The council took its vote at a special meeting held on March 25, 2013. The AFSCME union voted to approve the contract on March 21, according to Robyn Wilkerson, the city’s human resources director.

A staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution indicates the city’s intention by July 2014 to offer an alternative retirement plan to employees. It would be different from the current plan, which is essentially a defined benefit plan. New AFSCME hires would automatically be included in that alternative retirement plan.

The negotiated contract is effective immediately and runs through Dec. 31, 2017. The current contract, which the new contract replaces, had been set to expire on Dec. 31, 2013. Michigan’s right-to-work legislation – passed in the December 2012 lame duck session – takes effect on March 28, 2013, which is 91 days after the conclusion of the legislative session. [.pdf of enrolled House Bill 4003] The right-to-work legislation prohibits making financial support of a union a condition of employment. So some local entities – including the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority [on Jan. 13, 2013] and Washtenaw County [on March 20, 2013] – have come to new agreements that would preserve agency-fee type arrangements for the duration of the contract.

Comparatively, the city’s slightly less than five-year agreement with AFSCME is shorter than those ratified by the AATA and by Washtenaw County with several of its unions. The longer-term contracts for those organizations were for as long at 10 years.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution approved by the city council, the overall wage increase in the AFSCME city contract is 1% in January 2014, 0.5% in July 2014, 1.5% in January 2015, 1% in January 2016 and 1% in January 2017. This contract also includes a revised wage table with lower step increases for new hires effective Jan. 1, 2015.

The new city contract includes AFSCME’s acceptance of a change in pension board composition – which was approved by the voters in November 2011. Under the charter amendment approved by voters, the composition of the 9-member pension board is: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire. According to the agreement, the AFSCME bargaining unit will have the ability to provide candidates and input to the mayor on citizen representatives.

New hires would participate in any alternate retirement plan that might be approved by the council – an action that is planned for July 2014. AFSCME new hires would move to the alternate pension plan at the same time that non-union new hires move to such a plan. Wilkerson described a future plan at the council’s March 25 meeting as possibly a hybrid between a defined contribution and defined benefit plan.

An alternative retirement plan of some kind has been mooted publicly before. Most recently, on Nov. 8, 2012, the council had an item on its agenda, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), that would have directed the city administrator to develop a defined contribution retirement plan to offer non-union employees hired after July 1, 2013. After a closed session held during that meeting, Lumm was persuaded to withdraw that resolution from the agenda.

At the council’s March 25 special meeting, Lumm called the AFSCME contract a significant step forward in that respect. She would not have supported this contract without a provision specifying the alternative pension plan, she said.

The contract approved by the council on March 25 also includes a decrease in personal time for employees on alternate shifts, and full participation in the city’s wellness incentive program.

The roughly 270 members of AFSCME make up about 40% of the total city work force. Members include front-line employees in utilities, solid waste, administrative support, forestry, inspection, streets, facility maintenance, snow plowing, signs and signals.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The purpose of the special meeting is considering a resolution to approve a collective bargaining agreement with Local 369 of the International Union of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) AFL-CIO. The agreement would run from March 25, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2017, a bit under five years. The special meeting might also include a closed session to discuss labor negotiation strategy.

The council already had a budget work session scheduled for the same time. So the budget work session will start immediately following the special meeting. The topics of the budget session will include the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, as well as council budgeting priorities.

Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME 2733, the county’s largest bargaining unit, at the Washtenaw County board’s March 7, 2013 budget retreat. Her union had reached a tentative agreement with administration earlier that day, which was ratified by union members on March 13 and approved by the county board on March 20.

The majority of contracts run through Dec. 31, 2023 and are the longest-term labor agreements ever authorized by the Washtenaw County government, which employs about 1,300 workers. One of the unions agreed to a shorter-term contract: The contract for AFSCME 3052 lasts five years, through Dec. 31, 2017.

Typically, such agreements last two to five years. About 85% of county workers belong to a union.

In broad strokes, the agreements provide for annual wage increases, a cap on employee healthcare contributions, and the elimination of “banked leave” days. Banked leave days have been used in recent years to help balance the budget by cutting labor costs. The days are unpaid, but don’t affect retirement calculations.

Some of the major changes relate to benefits for employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. Those employees will participate in a defined contribution retirement plan, compared to the current defined benefit plan – the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS). In defined benefit plans, retirees receive a set amount per month during their retirement. In defined contribution plans, employers pay a set amount into the retirement plan while a person is employed. The most common of these defined contribution plans is the 401(k).

Many of the details in the contracts match the agreement reached with AFSCME 2733, the county’s largest bargaining unit, with about 650 members. Highlights from the AFSCME 2733 agreement include:

• Restoring 3.85% to an employee’s annual salary in 2014 by eliminating banked leave days. In addition, employees will receive a 2% non-structural salary increase.
• In 2015, there will be a 1% salary increase if county property tax revenues do not rise. However, if tax revenues do increase, employees will receive a salary increase of either 2% (if revenues increase by up to 4%) or 3% (if revenues increase by 5% or more).
• Employees will receive 2% salary increases in 2016 and 2017. The 2016 increase will be structural; the increase in 2017 will be non-structural.
• The remaining years through 2023 alternate in this same three-year pattern of (1) formula increases tied to tax revenues, followed by (2) a 2% structural increase and (3) a 2% non-structural increase.
• Current employees will remain in the county’s defined benefit retirement plan, unless they choose to transfer into a defined contribution plan.
• Employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will participate in a defined contribution retirement plan, with each employee providing 6% pre-tax contributions that are matched by 6% from the county. Contributions will increase to 7% in 2016 and 2017, and to 7.5% in 2018 through 2023. Vesting for employer contributions will occur over several years, with workers becoming fully vested after 10 years of employment.
• For current employees, contributions to the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) – the defined benefit plan – will be capped at 10% in 2014 and 2015. That cap will be lowered to 9% in 2016 and 2017, 8.5% in 2018 and 2019, and 8% in 2020 through 2023.
• The county will adopt state-mandated “hard caps” on health care contributions by public employers. Current workers will pay $75 per month in medical premium-sharing.
• Workers hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will have negotiated health care benefits. Their retirement health care will be handled through retiree health reimbursement accounts (RHRAs), with staggered contributions by the county based on years of employment.

The March 20 vote by commissioners came after about 90 minutes in closed session near the start of the board’s ways & means committee meeting, for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations. The vote to go into closed session was 8-1, with dissent by Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), who did not state any reason for his no vote.

It was the fourth consecutive meeting that included a lengthy closed session on this topic, as the administration has been conducting accelerated negotiations with its union to reach a new contract before March 28. That’s the date when Michigan’s right-to-work legislation – enacted late last year – takes effect. The law will make it illegal to require employees to support unions financially as a condition of their employment. Labor agreements in place prior to March 28 will not be affected by the law. Most of the previous contracts with the county’s labor unions were set to expire on Dec. 31, 2013.

At the board’s Feb. 20, 2013 meeting, commissioners had given final approval to a resolution opposing the legislation, with a clause that directed the county administration to renegotiate union contracts. The resolution stated a “goal of reaching four (4) year agreements to protect and extend each bargaining unit’s union security provisions, as well as enter into a letter of understanding separate from the existing collective bargaining agreements for a period of ten (10) years.”

That was an approach taken by other institutions statewide, including the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA OKs Labor, Agency Fee Accords"] However, the county administration and union leaders ultimately felt that the strategy of a separate letter of understanding would be more vulnerable to legal challenges. They opted instead for a longer-term labor agreement and no separate letter of understanding.

The administration and AFSCME Local 2733 reached a tentative agreement on March 7, which union members ratified on March 13. Other union bargaining units subsequently ratified similar agreements. However, the ratified agreements differed slightly from the version that had been shown to commissioners at their most recent closed session on March 6, so another closed session was held on March 20 to go over those changes.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) abstained on voting for two contracts – AFSCME Local 2733 and AFSCME Local 3052 – citing a relationship with the parent organization of these local units. The vote on those two contracts was 7-1, with Dan Smith (R-District 2) dissenting. The vote covering the other four union contracts was 8-1, also with dissent by Dan Smith.

