, while Gary Boren, recently elected as chair of the board for the coming year, was not.

At the meeting, the DDA was also highlighted during public commentary by the owner of Jerusalem Garden, a restaurant adjacent to the construction site of the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure, which the DDA is managing. The restaurant has seen revenues drop during construction. He reiterated some of the points he’s made previously when addressing the council and the DDA board, and this time called on the council to think about how to apply lessons learned from the current situation in the future.

Economic development was also part of the council meeting in the form of a resolution the council passed that urges the Washtenaw County board of commissioners to levy a tax to fund economic development. The tax is based on Act 88 of 1913 and does not require voter approval.

The proposed Fuller Road Station maintained a presence during council proceedings in the form of public commentary, as well as a reminder from the council to the mayor that he’d previously indicated a council work session would be scheduled on the project.

Inter-fund Loan for Municipal Building

The council was asked to approve the temporary loan of $3 million from its pooled investment fund (Fund 0099) to the building fund for its new municipal center (Fund 0008), which is nearing completion. The municipal center is located at Fifth and Huron.

Inter-fund Loan: Background

The loan is needed because the sale of the city-owned First and Washington property to Village Green for its City Apartments development has not yet been finalized.

As a historical point, the city council approved the selection of Village Green as the buyer of the First and Washington property at its Aug. 10, 2006 meeting. On that occasion, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) cast the sole dissenting vote.

The new municipal center’s financing plan included $3 million in proceeds from that sale. The loan from the city’s pooled investment fund will allow the construction bills to be paid.

The city’s pooled investment fund includes all eligible cash across all city funds – interest earned on the pooled funds is apportioned back to each fund based on the relative amount of cash from that fund in the pool.

The building fund will incur a cost of 1.93% annual interest on the money lent from the investment pool. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, on a short-term basis the inter-fund lending approach is more desirable than borrowing money from a lending institution, because of lower transaction costs, lower interest rates and no prepayment penalties.

The short-term financing strategy of lending the building fund $3 million from the pooled investment fund will not have an impact on the city’s general fund, if the land sale is finalized. However, the short-term financing strategy does not eliminate the risk to the general fund, if the land sale does not go through.

The city bonded for about $47 million for the municipal building project. The yearly bond payments of $1.85 million can be broken down roughly as follows: $508,000 in TIF (tax increment finance) capture pledged by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; $490,000 in revenue from antenna rights; $455,000 in elimination of leases for space at other locations; $175,000 in elimination of utilities for leased space; $225,000 pledged by the 15th District Court facility fund.

The council had been advised by interim city administrator and chief financial officer Tom Crawford at its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting to expect some kind of short-term financing proposal on the Aug. 15 agenda. And more than a year earlier, at a city council work session in April 2010, the council discussed the city’s contingency plan of taking out short-term financing in the event the land sale did not materialize.

With respect to the land sale, at its Aug. 4 meeting, the council extended a purchase option agreement with the developer Village Green for the First and Washington site, where the developer plans to build Ann Arbor City Apartments. It’s a 9-story, 99-foot-tall building with 156 dwelling units, which includes a 244-space parking deck on its first two stories.

The land deal was originally set at $3.3 million, but was reduced by the council at its June 6, 2011 meeting to $3.2 million. The reduction in price approved at the council’s June 6 meeting was based on a “bathtub design” for the foundation that is intended to prevent water from ever entering the parking structure, eliminating the need for pumping water out into the city’s stormwater system. However, the Aug. 4 purchase option extension came with a charge by the city to Village Green of $50,000.

The parking deck portion of Village Green’s City Apartments project is being developed in cooperation with the Ann Arbor DDA, which has pledged to make payments on around $9 million worth of bonds for the project, after the structure is completed and has been issued a permit for occupancy.

According to the staff memo accompanying the Aug. 4 resolution, Village Green still hopes to break ground on the project in the 2011 construction season.

As a historical point related to the planned use of the sale proceeds for the new municipal center construction, the council defeated a resolution on March 17, 2008 to extend the Village Green purchase option agreement for First and Washington. At the council’s following meeting, on April 7, 2008, the measure was brought back for reconsideration, and the council voted unanimously to extend the agreement. The key difference was the addition of a “resolved clause,” which stated: “Resolved, that the proceeds from this sale shall be designated to the general fund, Fund 010.”

Inter-fund Loan: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) confirmed with the city’s chief financial officer and interim city administrator Tom Crawford that the $3 million loan transfer was part of the municipal center construction cost. Anglin asked why the city would not simply look to the general fund itself to cover the cost. Crawford explained that approach would result in a lower investable fund balance in the general fund, which would be a detriment to the general fund.

The financing the city is proposing, Crawford said, is structured so as not to be a detriment to the general fund. It’s the building project fund that pays the interest, he said. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) characterized the financing essentially as establishing a line of credit. Crawford confirmed that the investment pool is reinvested and reevaluated on a daily basis.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the inter-fund loan to the municipal center building fund from the city’s pooled investment fund.

Charter Amendment: Retirement Board Composition

The council considered a resolution to place before voters on Nov. 8 a charter amendment to alter the composition of the board of trustees for the city’s retirement system.

Retirement Board Composition: Background

The composition of the nine-member body as currently set forth in the charter is as follows: “(1) The City Administrator and the Controller to serve by virtue of their respective offices; (2) Three Trustees appointed by the Council and to serve at the pleasure of the Council; (3) Two Trustees elected by the general city members from their own number (general city members being members other than Policemen and Firemen members); and (4) Two Trustees elected by the Policemen and Firemen members from their own number.”