The bargaining units that struck new deals are:

• AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 2733 Units A, B, C, Juvenile Division, and Juvenile Detention. [.pdf of AFSCME 2733 contract summary]
• AFSCME Local 3052 General Supervisors and Juvenile Division Supervisors. [.pdf of AFSCME 3052 contract summary]
• Assistant Prosecutors Association Units I & II. [.pdf of APA contract summary]
• Public Defenders Association Units I & II. [.pdf of PDA contract summary]
• Michigan Nurses Association Units I & II. [.pdf of MNA contract summary]
• T-POAM (Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan) Units I & II – District Court employees. [.pdf of T-POAM contract summary]

A similar agreement was approved for the county’s non-union employees. [.pdf of non-union agreement] The vote on that agreement was unanimous. The two bargaining units that did not negotiate new contracts – the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) – are exempt from the right-to-work law.

Several commissioners highlighted various aspects of the new contracts, most prominently the shift to a defined contribution system as a way to eliminate legacy costs for future employees. Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he supported the contracts, but expressed disappointment at the move to a defined contribution approach and the impact it would have on employees. Dan Smith objected to the length of the contract, saying it severely constrains future boards and their flexibility to deal with whatever events might occur down the road.

These new agreements will be a factor in the budget that’s being developed for 2014 and 2015. The county administration has projected a $24.64 million general fund deficit over a four-year period from 2014 through 2017. A much smaller general fund deficit of $3.93 million is projected for 2014, but county administrator Verna McDaniel hopes to identify $6.88 million in structural changes for that year – a combination of new revenues and cuts in expenditures – in order to eliminate the cumulative deficit going forward. When McDaniel briefed commissioners on budget preparations at their Jan. 16, 2013 meeting, she indicated a desire to find $2.62 million in reductions to employee compensation and benefits.

For background on the county’s unions, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board Briefed on Labor Issues.” Most of the current contracts were authorized in September of 2011.

This report was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. More detailed coverage will follow.

The Chronicle relies on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. 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!

Local attorney Stefani Carter talks with Rolland Sizemore Jr., chair of the county board's ways & means committee, before the Feb. 1, 2012 meeting. Carter will be filling in for the county's corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, who is taking a three-month medical leave. (Photos by the writer.)

Items not on the agenda took up much of the meeting time. As he has in the past, commissioner Wes Prater raised concerns over a countywide transit plan being developed by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. It’s expected that the county board will eventually be asked to authorize a four-party agreement with the AATA and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, but that agreement has not yet been formally presented to the board. [The Ann Arbor city council has postponed its ratification of the four-party agreement twice, and has been asked by the AATA to postpone the issue again at the council's Feb. 6 meeting. That postponement would be until March 5.]

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel introduced local attorney Stefani Carter, who’ll be filling in while corporation counsel Curtis Hedger is on medical leave. Carter has been doing contract work for the county, and previously spent 15 years with the Ann Arbor city attorney’s office.

Speaking at the time for public commentary, Billy Salamey – owner of three towing companies in the county – defended accusations that have been levied against his business during a recent bidding process for towing services with the sheriff’s office. Salamey’s commentary in turn prompted board chair Conan Smith to defend the county’s bidding process, which Smith described as transparent and fair.

Among the formal actions taken during Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners authorized a five-year, $460,000 extension to a project aimed at improving conditions at Whitmore Lake. They also gave final approval to a two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors.

Medical Leave for County Attorney

Toward the beginning of Wednesday’s meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel reported that Curtis Hedger, Washtenaw County’s corporation counsel, was taking medical leave. McDaniel introduced local attorney Stefani Carter, who will be handling Hedger’s responsibilities in his absence.

The three-month, part-time medical leave follows a diagnosis of congestive heart failure in January. Hedger told The Chronicle that he plans to work a limited number of hours per week, and will help Carter transition into her role with the county. Carter has been serving as “of counsel” with the county on a contract basis, and Hedger recommended her for this new role. Early in her career Carter worked in the county prosecuting attorney’s office, and later spent 15 years as an assistant city attorney for Ann Arbor.

At the Feb. 1 meeting, Carter told commissioners that she was happy to be there, but ”I hope my term of service will be short, as we hope Curtis comes back as soon as possible.”

Toward the end of the three-month leave, Hedger said he’ll undergo additional testing that could determine whether he’ll return to his job on a full-time basis, continue part-time work, or retire.

Later in the meeting, commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. said that the situation would be a good time to examine the county’s legal expenses and to make sure there’s a fair distribution of work around the county.

In addition to Hedger’s salary of about $117,000 $112,321, the county contracts with other attorneys to handle its legal work. Documents provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by The Chronicle in 2011 show that the county spent $4.83 million on outside legal counsel during the five-year period from 2006-2010. [.pdf of 2006-2010 itemized legal expenses]

During that five-year period, the county used 19 firms. But the bulk of the expenses – $4.152 million – were paid to just five firms: Dykema Gossett ($1.45 million), Reach Law Firm ($1.38 million), Miller Johnson ($869,824), Gallagher & Gallagher ($246,645) and Timothy McDaniel ($203,635). (McDaniel is the husband of county administrator Verna McDaniel.)

Much of Dykema’s work related to its role as outside counsel for a lawsuit filed against the county in 2006 by the townships of Ypsilanti, Salem and Augusta over the cost of police services. The county board voted to accept a settlement in mid-2011, but the settlement did not include recovery of the county’s legal expenses. Other legal expenses handled by the 19 law firms relate to real estate, litigation, bond issues and a range of other matters.

The response to a Chronicle FOIA request for 2011 legal expenses, filed last week, will be forthcoming.

Countywide Transit

During one of the opportunities for commissioners to bring up items for current or future discussion, Wes Prater said he wanted to address the issue of a four-party agreement for countywide transit. It’s a topic he has raised at previous meetings as well, most recently at the board’s Jan. 18, 2012 meeting, where he expressed concerns about the county’s role.

WEMU reporter Andy Cluley interviews county commissioner Wes Prater.

On Wednesday, Prater observed that the project seems to be stalled. He then read a statement outlining some of his concerns. [.pdf of Prater's statement] He highlighted the Ann Arbor  Transportation Authority’s cost per passenger ride, which he calculated to be about $5 per rider – based on a $30 million budget and about 6 million riders. Prater also claimed that fewer than 1.25 average passengers are riding per route for each hour of service provided.

By way of explanation, Prater arrives at his artificially low number by starting with the AATA’s systemwide average: 32 passengers per service hour. He then divides that number by the number of routes – 26.

However, the “passengers per service hour” statistic is in concept already finer-grained than an individual route. A “service hour” is an hour of operation for an individual revenue-producing vehicle. And a single route can have more than one vehicle operating on it at the same time. It’s not clear how insight can be gained into route-wise performance by dividing the systemwide average by the number of routes – as Prater has done. That would be akin to trying to learn about household income levels by dividing average personal income by the number of households.

The AATA collects and maintains passenger-per-service-hour data for each route. And those numbers range from a high of nearly 46 passengers per service hour on Route 9 to a low of 11 passengers per service hour on Route 17 in the most recent year.

Prater went on to suggest that AATA discuss these issues with the county board, in light of the four-party agreement that the board will be asked to approve in the near future.

County commissioners were most recently briefed on the AATA’s countywide transit plan at the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford gave a presentation and answered questions, and addressed the county’s role in the process of forming a new countywide transit authority.

The four-party agreement – with the AATA, Washtenaw County, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – has not yet been placed on the agenda for the county board. It is being considered by the Ann Arbor city council, which has postponed action on the agreement two times. At a public hearing on the issue at the council’s Jan. 23 meeting, county commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. spoke in support of the countywide plan. The Ann Arbor city council had planned to discuss the agreement at its Feb. 6 meeting. But in the most recent development, on Friday, Feb. 3, the AATA requested that the city council postpone a decision on the four-party transit agreement until March 5.

Later in the Feb. 1 meeting, Prater said his statement didn’t mean that he doesn’t support public transit. He’s just concerned about the process for forming a countywide transit authority. Prater said he didn’t think AATA had been forthcoming on all items related to the plan. He also said that a financial advisory group, which was expected to release a report on Friday, Jan. 27 with recommendations on funding a countywide transit system, decided against “turning it loose,” he said. “That’s unfortunate.”

The advisory group, co-chaired by former county administrator Bob Guenzel, postponed its Jan. 27 meeting in the wake of state legislation that had been introduced the previous day – on Jan. 26. The 17-bill package, if passed, would provide for the establishment and funding of a regional transit authority that would include Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties.

Whitmore Lake Improvement Project

On the Feb. 1 agenda was a resolution to give initial approval to a five-year, $460,000 project to study and improve conditions at Whitmore Lake. The lake is located in Washtenaw County’s Northfield Township and Livingston County’s Green Oak Township.

The effort – focusing on removal of invasive weeds – is a continuation of a project that began in 2003, and was renewed in 2007. It’s overseen by the county board of public works. The project’s cost will be recovered through special assessments on over 860 parcels near Whitmore Lake.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked for additional details of the project. Jeff Krcmarik, an environmental supervisor with the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, said the project began in 2003 after residents living near Whitmore Lake asked for the county’s help. Invasive weeds was inhibiting recreational activities, he said, and limiting the lake’s biodiversity. The assessments require renewal every five years.

Krcmarik pointed commissioners to the project’s website for more information and historical reports.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the Whitemore Lake project. A final vote is expected at the board’s Feb. 15 meeting.

AFSCME Local 3052 Contract Approved

Without discussion, the board gave final approval to a two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors. The agreement had been ratified by its membership, and had received initial approval from commissioners at their Jan. 18, 2012 meeting.

AFSCME Local 3052 was one of five bargaining units – out of 17 units representing county employees – that did not reach an agreement with the county by the end of 2011, when its previous contracts expired. Negotiations continue with the other four units – representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office.

The new agreement, which runs from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013, calls for a 10% retirement contribution from employees, and a 10-year vesting period for new hires. Employees will take 10 unpaid “bank leave” days in 2012 and 2013, with no furlough days imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay.

The default health care plan will comply with the state’s hard cap on costs. The cap limits the amount that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare annually: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. Employees have the option to upgrade their plans for additional annual costs of $2,724 or $1,772, based on the plan.

The agreement also eliminates longevity pay for new hires, and reduces longevity pay by 25% for current employees in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013. The collective bargaining agreement stipulates that if county property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012, a 1% wage increase would become effective Jan. 1, 2013.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to a new contract with AFSCME Local 3052.

Workers Comp Contracts Authorized

Commissioners were asked to approve a resolution authorizing two contracts: (1) for the third-party administration of claims services for the workers’ disability compensation program from 2012-2015; and (2) for excess workers’ disability compensation insurance coverage from Feb. 1, 2012 through May 1, 2013.

The agreement for third-party administration of claims services was awarded to Broadspire Services Inc., based in Atlanta. It calls for paying Broadspire $36,750 in each of the first and second years, and $37,565 in the third year of the contract. Broadspire is the county’s current vendor for these services.

The contract for excess insurance coverage above $500,000 was awarded to St. Louis-based Safety National. The agreement calls for paying the company $62,297 for the period of February 2012 through May 2013. The resolution approved by the board also authorizes the county administrator to negotiate one-year extensions through May 1, 2015. According to a staff memo, the insurance coverage will be used to protect the county from potential worker’s compensation losses over the next year. Safety National is the county’s current excess insurance vendor.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution related to two contracts for the workers compensation program.

Public Commentary: Towing Contract

One person spoke during the opportunity for public commentary. Billy Salamey introduced himself as a Superior Township resident and owner of three towing companies. [His businesses include Budget Towing, Stadium Towing and Glen Ann Towing.]

Billy Salamey, left, talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith after the Feb. 1 meeting.

Salamey said he was there to talk about allegations that had been made against his company by a competitor. It was frustrating, he said, because he felt that his character had been defamed. He said he conducts his business with integrity and honesty, and he cited several examples of work in the community to make his point.

By way of background, Salamey was referring to a letter sent to the board of commissioners on Jan. 25, 2012 from Ed Lee, towing manager of Aachen Auto in Ypsilanti. Lee objected to the process of choosing companies for towing contracts with the sheriff’s office, alleging that a company had submitted a fraudulent bid. Lee criticized the bidding process, stating that the contract extension process “has historically violated the rights of every towing company within Washtenaw County that didn’t currently have the contract.”

In his letter, Lee requested time at the Feb. 1 meeting to discuss the issue with the board. The letter did not refer to Salamey or his business by name. [.pdf of Lee's letter] However, no presentation on the issue was made at Wednesday’s meeting.

During his time at public commentary, Salamey thanked the county for conducting due diligence in responding to the allegations.

Bob Mossing, business manager for the sheriff’s office, had responded to Lee’s allegations in a Jan. 27 memo to Angela Perry, the county’s purchasing manager – the memo was also cc-ed to the county board. Mossing noted in the memo that “no official action has been taken relative to this RFP or awarding any areas to any tow companies.” [.pdf of memo from Mossing] [.pdf of original RFP, issued in June of 2011]

Public Commentary: Towing Contract – Commissioner Response

Conan Smith, chair of the board, responded to Salamey’s comments by saying that the county prides itself on the transparency of its processes. The bids were vetted by the county’s corporation counsel and sheriff’s office, he said, and the bids were found to be in compliance with the county’s policies. He said he appreciated that Salamey attended the meeting, and that the county has a fair, solid bidding process.

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

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

AFSCME Local 3052 was one of five bargaining units – out of 17 units representing county employees – that did not reach an agreement with the county by the end of 2011, when its previous contracts expired. Negotiations continue with the other four units – representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office.

The new agreement, which runs from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013, calls for a 10% retirement contribution from employees, and a 10-year vesting period for new hires. Employees will take 10 unpaid “bank leave” days in 2012 and 2013, with no furlough days imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay.

The default health care plan will comply with the state’s hard cap on costs. The cap limits the amount that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare annually: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. Employees have the option to upgrade their plans for additional annual costs of $2,724 or $1,772, based on the plan.

The agreement also eliminates longevity pay for new hires, and reduces longevity pay by 25% for current employees in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013. The collective bargaining agreement stipulates that if county property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012, a 1% wage increase would become effective Jan. 1, 2013.

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

At the Washtenaw County board of commissioners Jan. 18, 2012 meeting, Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman talks with Mary Jo Callan, director of the joint Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development. Kunselman was on hand to air concerns about the proposed countywide transit authority. (Photos by the writer.)

However, the issue emerged at the board’s Jan. 18 meeting when two people – including city councilmember Stephen Kunselman – spoke during public commentary to share their views with county commissioners. Among Kunselman’s points was a concern that Ann Arbor might end up shouldering the burden for countywide transit, if most other communities opt out.

A few commissioners responded to the public commentary. Alicia Ping – who represents a district covering Saline and several townships in southwest Washtenaw – indicated that many people in her district were not inclined to participate in a countywide transit authority. Wes Prater expressed concerns about the process so far, calling it convoluted and confusing.

The main action at the board’s Jan. 18 meeting also reflected ties between the county and Ann Arbor – a presentation and vote on the consolidation of county and Ann Arbor 911 dispatch services. The proposal, which was unanimously approved, called for entering into a contract with the city from Feb. 1, 2012 to Jan. 30, 2017. The city will pay $759,089 annually for dispatch services. In addition, the county expects to receive an increase of $677,893 annually from 911 fees. The Ann Arbor city council had already approved the agreement at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton told commissioners that he believes the dispatch model they’re developing will be among the best practices nationally, and will be replicated by other dispatch operations in the country. This partnership between Washtenaw County’s two largest public safety entities will strengthen core police services in the county, he said.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to one of the last remaining contracts with a union representing Washtenaw County employees – a two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors. A final vote by the board is expected at its Feb. 1 meeting. Negotiations continue with four remaining bargaining units that have not yet reached an agreement on a new contract.

The board also approved a brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a development in Ann Arbor at the corner of Washtenaw and Platt, and formally accepted a $3 million grant to support the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project, which focuses on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township. Arbor Hills Crossing will be located along that corridor.