The proposed change would retain nine members but would distribute them differently: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire.

If the measure passes on Nov. 8, it will still need to be ratified by the city’s collective bargaining units in order to take effect.

In 2005, a “blue ribbon” commission – tasked to make recommendations about the city’s retirement board and the city’s pension plan – had called for a change in the board’s composition to be a majority of trustees who are not beneficiaries of the retirement plan and, in particular, to remove the city administrator’s position from the board.

In 2008, a member of the retirement system’s board of trustees, Robert N. Pollack, Jr., resigned from the board in part due to the city’s failure to enact recommendations of the blue ribbon panel. [.pdf of blue ribbon panel report] [.pdf of Pollack's resignation letter]

Under the terms of new city administrator Steve Powers’ contract, he will not be a beneficiary of the city’s retirement plan, but will instead have a 401(a) plan.

The city’s retirement program is supported in part by the levy of a retirement benefits millage [labeled CITY BENEFITS on tax bills], currently at a rate of 2.056 mills, which is the same rate as the city’s transit millage. A mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

Retirement Board Composition: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) introduced the proposed ballot language asking voters to amend the city charter and described how the state attorney general’s office – after back and forth with the city – had provided approval of the ballot language at 4:55 p.m. that day.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) scrutinized the proposed ballot language, which resulted in single word deletion from the language [deleted word indicated with strikethrough]:

For the purpose of adding two additional citizen trustees, removal of the City Administrator as a member of the Board, and decreasing the number of elected general member trustees, shall Section 17.2 (a) of the Charter be amended to restructure the composition of the nine-member City Employees Retirement Board of Trustees to a membership of 5 appointed citizen trustees, one elected trustee each for general City general members, fire members, and police members, along with the continued membership of the City Controller?

Based on the interaction between Rapundalo and assistant city attorney Mary Fales, the inclusion of the first instance of “general” was erroneous. It was stricken as an administrative amendment on which the council did not vote.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to know what the nature of the issue was that had caused the delay in the attorney general review. Higgins explained that it had to do with the terminology of “chief financial officer” versus “controller.” Higgins thanked the city attorney’s office staff for its work, which Rapundalo echoed.

Rapundalo noted that the issue had been going on for a number of years. The change to the charter should go a long way to establishing a board that has a little bit more independent oversight, he said. And by virtue of that, it would provide more transparency and reduce the perception of conflict of interest for those sitting around the retirement board table, he said. Higgins added that the city’s unions will need to ratify the language as well, even if the charter amendment passes.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the placement of the retirement board charter amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Anti-Idling Law?

Although it originally appeared in the slot designated for board/commission-initiated business, an anti-idling item was moved on the agenda to the section for written communications from the city administrator. The council formally received the communication from its environmental commission: a resolution approved by the commission in February 2011 that refers a draft anti-idling ordinance to the city council. The ordinance would aim to reduce instances of unnecessary idling by internal combustion engines of all types when not “doing work.”

The resolution approved by the city’s environmental commission makes reference to the city council’s direction to city staff to develop the ordinance, but does not mention the date when the council passed a resolution giving that direction – July 6, 2004.

Examples of unnecessary idling cited in the draft resolution are “warming up a vehicle, dropping off or picking up children at school, loading or unloading cargo, pulling over to take a cell phone call, or waiting in line at a drive-thru window.” However, the draft ordinance explicitly exempts “vehicle queues for drive-through goods and services.” [.pdf of whitepaper including draft ordinance]

Councilmembers addressed the issue during one of the communications slots on the agenda. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Sabra Briere (Ward 1) for tracking down the resolution passed by the council seven years ago that gave direction to city staff to develop an ordinance. It had gone to the city attorney’s office and other city staff, including the city’s environmental coordinator Matt Naud, and back to the environmental commission.

Teall, who serves on the environmental commission, observed that the item had accidentally landed initially on the wrong part of the agenda – but said that the communications items are often overlooked. Teall noted that it’s the city environmental commission’s resolution and the city council will be looking at it in the near future. Teall said she’d welcome comments and discussion and perhaps a city council working session on it.

Teall invited Naud to the podium. He described how 50-100 cities have such an ordinance. He traced Ann Arbor’s effort on the topic to a resident of The Armory – a residential development at Fifth and Ann streets – who was concerned about school buses idling in front of the Hands-On Museum. The museum is immediately adjacent to The Armory. Naud allowed that it had taken a long time (since 2004), but reported that the city had also accumulated a lot of good data. He suggested that this was now an occasion to open up a community discussion.

Outcome: The city council did not take any action on the item – it was ultimately listed on the agenda as simply a communication from the city administrator.

University of Michigan Football Traffic Controls

Before the council for its consideration was a resolution stating that no traffic controls for University of Michigan home football games will be provided starting this season, unless the university reimburses the city for costs associated with erecting barricades and changing traffic signals to facilitate efficient movement of traffic.

University of Michigan Football Traffic Controls: Background

The cost of providing these signs and signal services is around $100,000 per year. The university already reimburses the city for police and fire services associated with home football games.

From the resolution: “Resolved that the City Administrator shall not provide Signs and Signals services to UM for Special UM Events unless: UM and the City execute a contract prior to August 26, 2011, that provides for the full reimbursement to the City of all direct and allocable costs associated with the provision of Signs and Signals services to UM for Special UM Events.”

Michigan’s home opener this year, against Western Michigan, falls on Sept. 3.