County administrator Verna McDaniel updated the board on turning over the Washtenaw Head Start program to federal officials, a move that commissioners had approved last year as part of the budget process. The county will end its 46-year affiliation with Head Start on July 31. McDaniel reported that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District is interested in applying to take over the program locally, and that federal officials plan to issue a request for proposals (RFP) during the first quarter of this year.

Not mentioned during McDaniel’s update was the status of an investigation begun last year into actions of the program’s two top officials, director Patricia Horne McGee and Lovida Roach, the program’s second-in-command. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said the allegations that prompted the investigation were “founded.” Heidt said the county could not release details, but that no misuse of funds was involved. Horne McGee retired at the end of 2011. Roach will remain on leave until the county relinquishes control of Head Start, and at that point she will also retire, Heidt said.

The meeting also included a transition of sorts. Commissioner Leah Gunn has typically taken on the parliamentary action of moving the agenda at each of the board’s meetings, which entails reading off the agenda items. Gunn, who is not running for re-election this year, announced that Wednesday’s meeting was her “farewell agenda” – she would be relinquishing that task for the remainder of her tenure on the board. [Her term runs through the end of 2012.] After she completed the task this final time, Yousef Rabhi teased her, saying Gunn “moved the agenda very well.”

Countywide Transit

There was no agenda item regarding the effort that’s underway to form a countywide transit authority, but the topic came up during public commentary, prompting some commissioners to respond.

A four-party agreement is being considered by Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The agreement among the four parties would set up a framework for the transition of the AATA to a countywide transit authority, incorporated under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. AATA currently operates under Act 55 of 1963. For a discussion of the key differences between the two pieces of legislation, see Chronicle coverage: “AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit.”

If approved, the four-way agreement would assign specific conditions and responsibilities to each of the parties as part of the transition to a countywide transit authority. The role of approving, signing and filing the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority would fall to Washtenaw County. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation]

The county board has not taken any action on the proposed countywide plan. However, commissioners have been briefed by AATA staff about the proposal, most recently at the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford gave a presentation on the overall plan and the county’s role.

Countywide Transit: Public Commentary

Stephen Kunselman introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor who serves on the Ann Arbor city council. He quickly read headlines and excerpts from news articles about public transit initiatives in other communities, including Grand Rapids and Detroit. He told commissioners that any community in Washtenaw County that opts in to the Act 196 authority would have its millage revenues dictated by the whims of Ann Arbor. [The proposed governance structure includes a 15-member board, with 7 of those board members appointed from Ann Arbor.]

Kunselman also said he’s not interested in Ann Arbor “going it alone.” He plans to propose an amendment to the four-party agreement that would stipulate if Ann Arbor is the only community that opts in, then the agreement would be null and void. His final point was that true regional transportation should go beyond the borders of Washtenaw County, but that it shouldn’t be carried on the backs of Ann Arbor residents.

[Kunselman has raised similar concerns at Ann Arbor city council meetings. At its Jan. 9 meeting, the council debated the proposed four-party agreement and ultimately voted to delay voting on the accord until its Jan. 23 meeting. The council also set a public hearing on the issue for that date.]

LuAnne Bullington also spoke on the topic of the countywide transit plan. Saying she’s an Ann Arbor resident who has used public transportation for decades and has attended numerous meetings on the issue, Bullington said she knows a lot about public transportation. She asked why the board wanted to set up an Act 196 authority, when AATA is already set up to provide public transportation to other parts of the county?

Out-county communities have said they don’t want it, Bullington contended. So why is this board pushing for it? [Throughout her commentary, she repeatedly addressed commissioners and called the countywide transit proposal "your plan."] Why does the board want Ann Arbor taxpayers to pay for it – why doesn’t the county pay? Why should AATA turn over its money to an organization that doesn’t exist yet? she asked. Bullington called the countywide transit proposal a “pig in a poke.”

Countywide Transit: Commissioner Response

A few commissioners responded to the commentary on countywide transit. Wes Prater – who represents District 4, covering the southeast portion of the county – said the county board has never taken any position of any sort regarding a countywide transit authority. Individual commissioners might have made statements for or against it, he said, but there has never been any action taken by the board. It seems to be driven by the mayor and city council of Ann Arbor, he said. A lot of money has been spent on consultants to develop the plan, he said. But Prater said he doesn’t believe a countywide authority will work. Four townships have already opted out, he noted, and he estimated that more than half of the county’s townships will eventually choose not to participate.

Alicia Ping – the commissioner representing District 3, which includes the city of Saline and townships in southwest Washtenaw County – reported that in her district, one mayor and one township supervisor have expressed interest in the countywide transit authority. But no one else in her district wants it, she said. Ping expressed skepticism that the authority could be considered countywide, if most communities in the county don’t join it.

Later in the meeting, Prater brought up the topic again. He said it was strange that during the discussions by AATA staff of a countywide system, no one mentioned the University of Michigan bus system. It seems like there’s a missed opportunity for collaboration there, he said. There are duplications in administration and tasks between the two systems, he said, and about 30,000 students supplementing the population of Ann Arbor.

[Even though UM also runs its own buses to provide service between its campuses, some collaboration already exists between the AATA and the university. AATA's M-Ride program, for example, allows UM students, faculty, and staff to ride AATA buses without paying a fare when they board. The program makes up about 40% of the AATA's fixed-route ridership. UM is also a part of a partnership to explore a high-capacity connector from Plymouth Road near US-23 down through downtown Ann Arbor along State Street to I-94. The middle part of that route would connect the UM north campus and central campus.]

Prater described the process of forming an Act 196 as convoluted. “When I get it figured out a little bit more, I’m going to be asking some more questions,” he said. It doesn’t seem like the out-county population is dense enough to support public transportation, Prater said, which leads him to believe that AATA and other supporters of the plan are just looking for additional tax revenues. He also noted that Gov. Rick Snyder has a plan for regional transit that would add yet another wrinkle. “It’s quite confusing,” he concluded.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said that having additional discussions about transit wouldn’t be a bad thing. He noted that an item originally on the Jan. 19 working session agenda – a discussion led by board chair Conan Smith about proposed state legislation for regional transit – would be postponed. Smith indicated that the state legislation has not moved forward yet. [See also Chronicle coverage: "AATA in Transition, Briefed on State's Plans"]

Countywide Transit: Working Session Follow-up

The following evening, at the board’s Jan. 19 working session, LuAnne Bullington returned to address the commissioners again during public commentary. She referred to the countywide transit plan as the mayor’s regional transit program – presumably a reference to Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje. She said she’d brought more documents related to the plan to give to commissioners, since it seemed to her that they weren’t informed.

Bullington questioned why there was movement forward on WALLY, a possible commuter rail service on a 26-mile route between Ann Arbor and Howell, in Livingston County.

[At its Sept. 15, 2011 meeting, the AATA board passed a resolution that expressed general support for the idea of continuing to work with surrounding communities to move forward with the Washtenaw and Livingston Line (WALLY) project. The resolution's one “resolved” clause required that the $50,000 allocated for WALLY in the 2012 budget cannot be spent, except with the explicit consent of the AATA board. At the AATA board's Jan. 19, 2012 meeting, CEO Michael Ford indicated that the WALLY project itself could not happen without some capital funding that had failed to materialize in the form of TIGER III grants. The AATA expects to see a plan for what to do about WALLY in February or March.]

Bullington said she’d been told that WALLY is dead. Yet the AATA has sent out a request for proposals (RFP) for a WALLY station that’s due Feb. 2, she said. [.pdf of RFP specifications for a WALLY railroad station feasibility study and engineering support for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.]

Bullington also wondered why the mayor is asking the county board to create a new transit authority, when the governor is talking about creating a bus rapid transit system for the four-county metro Detroit area, including Washtenaw County. And if the county is being asked to create the authority, why are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti being asked to approve a framework for it? she asked. She said that Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman had asked AATA CEO Michael Ford how much Ann Arbor taxpayers would pay for a countywide system, but contended he didn’t get an answer.

Why should there be a vote on a framework when it’s not clear what’s being voted on? she asked. She said the mayor used to sell real estate. Would anyone want to buy a $9 million house without seeing it? The cities are being set up for a bait and switch, Bullington contended. There shouldn’t be a rush about it, especially since the governor is expected to announce his transit plan in February, she concluded.

Responding to Bullington’s commentary, board chair Conan Smith said it would be worthwhile to schedule a working session about the intent of the four-party agreement. There have been some amendments proposed by other governing entities, he noted. Smith said he felt that the board should be asserting that the process isn’t being handled in the right way. If four different bodies can amend the agreement piecemeal, the process could take forever, he said. It would be better to have a negotiating committee work on the agreement, then take it back to the four governing bodies for an up or down vote.

Barbara Bergman expressed reluctance to get involved in negotiating an agreement, saying it’s not the county’s role to broker a deal.

Wes Prater said he felt like there are things going on that he doesn’t know about, and he asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to explain how the county was involved. If the county is the enabling public entity, why aren’t county staff and commissioners involved in writing the articles of incorporation or the four-party agreement? he asked. Although individual commissioners have taken a stance, the county as an entity hasn’t taken part in developing this transit plan, he said. Prater wondered why the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, was working on it – at whose request was he doing that?

As he’d done the previous evening, Prater described the process as convoluted, and he wondered why it was so difficult and confusing when there were easier ways to proceed. “It looks to me like there’s some kind of scamming going on,” he concluded.

McDaniel responded by saying that any work the corporation counsel is doing is to review documents on behalf of the board.

Noting that he has attended information sessions held by AATA, Dan Smith said his understanding is that the county’s role is extremely limited, and that the board could decide to play no role whatsoever. By participating, the county would streamline the process, he said. It’s possible for the townships and cities to create a transit authority without the county’s involvement, he said, but it would entail more red tape. If the county’s role were more extensive, Smith said he’d have some concerns. As it is, they’ll just be filing paperwork “and that’s it,” he said.

911 Dispatch Consolidation

The board was asked to give approval to move forward with consolidating 911 dispatch operations between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor. The proposal called for entering into a contract with the city from Feb. 1, 2012 to Jan. 30, 2017. The city would pay $759,089 annually for dispatch services. In addition, the county expects to receive an increase of $677,893 annually from 911 fees.

The Ann Arbor city council had already approved the agreement at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting. The city expects eventually to save $500,000 a year with the move, which will entail laying off all of the city’s current dispatchers, not all of whom would be able to obtain employment within the expanded sheriff’s office dispatch operation.

The combined operation is proposed to employ 30 full-time dispatchers and 12-15 part-time dispatchers. The county’s action on Wednesday called for creating 15 full-time employees, including 13 communications coordinators (dispatchers), one dispatch operations coordinator and one dispatch manager.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?”

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Presentation

Sheriff Jerry Clayton began his presentation by saying this consolidation is an example of good public policy. It improves services and creates efficiencies, and while both dispatch units were “magnificent,” he said, they’ll be enhanced by coming together.

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton addresses the county board of commissioners. In the background is Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff's office.

It’s not a new idea, Clayton told the board – the possibility of consolidated dispatch has been kicked around for more than two decades. If communities want their own dispatch operations, that’s their right, he said. But it makes sense to streamline operations and save money.

Since 1990, the county has operated its own dispatch, and provided dispatch services under contract with Northfield Township, the Michigan State Police, the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, and jurisdictions in the county that contract for police services. In 2009, the county restructured its dispatch operations, changing the number of supervisors and increasing the number of dispatcher positions.

In January of 2010, the county started providing dispatch services for the city of Ypsilanti. It was a decision largely driven by Ypsilanti’s difficult financial situation, Clayton said, and is an example of how the county tries to provide a safety net for communities. The savings allowed Ypsilanti to keep another police officer on the street, he said.

In May of 2010, the county dispatch co-located to the same site as the Ann Arbor dispatch operation – in the fire station across the street from Ann Arbor city hall. It was not part of a long-term plan to consolidate, Clayton said. Rather, it made sense to have dispatchers in the same room for better communication, he said, in part because crime knows no boundaries.

In March of 2011, public safety officials with the county and city of Ann Arbor began talks about how to find additional efficiencies. It was in the context of budget challenges that the city was facing, Clayton said. Ann Arbor police chief Barnett Jones asked the county for a proposal, and after further talks, Jones decided it made sense to contract out for services. The proposal was taken to city council last year, and approved at the council’s Dec. 5, 2011 meeting.

This was a major move for the city, Clayton said. The dispatch operation is in some ways the lifeline of the police force, he said, and it shows great trust in the county to contract out that service. The decision was not made lightly, he said, in part because it would be very difficult and expensive for the city to reverse the decision in the future.

The consolidation is anticipated to save the city $500,000 annually, enabling Ann Arbor to retain more police officers, Clayton said. It allows the county to maintain an adequate dispatch staff – the operation has been understaffed for some time, and has had to rely on overtime hours. That issue can now be addressed, he said.

This chart shows cost savings associated with dispatch partnerships with Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. (Image links to larger chart.)

Clayton gave three examples of the cost savings from contracts with Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, and from the county’s co-location with Ann Arbor.

Clayton said the dispatch contract with Ypsilanti brings in $73,000 annually to the county, plus an additional $75,228 in 911 fees. Co-locating with Ann Arbor saved $430,000 every eight years by eliminating the need for a phone switch replacement, and saved another $80,000 every 10 years by eliminating the need to replace a logging recorder. The county also saw a one-time $440,000 savings from co-location by eliminating the need to buy equipment for the Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS).

The new contract with Ann Arbor will bring in $759,089 annually to the county, plus an additional $678,000 in 911 fees that were previously paid to Ann Arbor.

Separately, each community that contracts with the sheriff’s office for police services pays for dispatch services too, Clayton noted. For each police services unit (PSU) – the term used to indicate one sheriff’s deputy plus overhead – the contract includes $10,707 for dispatch services. In 2012, there are contracts for 79 PSUs countywide, which will bring in an additional $845,853 for dispatch services.

Clayton outlined the benefits of consolidating dispatch services with Ann Arbor. It would save the city $500,000 annually, allowing Ann Arbor to maintain more police officers on the street. For the sheriff’s office, consolidation will relieve staffing shortages and reduce the use of overtime, as well as bring in additional revenues.

Consolidation also addresses some challenges of co-location, he said, including the lack of a common mission, common standards, and frustration over how the work is distributed. There will now be one approach to training and quality assurance, he noted. Performance will be measured uniformly, and reported regularly. Measurements will fall into four categories: (1) operations, including call volume, speed to answer and speed to dispatch; (2) financial, including overtime hours, performance to budget, and cost per 911 call; (3) service quality, such as satisfaction of law enforcement officers and citizens who use 911; and (4) development, including the number of certifications and hours of training per employee.

Clayton said he believes the model they’re developing will be among the best practices nationally, and will be replicated by other dispatch operations in the country. A partnership of Washtenaw County’s two largest public safety entities will strengthen core police services in the county, he said.

After showing some schematics of the operation’s layout, Clayton concluded his presentation by describing the proposed number of employees for the combined dispatch. The goal is to employ 30 full-time dispatchers, 12-15 part-time dispatchers, one manager and two supervisors.

As part of approving the overall project, the board was being asked to vote on a resolution that authorized creating 15 new full-time employees, including 13 communications coordinators (dispatchers), one dispatch operations coordinator and one dispatch manager.

Clayton then fielded questions and comments from commissioners, who were uniformly supportive. This report organizes the board’s discussion thematically.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Logistics

Felicia Brabec called it a wonderful example of collaboration. She asked how the consolidation would happen logistically – what would happen to people who called in on the day of the switchover, for example?

The physical logistics won’t be a problem, Clayton replied. He said the city of Ann Arbor did a great job in designing the co-location facility, where both county and Ann Arbor dispatchers have been operating. For the caller, it will be a seamless transition.

But there are significant logistics to handle in terms of personnel, he said. The county currently employs 17 dispatchers. If the board approves the proposal, another 13 dispatchers will need to be hired. Clayton said he’s hopeful that some Ann Arbor dispatchers will join the new operation, but he knows that some are planning to retire, or are seeking jobs elsewhere.