Left to right: interim city administrator Tom Crawford, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The issue is a persistent point of frustration on the city council, because traffic control for football games is a dollar cost to the city, but the city has limited leverage with the university to extract payment. That’s due in part to the fact that traffic control is seen not as merely a matter of convenience, but rather of public safety.

From a March 2010 city council budget work session report: “Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked how much of [football traffic control] was an issue of convenience versus public safety. Chief of police Barnett Jones stated that it was all safety-related. Without the combination of cars, barricades and signals, he said, ‘it would be a major malfunction.’”

From a January 2011 city council budget retreat report: “Some councilmembers seemed to suggest that concessions from the university could be won by withholding city consent when the university wanted something from the city. The university’s desire to include Monroe Street as part of the UM Law School campus was cited as a specific example. [City administrator Roger] Fraser, though, counseled that each situation should be evaluated unto itself. He pointed to the planned Fuller Road Station as an example of the importance of that principle.”

From a March 2011 city council budget work session report: “Responding to councilmember questions, [public services area administrator Sue] McCormick said the city did not send the university invoices for the regular home football games, because the university has made it clear that it will not pay. McCormick said when she’d notified UM of the city’s intention of invoicing for the Big Chill, the response she gotten was, ‘We really don’t know how we’ll fund that.’ There was little recourse for the city to take, she said, and in the end the city would have to write it off.”

University of Michigan Football Traffic Controls: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the resolution, acknowledging that it had been added late to the agenda. By way of explanation for the lateness, he offered the fact that the city and the university had been involved in ongoing conversations that were progressing well, but he hoped the resolution would improve things. He noted that football Saturdays are “a very big deal” for the university and the city community.

Taylor went on to say that the city cooperates with the university to ensure the efficient and safe operation of large university events. It includes police and fire services as well as traffic management services. The costs for the police and fire services are reimbursed by the university, he explained. However, up to now, the traffic management services have not been reimbursed. The city is currently having a conversation about the university’s possible reimbursement of the traffic control costs, Taylor said.

In every good conversation, Taylor continued, it’s sometimes useful for there to be clarity about the position of the parties, and the resolution was intended to provide that clarity.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) expressed concern about the timing. He asked for clarification about the time pressure, given that the football season was fast approaching. Taylor said the conversations had been progressing well, but there was some lack of clarity about whether the city will continue to provide traffic control services in the absence of reimbursement.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) then stated that UM can contract with some other organization to provide the service. However, interim city administrator Tom Crawford made clear that’s not actually the case, saying that police and fire services are already reimbursed and that the signs and signals work involves the city’s staff, working with city assets – it can’t really be done by some other organization.

Crawford went on to say that other communities sometimes contacted the city to learn how the city manages to provide the level of services it does provide in connection with football crowds. [Michigan Stadium, located at Main and Stadium with a capacity of 109,901, is the largest in the country.]

Mayor John Hieftje said that the proliferation of games has made it a real burden on the city staff and he felt it was appropriate to have a contract.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) brought up another point for clarification – was this a matter of looking forward, or also about asking the university to pay for past years of traffic controls? Crawford said he was in the middle of fruitful discussions that included last year as well as upcoming years. He called it an issue that still needs to be resolved.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the resolution that directs the city administrator not to provide traffic controls for university football games, unless the university agrees to reimburse the city’s costs.

Ward Boundary Changes

The council considered final approval to minor changes in the apportionment of its five city wards, made in response to population changes revealed by the 2010 census. The changes will not take effect until after the Nov. 8 general election. According to the city charter, city wards must have the general shape of a pie-shaped wedge, with centers of the tips lying at the center of the city. The council had given the boundary changes initial approval at its Aug. 4 meeting.

The council had postponed the issue at its July 5 meeting, but not before unanimously agreeing to alter the timing of the boundary changes, which had originally been recommended by the city attorney’s office to come between the primary elections for city council, which were held Aug. 2, and the general election to be held Nov. 8.

While the minor changes to the boundaries themselves had not been met with strong objections, the timing had been controversial. So at their July 5 meeting, councilmembers agreed to move the effective date of the boundary changes to Dec. 1, 2011.

The staff-recommended tweaks, given initial approval at the Aug. 4 meeting, showed minor differences from the changes recommended on July 5. All changes involve the way the tips of the pie-shaped wedges come together.

In the July 5 version, Ward 5 was bounded by Huron Street to the north and Madison Street to the south as it came towards the city center. In the Aug. 4 version, the Ward 5 northern boundary was dropped to Liberty Street, and to compensate the Ward 5 pie tip extended farther to the east.

In the July 5 version, the boundary between Wards 3 and 4 was aligned to Packard Street. But in the Aug. 4 version, the existing protrusion of Ward 4 across Packard, between Arch and Wells streets, was preserved. And to compensate, Ward 4 was pushed back from South University, with the result that Monroe Street, east of State Street, is a part of Ward 3. [.pdf of staff-recommended tweaks from Aug. 4] [.pdf of staff-recommended tweaks from July 5.]

Ward Boundary Changes: Public Hearing

Because the ward boundary changes reflect a change to the city’s ordinances, a public hearing was required.

Only one person spoke. Thomas Partridge called on the council to take into account the socio-economic status of residents in the reapportionment of the wards. Is there anyone on the council who represents the middle class of Ann Arbor? he asked. Are there students or disabled people who come from lower income brackets? He called on the council to give additional consideration to how each ward is represented. He suggested having an at-large representative on the council.

Ward Boundary Changes: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje asked that someone explain what was going on and why the reapportionment was happening. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) explained that the 2010 census showed that Ward 1 gained population since the previous census in 2000, relative to the other four wards. The easiest way to restore the balance was to look at the densest part of the city near the downtown.

Each boundary is changing, but only slightly, Briere said, and in the end all five wards are all close to balance. Hieftje elicited from the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry, that residents in affected areas, whose wards are changing, would by law receive a new voting card. Briere reminded everyone that the new boundaries don’t become effective until after the Nov. 8 election – on Dec. 1.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to give final approval to the ward boundary changes.

Medical Marijuana License Application Fees

A resolution was on the agenda to establish an application fee of $600 for licenses to operate a medical marijuana dispensary in the city. The fee covers a total of approximately nine hours of work by staff in the city clerk’s office, police department, planning department, and the attorney’s office.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) talks with Dennis Hayes before the city council's Aug. 15 meeting started.

The licenses were established by a city ordinance given its final approval at the council’s June 20, 2011 meeting. The ordinance distinguishes between an “application fee” and a “license fee.” The license fee, according to the city’s ordinance, is to be reviewed by a licensing board, with members to be appointed by the mayor.

The ordinance becomes effective Aug. 22, which is 60 days after its date of legal publication, on June 23. Applicants who were already in business before the city council enacted its Aug. 5, 2010 moratorium have 60 days after the effective date to apply for a license.

The city’s communications to this point with prospective applicants has not been perfectly smooth. A letter sent out by Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, was met with objections because of the city’s insistence that “proof” be provided that a business was in operation before Aug. 5, 2010 – beyond an affidavit attesting to that effect. The city’s ordinance appears to empower the licensing board, not staff in the city attorney’s office or the planning department, with evaluating the merits of license applications.

Medical Marijuana Application Fees: Public Commentary, Hearing

Dennis Hayes addressed the council at Monday’s meeting, having appeared around a dozen times over the course of the last year as the council debated the medical marijuana ordinances. Hayes told the council it was nice to be back again. He said he appreciated how the city council had responded quickly to questions about implementation of the law. He encouraged the council to approve the fee, noting that the city would incur substantial expenses any time there’s something new. He felt the Ann Arbor law would be a productive example for the rest of the state.

During the public hearing on the fee, Thomas Partridge spoke in favor of placing restrictions on access to medical marijuana.

Medical Marijuana Application Fees: Council Deliberations

During the scant council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) stressed that the fee the council was approving was an application fee, not a licensing fee.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the $600 application fee for medical marijuana licenses.

Medical Marijuana: Licensing Board Nominations

Nominations to the medical marijuana licensing board were also made later at the Aug. 15 meeting: Patricia O’Rorke, James Kenyon and John McKenna Rosevear. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was nominated as the city council representative. The five-member licensing body is to consist of one member of the city council, one physician, and three other Ann Arbor residents.

Still needed is a physician to serve on the board. The nominations will be confirmed at the council’s next meeting.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority came up in two ways at the council’s Aug. 15 meeting. First, nominations for re-appointment to the DDA board were announced. And second, the owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant, Ali Ramlawi, again addressed the council about his frustration over the underground parking garage construction project, which the DDA is managing.

Ann Arbor DDA: Nominations

Appointments to the DDA board are made by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council. Mayor John Hieftje nominated John Mouat and Joan Lowenstein for reappointment, but Gary Boren, who was elected this July by his colleagues as chair of the DDA board for the coming year, was not reappointed. Nominated to replace Boren was Nader Nassif, a local attorney. Boren is also an attorney.

In an email sent late Monday to The Chronicle, after the nominations appeared late on the council’s agenda, Boren wrote that Hieftje had met with him a few weeks ago and at that meeting the mayor had told him he was not inclined to reappoint Boren. Boren acknowledged that he and the mayor had philosophical differences about the role of the DDA. About the decision not to be reappointed, Boren wrote that “I am disappointed, but not surprised – and not at all bitter.”

The four-year terms of all three DDA board members – Boren, Lowenstein and Mouat – had actually expired on July 31. The mayor’s appointment of Bob Guenzel to the DDA board last year also came late, after Jennifer S. Hall’s term had expired.

At the DDA’s annual meeting early this July, DDA board member Newcombe Clark provided a chance for the mayor to announce publicly any intention not to reappoint Boren, when Boren’s name was put forward as a candidate for chair of the board for the coming year. Clark asked if Boren’s term would be renewed. The mayor declined to respond to Clark’s question. From The Chronicle’s DDA meeting report of July 6, 2011:

Newcombe Clark asked if Boren’s term was being renewed – that is, would he be reappointed by the mayor to serve on the board? By way of background, outgoing chair Joan Lowenstein’s term on the board ends on July 31, 2011, as do the terms for Gary Boren and John Mouat. Boren has been a vocal proponent of the idea that the DDA is an independent corporate body and not an arm of the city of Ann Arbor.

Last year, Clark had pointedly abstained from voting in the officer elections over the lack of information about reappointments to the board. From Chronicle coverage of the July 7, 2010 DDA annual meeting:

Abstaining from each of the officer votes was board member Newcombe Clark.

Clark explained to The Chronicle after the meeting that there’d been no indication from the mayor whether the two board members whose appointments are expiring July 31 – Jennifer S. Hall and John Splitt – would be reappointed. Clark said he could thus not be certain of the full range of choices for board officers.