He indicated that if half of the Ann Arbor dispatchers come over, that would go a long way toward easing the transition. The county had held a job fair the previous Saturday, Clayton said, and they had identified 15 potential candidates from that event who’ll be brought back for further interviews. [The job fair was held at the same time as an Ann Arbor City Democratic Party event, which a representative from the sheriff's office attended on his behalf to announce that Clayton will be running for re-election this year.]

Another piece of the transition is training, Clayton said. After Clayton took office in 2009, the previous training program for dispatchers was scrapped, and a new one was developed that includes three weeks of classroom training. In addition, there are over 250 core tasks that dispatchers must master and prove proficiency in, he said.

All of this must be coordinated with the city, Clayton said. He did not identify a specific date when the transition will occur, saying that it’s a floating date, as different activities of the dispatch operation are aligned.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Finances

Brabec referred to the budget that Clayton had presented, and asked why there’s almost an $800,000 difference between revenues and expenditures. [The proposed 2012 dispatch budget identifies $2,653,036 in revenues and $3,449,881 in expenditures.] Clayton said that roughly $800,000 in additional revenues will come from a line item in the police services budget – communities that contract with the sheriff’s office for patrol deputies pay for dispatch services as part of their contracts.

Yousef Rabhi described the consolidation as a phenomenal project. When he was out campaigning, he said, he told residents about the co-location of Ann Arbor and county dispatchers, and people thought it was a great move. Now, it’s taken to the next level, he said.

Mark Breckenridge, the county's director of emergency management, and dispatch operations coordinator Sarah Taylor.

Rabhi asked how the E-911 funds are distributed. Mark Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency management, explained that the state collects 911 fees from wireless providers based on the number of wireless devices that are registered for Washtenaw County. Funds from those fees are paid to the county quarterly.

There is also a 911 revenue stream from landlines. The distribution of those funds is overseen by a county emergency telephone district board. At this point, each of the three dispatch centers in the county – in the sheriff’s office, Ann Arbor, and Pittsfield Township – get funds based on a formula that factors in population, landline count and call volume.

In response to another question from Rabhi, Breckenridge said that revenues from landlines are decreasing, while wireless revenues are increasing. In two years, 911 revenues will be based only on population.

Rabhi clarified with Clayton that the contract with Ann Arbor runs for five years, and that although the annual amount that Ann Arbor will pay doesn’t change, the amount reflects anticipated cost increases over that period. He also confirmed with Clayton that the contract is expected to be renegotiated in five years, and that any cost increases will be part of a renegotiated rate. Clayton said he’s already had that conversation with the city, and that they know they should anticipate a higher rate in the next contract.

Rabhi said it’s great to see a budget neutral proposal that’s helping to streamline government operations. Clayton said he appreciated the kind words that were directed at him, but that the staff has been instrumental in developing the plan, and that it was the vision of Ann Arbor police chief Barnett Jones that made the consolidation possible.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked a series of questions. He clarified with Clayton that the county is paying $12,500 annually to the city for rent at the dispatch facility. If dispatch operations eventually move to the county’s western service center on Zeeb Road, would the city then pay the county rent? Clayton said the rent that the county pays is part of the context for what the city will pay to the county after consolidation.

Sizemore asked why the dispatch operations couldn’t move to the county’s Zeeb Road facility now? [The western service center on Zeeb Road includes considerable vacant space.] Clayton replied that the sheriff’s office wants to be part of the county’s overall infrastructure plan, but it would be too much to take on a physical relocation at this time. Moving would also cost a substantial amount, he noted. Sizemore asked if Clayton is budgeting for an eventual move. The sheriff indicated that his staff is working with county administrator Verna McDaniel and Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to see how a move might fit into upcoming budgets.

Who’ll pay for equipment upgrades? Sizemore asked. The county would need to pay for upgrades for its dispatch operations regardless of whether it provides services to other entities, Clayton said. In response to another question from Sizemore, Clayton said the county has the capacity to handle dispatch operations for other communities as well.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Technology

Alicia Ping asked if there is any way to quantify the number of cell phone calls that are directed to different dispatch operations. If she places a 911 call from Pittsfield Township, do county dispatchers answer it?

Breckenridge explained that there are currently three public safety answering points (PSAPs) in Washtenaw County – that is, dispatch operations that answer 911 calls. Right now, such calls are handled by the sheriff’s office, the Ann Arbor police department, and the Pittsfield Township department of public safety. Only a limited number of PSAPs are allowed, he said, in order to eliminate confusion from overlapping cell phone service coverage.

Ping wanted to know how calls were distributed to the three PSAPs. Breckenridge said he could find out and send that information to her. Ping said her point is that the county is subsidizing certain communities that don’t pay for police services, yet rely on the county’s dispatch operations when their residents call 911.

Barbara Bergman asked whether the dispatcher could locate a caller who makes a 911 call. Yes, Breckenridge replied. If your phone has GPS, then it’s possible to spot the location directly. If the phone isn’t equipped with GPS, then it’s possible to use cell towers to triangulate the location within 50-150 yards, he said. Eventually, all cell phones will send GPS signals to make the location easy to determine.

If her constituents ask what kind of phone to buy, Bergman said, it seems she should tell them to buy a smartphone with GPS. She noted that if a triangulated location covers 150 yards, that means emergency responders might have to knock on three doors before finding the right house. Breckenridge replied that the best phone for someone to have who’s homebound is a landline. For landline calls, the dispatcher sees a display of the caller’s phone number and address.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Partnerships

Leah Gunn praised the project, noting that the county and city of Ann Arbor have been trying to coordinate dispatch operations for more than 20 years. She gave credit to Clayton for making it happen, saying that the residents of Ann Arbor trust and respect him, and obviously the ANn Arbor city council does too. It’s a great collaboration, she said.

Rob Turner thanked Clayton and his staff. A year ago, Turner recalled, the board held a retreat and reached consensus that public safety was one of the top priorities for the county. The only way to make that happen is through collaboration and partnerships. Another example is the police services steering committee, Turner said, and its work on developing a new police services contract for local communities to contract for sheriff deputy patrols.

The steering committee worked to bring costs down for the contracting communities, Turner said, adding that he realized Ann Arbor shouldered some of the financial burden for that. Now, the county is in a position to help Ann Arbor lower the city’s costs, he said. Consolidation maximizes the police services that are offered to the county’s residents, he said, noting that there are many needs, especially in some areas where crime is high.

Turner told Clayton that other police forces within the county view Clayton as a friend and partner, and speak highly of him. Though there are ways to improve, Turner said he’s very impressed with the work that’s been done so far.

Wes Prater told Clayton that he’d done an amazing job in putting this consolidation together. He hoped it would make it easier for Clayton to actually take a vacation in the next 3-4 years. Clayton indicated that his wife hoped so, too.

Dan Smith pointed to some of the historical information that Clayton had mentioned – the county has been handling dispatch for Northfield Township since 1990. Smith – who represents District 2, which includes that township – said he’s never heard of any problems related to dispatch operations. When he served on the township board, Smith said, he did a ride-along with the police in a pursuit situation. The dispatchers handled it smoothly, he said, and you couldn’t tell that the dispatchers weren’t located in Northfield Township. He said he was certain that it will work out as well for Ann Arbor as it has for the township.

Outcome: The board unanimously authorized moving forward with consolidating 911 dispatch operations between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor.

Head Start Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel gave an update on the process of relinquishing administration of the local Head Start program, which the county has managed for 46 years. Federal officials have been formally notified, she said, and the program will be officially relinquished back to the feds on July 31, 2012. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Options Weighed for Washtenaw Head Start," "Head Start Advocates Make Emotional Plea" and "Washtenaw County Budget Set for 2012-2013"]

Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie talks with county administrator Verna McDaniel.

McDaniel also noted that the former Head Start director, Patricia Horne McGee, had retired as of Dec. 31. Cassandra Sheriff, site director for the Ypsilanti Head Start location, is acting as interim director.

McDaniel and board chair Conan Smith met earlier this month with the local Head Start policy council. McDaniel described it as a positive meeting, with members asking pertinent questions about the transition process. The council had expressed interest in meeting with officials from the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), which is applying to the federal government to become the designated grantee of the program. So another meeting was held, McDaniel said, with WISD superintendent Scott Menzel attending.