Splitt was reappointed; Hall was not. Bob Guenzel was appointed instead of Hall.

In response to Clark’s question this year, Lowenstein said they did not know that yet. Mayor John Hieftje, sitting at the board table, did not offer any statement about whether he planned to nominate Boren for the city council’s approval for reappointment.

At its first meeting in September, the DDA board will presumably elect a new chair. The board’s pattern historically has been to select its vice chair as the next chair. Elected vice chair in July was former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, who joined the DDA board a year ago.

Outcome: The council will not vote on the confirmation of DDA appointments until its first meeting in September. Those appointments will presumably not include the kind of public hearings that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) suggested during his communications at the council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting. However, allocation of the 10 public commentary reserved time slots at the beginning of every council meeting gives preference to those speakers wishing to address agenda items – and the confirmations will be on the agenda.

Ann Arbor DDA: Construction Complaints

During public commentary, Ali Ramlawi reminded councilmembers that he had also addressed them last month. He’s the owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant, located next to the construction site of the underground parking structure being built along Fifth Avenue. He expressed frustration about reading the response by Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, to his previous criticisms – a response that was published in AnnArbor.com.

Ramlawi characterized Pollay as claiming that the DDA had provided trash pickup, snow removal and lighting. He said those are ordinary city functions, which the city has “delivered flawlessly” since 1987 when the restaurant opened. With respect to the snow removal, he said he had to call several times this past winter because of the build-up of snow obstructing pedestrian walkways. He felt like he was a “cop on the beat” on the corner, because he had to call and complain about trash, lighting and snow removal.

He alluded to the expense of the DDA’s wayfinding sign project, saying that for an organization that had spent $1 million on some signs, its efforts to place signage indicating that the restaurant was still open have been “poor.” Two years into the project, he said, the DDA had not delivered any kind of signage. The problem is not confined to Jerusalem Garden, he said – people come in wondering where the library and the post office are.

He asked the city council to review the situation and use this as a learning lesson. He also called for a complete review of the DDA board appointment process – noting that appointed officials were making important decisions. He concluded by saying that to give credit to the DDA for the success of downtown Ann Arbor is like giving Al Gore credit for inventing the Internet.

By way of additional background,  construction-orange-style signs about businesses have been in place in two locations in connection with the parking garage construction project since it began. At the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Washington Street, a sign placed on the left side of the street facing the one-way traffic heading south on Fifth Avenue indicates generically that businesses are open – no businesses are named. And at the next intersection of Fifth Avenue, at Liberty, a sign facing southbound Fifth Avenue traffic is placed with the names of businesses still open. No signs for eastbound or westbound Liberty Street traffic appears to have been placed.

That signage is actually required as part of a settlement agreement in connection with a lawsuit filed against the city of Ann Arbor about the project, to which Ramlawi was a party. From the settlement agreement:

Throughout the construction process, the City agrees to provide signage that directs customers to Herb David and Jerusalem Garden. Such signage will be similar to what the City has provided in the past as part of other City construction projects.

Act 88 Economic Development Tax

Before the council for its consideration was a resolution urging the Washtenaw County board of commissioners to use Act 88 of 1913 to levy a tax to support economic development in the county.

Act 88 Economic Development Tax: Background

For the last two years, the county board has levied the tax – at a rate of 0.043 mill. (One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.) The council resolution was brought forward by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Because Act 88 predates the state’s Headlee legislation, the board does not need to put the issue before voters in order to levy the tax. The county board could, by the Act 88 statute, levy such a tax up to 0.5 mills, or more than 10 times the amount it has chosen to levy the last two years.

Last year in November, the county board approved the Act 88 tax with just a six-vote majority on the 11-member board. Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet and Wes Prater dissented. Jessica Ping abstained, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent from that Nov. 3, 2010 meeting.

For 2011, the allocation of the roughly $611,266 raised by the countywide Act 88 tax broke down as follows: $200,000 to Ann Arbor SPARK; $50,000 to SPARK East; $100,000 to the Eastern Leaders Group; $144,696 to the county’s department of economic development and energy; $15,000 to fund a Michigan State University Extension agricultural innovation counselor for Washtenaw County; $27,075 to fund horticulture programming for the Washtenaw MSUE horticulture educator; $59,229 for 4-H activities, including allocation to the Washtenaw Farm Council for operating the Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show & 4-H agricultural programming for the 4-H extension educator; and $15,000 to support the work of the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP).

SPARK is also supported by Ann Arbor taxpayers through a contract with the city of Ann Arbor for business development services. At its June 20, 2011 meeting, the city council authorized the city’s annual $75,000 contract with SPARK. That translates to the rough equivalent of 0.017 Ann Arbor city mills. (Each mill levied within the city of Ann Arbor translates to roughly $4.5 million.) Together with the countywide Act 88 millage, direct Ann Arbor taxpayer support of economic development translates to the equivalent of at least .06 mills (0.043 + 0.017) or roughly $270,000.

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA) to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, which in the current fiscal year captured around $1.4 million in taxes from a TIF district – the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts, though revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district. The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

Act 88 Economic Development Tax: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the resolution. He noted that the question of whether to levy the tax will soon be before the county board of commissioners. [A public hearing on the millage is set for the board's Sept. 7 meeting.] Taylor portrayed the millage as costing the owner of a $250,000 house about $5.38 a year. He encouraged the council to support the resolution, in light of the utility of the money that the millage would generate countywide.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) echoed Taylor’s sentiments. He also noted that the county had recently reorganized itself by merging three departments, including its economic development department. The merger will present a greater challenge to the county staff, Hohnke said, but it will be able to leverage the Act 88 millage that much more efficiently. He mentioned the idea of promoting heritage tourism.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked what happens if the county board doesn’t approve the levy of the millage. What are the effects on economic development at the county level if it doesn’t pass? she asked.

Expressing some hesitancy, Hohnke said he didn’t know, but offered some thoughts. The millage brings in around $600,000 and is deployed in a number of ways in partnership with other organizations, including Ann Arbor SPARK. In some activities, Hohnke said, it’s the county that takes the lead, and he ventured that you’d see a scaling back of those activities if the millage were not levied.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to adopt the resolution urging the county board’s passage of the Act 88 millage.

West Park: Flooding, Tennis Courts

Councilmembers heard from a resident about flooding related to a stormwater project in West Park, and they used the occasion of a construction contract for tennis courts in the park to talk about some of those concerns.

West Park: Public Commentary on Flooding

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Daniel Marano introduced himself as a resident who lives on the west side of town, on Maple Ridge. He reported a severe flooding problem on his street that he said seems to be tied to the engineering failure of the West Park drainage and stormwater system.

Maple Ridge, looking south.

By way of background, the city undertook major renovations to West Park using federal stimulus funds and revolving loans facilitated by the county’s water resources commissioner. [Chronicle coverage: "West Park Renovations Get Fast-Tracked"]

In February 2011, Craig Hupy – head of systems planning for the city of Ann Arbor – reported to the park advisory commission on the status of a failed swirl concentrator, which had collapsed, and seven other swirl concentrators that were in some state of failure.

Swirl concentrators are underground vessels that help remove particulates from stormwater before it flows into the stormwater system. Based on an August 2011 city staff memo, the situation is being analyzed as a problem with both the project design and the product’s manufacture. The city is expecting to recover costs from multiple parties. The memo acknowledges upstream flooding that was experienced during project construction, which took place during the summer of 2010:

During the construction of the project, flooding was experienced upstream of the work area during one of the several large storms experienced in the summer of 2010. In addition, in October of 2010, after the stormwater work had been completed, one of the swirl concentrators on the north branch collapsed, creating a sinkhole near the northwest corner of the park. … In response to the upstream flooding, the weir plates that served to divert flow into the swirl concentrator units were removed due to concerns over their effect on upstream flooding. … Currently, the weirs are still removed, leaving the below ground sewer system to function essentially as it did prior to the 2010 construction,

The street where Marano lives is upstream from West Park – Maple Ridge runs north-south, parallel to (and one block west of) Seventh Street, which is West Park’s western boundary.

Marano described a phenomenon where a collection of several feet of water appears out of nowhere, lasts for about an hour or so, followed by a “catastrophic emptying” of the entire street. It’s like two giant bathtub drains, he said, that drain the street in a matter of minutes. There’s a real possibility of danger to people, pets, and children, he said. He said he had about a foot of water in his car on Tuesday morning, which is when he realized the extent of the flooding. This type of flooding has never happened before in any neighbor’s memory, he said. The first time it happened was last year, on Aug. 10, 2010.

Marano said that when he’d reported it to the city, he was met with derision, and the claims were ignored. It’s a lot more than just standard runoff, he said. He concluded by saying it’s a safety risk.

West Park: Tennis Courts

Before the council for its approval was a $216,331 contract with ABC Paving Co. to renovate the tennis courts at West Park. It’s a contract that the city’s park advisory commission had discussed at its June 21, 2011 meeting and that had been approved by the city council at the council’s July 5, 2011 meeting. However, the resolution had contained a typographical error, and the contract had only been approved for $166,331. So it was back before the council for re-approval.

The council did not discuss the paving contract. However, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expressed their concern about the West Park stormwater renovations that had been raised during public commentary by Daniel Marano. [The tennis courts at West Park are situated off Huron Street, considerably above the plane of the park where the stormwater improvements were undertaken.]

Hohnke stressed that the contemporaneous flooding and construction work events were not conclusive with respect to establishing a cause-and-effect relationship. However, he allowed that the timing was suggestive of such a relationship, and he asked that the interim city administrator look into the issue. Anglin expressed his hope that a good resolution to the issue could be found and acknowledged the stress on the residents who live in the affected area.

The flooded neighborhood is in Ward 5, which Anglin and Hohnke represent.

Outcome: The council approved the contract with ABC Paving Co.

Fuller Road Station

Fuller Road Station was brought up during public commentary, as well as by councilmembers.

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Nancy Shiffler spoke on behalf of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She said that on reviewing a recent letter sent to the community by mayor John Hieftje, she was pleased that the letter attempted to address questions that have arisen about the project. She first reiterated her basic objection of using a portion of Fuller Park for the construction of a parking structure.

She noted that the letter indicates the University of Michigan will pay all upfront costs for the construction and that the city’s portion of the cost would be made up over time. [The memorandum of understanding between UM and the city on the planned Fuller Road Station specifies a 78%-22% split for the cost-sharing arrangement.]

The portion of the mayor’s letter to which Shiffler was referring reads:

Although the University of Michigan and the City of Ann Arbor will share usage of the parking structure/bus station portion, the University will pay almost all upfront costs to construct Phase 1 of the Fuller Road Station. Under the plan that is still being worked out, the City will own FRS and the City’s portion of the costs will be made up over time from funds generated by parking spaces.