Menzel had praised the Head Start program, and said he believes in continuity, McDaniel reported. He had said he didn’t want to be presumptuous and assume that WISD would be named the grantee. But if that happens, WISD would want to retain Head Start’s stellar staff and have as little disruption to the program as possible. McDaniel said the policy council was supportive of WISD’s application, and would likely submit letters of support to federal officials.

A request for proposals (RFP) will likely be issued by the federal-level Head Start agency in the first quarter of 2012, McDaniel said. County staff are providing information required to draft the RFP, she said.

Head Start Update: Commissioner Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked whether the county is prepared to do everything it needs to do in order to relinquish the program. McDaniel replied that the staff has made a commitment to provide all required information to the federal officials, including an inventory.

Brabec asked what the status was regarding the main Head Start building and the debt that the county held on that. Previously, county staff had reported that the county owes about $2.6 million on the bond and makes $167,000 in bond payments annually at the building, located at 1661 Leforge Road in Ypsilanti. The bond payment schedule runs through 2022.

McDaniel said that nothing is certain. It will depend on the entity that’s eventually chosen to take over the program, she said. A discussion of assets – including the Leforge building – would be part of that transition.

Yousef Rabhi asked whether the county would submit a letter of support for the WISD. McDaniel indicated that the county could submit a letter of support for the WISD, if the board wanted to do that.

Head Start Update: Administrative Investigation

During her update, McDaniel did not mention that Horne McGee and senior management assistant Lovida Roach – Horne McGee’s second-in-command – had been placed on administrative leave on Dec. 13, pending the outcome of an investigation that had started in October. [See Chronicle coverage: "Two Head Start Managers Put on Leave"]

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said that the allegations which prompted the investigation were “founded.” Citing the fact that it was a personnel issue, Heidt said the county could not release details, but that no misuse of funds was involved. When the investigation started, Horne McGee chose to retire at year’s end, Heidt said. Roach will remain on leave, using personal time she has accrued, until the county relinquishes control of Head Start. At that point, Roach will also retire, Heidt said.

AFSCME Local 3052 Agreement

One of the last remaining contracts with a union representing Washtenaw County employees was given initial approval by the board at its Jan. 18 meeting. The tentative two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors, has been ratified by its membership. A final vote by the board is expected at its Feb. 1 meeting.

AFSCME Local 3052 was one of five bargaining units – out of 17 units representing county employees – that did not reach an agreement with the county by the end of 2011, when its previous contracts expired. Negotiations continue with the other four units – representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office.

The new agreement, which runs from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013, calls for a 10% retirement contribution from employees, and a 10-year vesting period for new hires. Employees will take 10 unpaid “bank leave” days in 2012 and 2013, with no furlough days imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay.

The default health care plan will comply with the state’s hard cap on costs. The cap limits the amount that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare annually: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. Employees have the option to upgrade their plans for additional annual costs of $2,724 or $1,772, based on the plan.

The agreement also eliminates longevity pay for new hires, and reduces longevity pay by 25% for current employees in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013. The collective bargaining agreement stipulates that if county property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012, a 1% wage increase would become effective Jan. 1, 2013.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board voted unanimously to approved the AFSCME Local 3052 agreement.

Arbor Hills Brownfield Plan

The board was asked to give final approval to a brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw in Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor city council approved the plan at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting, and the county board had given initial approval on Dec. 7.

Members of the development team for Arbor Hills Crossing, from left: Arthur Siegal of Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss; Anne Jamieson-Urena of AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services; and Bill Carpenter of reFORM studios.

The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces. The brownfield plan includes $6.7 million in tax increment financing to be paid back over a 19-year period.

Because Ann Arbor is part of the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority, all brownfield plans in the city must get approval from the county board as well as from the Ann Arbor city council.

Wednesday’s meeting included a public hearing on the brownfield plan. The only speakers were three members of the development team: Anne Jamieson-Urena, director of brownfield and redevelopment incentives for AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services; Arthur Siegal, an attorney with Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss; and Bill Carpenter, an architect with reFORM studios. They all spoke briefly, highlighting attributes of the project and asking for the board’s support of the brownfield plan.

There was no discussion of the project among commissioners.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing.

$3 Million HUD Community Grant

On the agenda was a resolution to approve the acceptance of a three-year, $3 million grant recently awarded by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The approval included authorizing $65,000 in matching funds from the county’s housing contingency fund, and the hiring of a full-time management analyst.

HUD’s Community Challenge Planning Grant grant was awarded to support the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project, which focuses on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township. County administrator Verna McDaniel had announced news of the grant award at a Nov. 17, 2011 working session of the county board.

According to the grant application, the project focuses on “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.” It’s part of the Reimagining Washtenaw project, which has been underway for several years. The joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development, led by Mary Jo Callan, is taking the lead on the project. Callan was on hand at the Jan. 18 meeting to answer questions, but commissioners had none.

In addition to the county and four other jurisdictions, partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Arts Alliance, Community Housing Alternatives, Eastern Michigan University, Food System Economic Partnership, Growing Hope, Habitat for Humanity, SEMCOG, Ann Arbor SPARK, University of Michigan Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, Washtenaw County Public Health, and the Ypsilanti Housing Commission.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board unanimously approved a resolution to accept the $3 million grant, approve matching funds and hire a full-time management analyst.

Board Appointments

Board chair Conan Smith announced nominations of commissioners to fill slots on more than two dozen advisory committees, commissions and boards. He also nominated sheriff Jerry Clayton to act as liaison to the 800 Megahertz oversight committee, which oversees the countywide millage passed in 2006 for an emergency communications system. [.pdf of 2012 appointments]

Smith noted that the board is planning to evaluate its participation in the Literacy Coalition of Washtenaw County – he is the commissioner designated as a member of that group, which has been struggling with funding and engagement of its membership. [See Chronicle coverage: "Literacy Coalition Faces Uncertain Future"]

Responsibility for the police services steering committee, which has worked on the issue of sheriff deputies that serve local communities on a contract basis, will be shifted to the sheriff’s office rather than the board of commissioners, Smith said. The number of commissioners serving on that committee will be reduced from four to two – Rob Turner and Alica Ping.

Smith also proposed that the public safety and justice oversight committee, which had been formed to oversee the jail expansion, would be dissolved because that project has been completed.

Outcome: All appointments and other changes were approved unanimously, without comment.

Communications & Commentary

During each meeting, there are opportunities for public commentary and for communications from commissioners and staff. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Board Retreat

Ronnie Peterson apologized for arriving late to the meeting – he said he’d been in Lansing, and had a flat tire on the trip back to Ann Arbor. He noted that board chair Conan Smith had asked staff to call commissioners and schedule a retreat for Saturday, Jan. 21. Peterson said he’d be unable to attend – he would be out of town, he said. He expressed frustration that alternative dates hadn’t been considered. Smith apologized, indicating that he had misinterpreted a conversation he’d had with Peterson about the retreat.

Peterson also said he wanted to ensure that the board’s strategic planning included public input, and that such input should be encouraged.

Peterson’s comments were the only time that the board retreat was mentioned. At the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting, board chair Conan Smith made a presentation that outlined some possible strategic goals for the coming year, and had indicated that a retreat might be in the offing. A notice announcing the meeting was posted at the end of the day on Thursday, Jan. 12, at the county administration building in downtown Ann Arbor, in accordance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act. However, county offices were closed on Friday and the following Monday, for Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Smith did not mention the retreat during opportunities for communications at the Jan. 18 board meeting.

[The four-hour retreat was subsequently held on Saturday morning at the county's parks and recreation offices on Platt Road. Other than county commissioners, staff, the sheriff and prosecuting attorney, the only others who attended the retreat were The Chronicle and Andy LaBarre, a candidate for county commissioner.]

Comm/Comm: Honoring Paul Bunten

Commissioner Alicia Ping presented a resolution honoring Paul Bunten, who recently retired as police chief for the city of Saline. Ping, a former Saline city councilmember, now represents District 3 on the county board, which includes Saline. The resolution recognized Bunten for his 47 years of public service. Bunten was not at the meeting, but will be given a framed plaque of the resolution.