Based on earlier estimates, she said, the city’s portion to be made up over time would be around $10 million. With 220 parking spaces available for the city’s use, and depending on the users to whom the spaces are allocated, Shiffler estimated that it would take 30 years to repay the $10 million – if the rate for use of those 220 spaces were charged at the maximum rate used by UM in its parking system.

Later in the letter, Shiffler noted, Hieftje states that revenues from user fees for the parking spaces would go to the park system. Will the revenue go to make up for the upfront construction costs, or rather to the park system? Shiffler pointed out this is not clear. She said it appeared the sources of funding are being cobbled together behind the scenes. She wondered what relevance the parking structure has to the rail station. She asked that the city council have all details and disclose them to the public and have public hearings before taking a vote on the project.

Fuller Road Station: Council Commentary

During council communications, after the public commentary, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the council had heard from a speaker about Fuller Road Station. She allowed that it was a moving target, but said she wanted to remind the mayor that everyone would benefit from a working session on the topic of Fuller Road Station. Hieftje said that as soon as there’s some new information, a working session could be put together.

Previously, at the council’s June 6, 2011 meeting, Fuller Road Station had received extensive public commentary, despite the lack of any item on the agenda related directly to the project.

Partly in response to that commentary and to remarks from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), at that meeting Briere had pushed for a city council working session on the project. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) anticipated mayor John Hieftje’s reaction to Anglin’s comments [Hieftje has pushed hard for the project] by telling the mayor that she knew he had a lot of thoughts about Fuller Road Station. But she thought the council should have a working session, so that councilmembers can become more knowledgeable about the issue. Hieftje indicated that he would look into adding something to the calendar.

Then, at the council’s June 20, 2011 meeting, the council revised its calendar for the year to include a work session scheduled for July 11, apparently to accommodate the desire to discuss Fuller Road Station.

Mayor John Hieftje. That kind of hammer, or course, works on a totally different kind of nail.

However, at the council’s July 5 meeting, Hieftje responded to remarks from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) about the upcoming work session on Fuller Road Station by indicating there was no work session on the topic scheduled. He did not acknowledge his earlier explicit assurance that he would look into scheduling one.

At the Aug. 15 meeting, Anglin said he was glad Shiffler had brought up the issue of the parkland. He said he still had concerns about the status of the parkland and that he continued to receive emails about it. He said that in 2008, when voters approved a charter amendment requiring a voter referendum on the sale of any parkland, they thought they were protecting their parks. The legacy of the parks is an important part of the community, Anglin said. When a national environmental group [the Sierra Club] is speaking against it, he said, that should suggest something is amiss.

Anglin said the details are not yet clear enough to sign a contract. During tough times, he said, there are other needs that are more paramount. The project doesn’t seem to have much benefit for citizens, he said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) suggested that the city’s park advisory commission take a look at the practice soccer field adjacent to the proposed Fuller Road Station site and perhaps partner with the public art commission to develop something for that space that’s designed to inform people about the Huron River.

Smith said she’d love to see an exploration of some lower-maintenance use of the land that people can enjoy. She asked that the suggestion be conveyed to PAC by the council representatives to that body. Smith mentioned an upcoming RiverUp! event, which Hieftje said he appreciated. He noted that the Wolfpack group of the National Wildlife Federation, of which he is a member, had raised $30,000 for that project. [PAC had been briefed about the project at its July 2011 meeting. See Chronicle coverage: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"]

Green Communities Grant

The council was asked to consider accepting a $50,000 Michigan Green Communities Planning grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE).

The money will be used in part to enhance a peer learning network of Michigan local government and university staff who are working on sustainability issues. The grant funding also supports holding an annual conference in 2011 and 2012 among Michigan Green Community members. A third activity the grant will support is development of challenge grant opportunities with local governments and Michigan foundations.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the receipt of the grant.

Small Claims Policy

On the council agenda was a resolution to approve a policy describing which city staff may represent the city in small claims court and under what circumstances. Small claims issues are limited in dollar amount to $3,000. Under Act 236 of 1961, the city may not be represented in small claims court by an attorney.

So under the policy, city employees who are not attorneys may appear on the city’s behalf, subject to the constraints of the policy, which requires that employees who appear in small claims court have “… direct and personal knowledge of the dispute” and that the city administrator and the city attorney approve in writing the appearance by an employee in small claims court on behalf of the city, for each individual case.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the small claims policy.

Water Supply Bonds

Before the council for its consideration was the issuance $7 million worth of revenue bonds for its water supply system. The money will be used by the city to finance improvements to the city’s water distribution system, including portions of the Arbor Oaks subdivision water mains replacement project, the Catherine Street 16-inch water main, the Dover Court/Collingwood water main replacement, physical security enhancements, and Barton Dam concrete repair projects.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained at the meeting that because the ordinance does not change the city code, it does not require a second reading and public hearing.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the issuance of the water supply bonds.

Recision of CUB Requirement

The council was asked to vote on the recision of a resolution passed at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, which required execution of Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreements by contractors and subcontractors with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for all city construction contracts. The resolution also required inclusion of the requirement in all construction bids issued by the city.

The resolution was rescinded because 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.

At the council’s Aug. 4 meeting, interim city administrator Tom Crawford had alerted councilmembers that they would likely be asked to consider the measure at the Aug. 15 meeting.

The item was included as part of the council’s consent agenda – a collection of items on which the council votes “all in one go,” but councilmembers have the option of separating out any items they’d like to discuss separately. That’s what Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) did with the CUB agreement item. He had sponsored the original resolution that was being rescinded.

He noted that the new law prohibits CUB agreements  so the city’s previous action would be illegal. That’s why it’s in the city’s best interest to rescind it, he said, because it brings the city in line with state law.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to rescind its previous resolution on CUB agreements.

Pedestrian Easement on Liberty

The council was asked to grant an easement to the owner of 115 W. Liberty St. – Dotcom 115 LLC, which lists its resident agent as local developer Peter Allen. Cost of the easement was set at $2,500.

Local developer Peter Allen and Ann Arbor public art commission chair Marsha Chamberlin, talking before the Aug. 15 council meeting started.

Allen is planning to sell the third floor condo unit in the building and needed the easement to ensure legal access to the entryway on the south side of the building.

Allen attended the meeting – he was also the recipient of a Golden Paintbrush Award presented by Ann Arbor’s public art commission.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the easement.

Rezoning of Annexed Property

Before the council for its consideration was a request to rezone the property at 2562 Newport to R1A (single-family residential district.) At the public hearing, Thomas Partridge called on the council to amend the rezoning to require an equal amount or more of affordable housing access in the city. It’s something that Partridge typically calls on the city council to do, any time there is a public hearing on a rezoning of land.

Mayor John Hieftje expressed some irritation with Partridge by saying that Partridge was aware that the property is being annexed into the city and that the kind of resolution he was suggesting could not be done legally.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to approve the annexation-related rezoning.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Remembering Gary Lillie

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) called the council’s attention to the recent death of Gary Lillie, a Vietnam War veteran and a local realtor who was killed by an alleged drunk driver. He called it one of those tragedies that reminds us of the tender nature of life. He said that Lillie deserved a moment of recognition at the city council meeting for the life he gave and the life he lived.

Comm/Comm: Golden Paintbrush Awards

At the start of the meeting, Marsha Chamberlin presented the Ann Arbor public art commission’s Golden Paintbrush awards. Chamberlin, who chairs the public art commission, is also president of the Ann Arbor Art Center.

In August in front of Blimpy Burger, which received a Golden Paintbrush award: 'sno bears now, but Snow Bears later.

The awards had been previously announced at the most recent meeting of AAPAC in July.

This year, winners are: (1) Krazy Jim’s Blimpy Burger, for the Snow Bears sculptures that Rich Magner builds each winter in front of the business at Packard and South Division; (2) Mary Thiefels and TreeTown Murals for the mural outside the Alley Bar along West Liberty; and (3) Peter Allen & Associates, for rock sculptures on North Main Street, a project initiated by Steve Zobeck.

Comm/Comm: Sidewalks

During public commentary time, Kathy Griswold told the council that based on a Craigslist ad, a school crosswalk guard costs $30/day plus benefits, or $5,400 annually. She said that the money would be better spent on other activities. Griswold has long advocated for moving the mid-block crosswalk in front of King Elementary School to the four-way-stop intersection, which would eliminate the need for a crossing guard at that location. The barrier to moving the crosswalk is the need to construct a section of sidewalk that would link the corner where children would cross to a path leading the rest of the way to the school.

On a positive note, Griswold said, she reported that although nothing had been promised, it was possible that the city might be able to provide an alternate location for the Kiwanis Club’s warehouse sale [now located at 415 W. Washington St. instead of the current location W. Ellsworth at Airport Blvd Building #837].

Comm/Comm: Recall Snyder

Thomas Partridge spoke during public commentary time, saying it’s necessary to pursue the recall effort of Gov. Rick Snyder and the leaders of the Republican legislature, who have “turned and glowered into the faces” of people who need vital services. He also called on President Barack Obama to do something or step aside. We need to protect Ann Arbor’s disabled residents and seniors, Partridge said. We need an agenda for progress, he said – housing, transportation, healthcare and education should all be affordable.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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!

Because Act 88 predates the state’s Headlee legislation, the board does not need to put the issue before voters in order to levy the tax. The county board could, by the Act 88 statute, levy such a tax up to 0.5 mills, or more than 10 times the amount it has chosen to levy the last two years.

Last year in November, the county board approved the Act 88 tax with just a six-vote majority on the 11-member board. Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet and Wes Prater dissented. Jessica Ping abstained, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent from that Nov. 3, 2010 meeting.

For 2011, the allocation of the roughly $611,266 raised by the countywide Act 88 tax broke down as follows: $200,000 to Ann Arbor SPARK; $50,000 to SPARK East; $100,000 to the Eastern Leaders Group; $144,696 to the county’s department of economic development and energy; $15,000 to fund a Michigan State University Extension agricultural innovation counselor for Washtenaw County; $27,075 to fund horticulture programming for the Washtenaw MSUE horticulture educator; $59,229 for 4-H activities, including allocation to the Washtenaw Farm Council for operating the Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show & 4-H agricultural programming for the 4-H extension educator; and $15,000 to support the work of the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP).

SPARK is also supported by Ann Arbor taxpayers through a contract with the city of Ann Arbor for business development services. At its June 20, 2011 meeting the city council authorized the city’s annual $75,000 contract with SPARK. That translates to the rough equivalent of 0.017 Ann Arbor city mills. (Each mill levied within the city of Ann Arbor translates to roughly $4.5 million.) Together with the countywide Act 88 millage, direct Ann Arbor taxpayer support of economic development translates to the equivalent of at least .06 mills (0.043 + 0.017) or roughly $270,000.

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA) to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, which in the current fiscal year captured around $1.4 million in taxes from a TIF district – the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts, though revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district. The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

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