Several other commissioners expressed their thanks to Bunten. Leah Gunn noted that he had worked for many years at Ann Arbor’s police department. When former Ann Arbor police chief Dan Oates left that position, she said, Bunten stepped in for Oates as chair of the emergency communications committee, which campaigned for a millage that voters approved in 2006. The millage supported a new 800 megahertz system that enabled emergency responders from all jurisdictions to communicate with each other.

Barbara Bergman said she’d worked with Bunten on several different committees, and he was always a pleasure to work with, giving good advice and support. Wes Prater noted that he’d worked with Bunten back when Bunten was a rookie, “and then he was a lot of fun!”

Comm/Comm: Fracking

Yousef Rabhi said that he and commissioner Alicia Ping are concerned about fracking, which he said is happening in Washtenaw County and becoming more common. The term – also known as hydraulic fracturing – refers to a practice of extracting oil or gas by injecting high-pressurized fluid into rock. He said he and Ping have received emails from residents who are concerned about the practice, with questions about property rights, property values, environmental impact and the health of humans and neighborhoods. The state regulates fracking, Rabhi said, but the county needs to be aware of it and start thinking about how to handle it.

Wes Prater commented that the reason behind increased fracking stems from regulations being removed several years ago from the federal Clean Water Act. Companies are ruining the underground water supply, he said. He’s heard that it’s happening near Adrian. [Adrian is located in Lenawee County, immediately south of Washtenaw County.]

Barbara Bergman said she hadn’t realized that fracking was taking place locally and that she was “absolutely horrified.” If the board agrees that it’s a dangerous practice, then they need to make a big noise about it, she said.

Comm/Comm: Trial Court Renovations

Rob Turner gave an update on renovations at the Washtenaw County trial court in downtown Ann Arbor, at the corner of Huron and Main. The trial court includes the 22nd circuit court, juvenile court, probate court and Friend of the Court program. The renovation is now on schedule, Turner said, and the third phase will likely be done by Feb. 10, with the entire project completed by mid-March. It’s on time and on budget, he said – the contingency funds aren’t even being used. He said he’s been told that chief judge Donald Shelton is “ecstatic.”

Turner reported that Jason Fee with the county facilities unit will be making a presentation to the board about this project in February. Rolland Sizemore Jr. commented that the county’s facilities workers are the reason why this project is going well, and he asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to convey his compliments to the staff.

Comm/Comm: WATS & WCHO Moves – Zeeb Road Facility

As the county board’s liaison to the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), Yousef Rabhi reported that WATS has been leasing office space from the county’s western Washtenaw service center on Zeeb Road, but has been asked to leave. The Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan, will be moving into that space instead. The county has offered WATS four other options, Rabhi said, but WATS officials have decided to look elsewhere – at leasing from landlords in the private sector, or from other public entities. WATS hasn’t definitely ruled out other county facilities, Rabhi said, and he encouraged commissioners to express their support for the county’s continued relationship with WATS.

Barbara Bergman, who serves on the WCHO board, reported that only the administrative offices of WCHO will be relocating to Zeeb Road. The parts of the organization that provide services to consumers, including the community support and treatment services unit (CSTS), will remain at accessible locations, such as the county’s 555 Towner St. building in Ypsilanti.

A space plan update for all of the county’s facilities is being developed and will be presented at an upcoming board working session.

Comm/Comm: Eastern Leaders Group

Leah Gunn reported that earlier in the month she had attended a meeting of the Eastern Leaders Group. She noted that she’s been a member of the ELG steering committee since it was formed. Because Gunn is stepping down from the board of commissioners – she has decided not to run for re-election this year – commissioner Felicia Brabec will now serve on the leadership team in her place, Gunn said. At the end of the ELG meeting, Gunn reported that commissioner Ronnie Peterson, who also serves on the ELG steering committee, had given a speech praising her work, and she appreciated it. “We don’t get praised too often,” she said.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During public commentary at the beginning of the Jan. 18 meeting, Thomas Partridge said he wanted to send a message straight to Lansing, on behalf of the county’s most vulnerable residents. Priority should be given to human services – affordable housing, health care, and education – rather than spending money on railroad stations and bridges. He noted that Gov. Rick Snyder would be giving the State of the State address that same night. He said Snyder and his allies bought the governor’s office through corrupt means, and that a recall effort is still underway. The county’s economy hasn’t recovered, Partridge said, and until it does, there must be attention paid to altruistic attitudes and finding solutions to very serious problems.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

AFSCME Local 3052 was one of five bargaining units – out of 17 units representing county employees – that did not reach an agreement with the county by the end of 2011, when its previous contracts expired. Negotiations continue with the other four units – representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office.

The new agreement, which runs from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013, calls for a 10% retirement contribution from employees, and a 10-year vesting period for new hires. Employees will take 10 unpaid “bank leave” days in 2012 and 2013, with no furlough days imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay.

The default health care plan will comply with the state’s hard cap on costs. The cap limits the amount that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare annually: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. Employees have the option to upgrade their plans for additional annual costs of $2,724 or $1,772, based on the plan.

The agreement also eliminates longevity pay for new hires, and reduces longevity pay by 25% for current employees in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013. The collective bargaining agreement stipulates that if county property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012, a 1% wage increase would become effective Jan. 1, 2013.

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

Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, the labor union representing the largest number of Washtenaw County government employees. (Photo by the writer.)

The deals affect 675 union employees, as well as 271 non-union, court non-union and elected officials – or nearly 70% of the county’s total 1,369 employees.

AFSCME Local 2733 represents about half of the county’s employees – 644 people. The Local 2733 agreement was ratified by a 2-to-1 vote earlier this week, but only 325 members voted. Caryette Fenner, president of Local 2733, described it as a typical turnout.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said these three agreements, coupled with those already approved, will yield $7.7 million in savings over 2012 and 2013. The county has a goal of gaining $8 million in labor concessions for that two-year period, to help overcome an estimated $17.5 million deficit.

McDaniel is expected to present a draft budget to the board at its Sept. 21 meeting.

There was no discussion before the board vote, which occurred after the board emerged from a 30-minute closed session to discuss labor negotiations. Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) cast the lone vote against the agreements.

In a follow-up interview with The Chronicle, Smith cited concerns over health care provisions that would cost the county more than he had been led to expect, based on previous agreements already approved by the board for Michigan Nurses Association Units I and II.

And because of “me too” clauses in other union agreements, the more favorable terms negotiated by AFSCME Local 2733 will likely be applied to other union contracts as well.

In addition to the agreement with five bargaining units of AFSCME Local 2733, Tuesday’s approved agreements were with: (1) the two bargaining units of TPOAM (Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan); and (2) one of two bargaining units of AFSCME Local 3052. Also, the same benefits that AFSCME Local 2733 receives will be extended to the non-union, court non-union and elected officials.

The second bargaining unit of AFSCME Local 3052, representing 55 general supervisors, voted down its agreement this week. Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052, told The Chronicle that union leaders would be polling their membership on Wednesday to determine what issues caused members to reject the tentative agreement.

In addition, agreements have not yet been reached with four other bargaining units: Two units with the Assistant Prosecutors Association, representing 24 employees; and two units with the Public Defenders Association, representing 13 employees.

Two other bargaining units – the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) – earlier this year reached agreements that aren’t part of the $8 million goal. The POAM and COAM deals are for a four-year period through 2014.

Details of the Agreements: AFSCME

AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 2733 represents a total of 644 members. There are five bargaining units within Local 2733. The largest is Unit A with about 340 members, including all general county professional employees who have a four-year college degree or higher, excluding supervisors and jobs in several other categories.

Other Local 2733 units are:

• Unit B – general county employees whose job requires less than a four-year degree, excluding supervisors, administrative staff, and personnel in several other categories.
• Unit C – all employees of the 22nd Circuit Court and Friend of the Court program, excluding supervisors.
• Family Division/Juvenile Center – all employees of the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s Family Division/Juvenile Center, excluding supervisors, court bailiffs/officers, and temporary or seasonal employees.
• Juvenile Detention – all employees of the county juvenile detention facility, excluding supervisors, court bailiffs/officers, and temporary or seasonal employees.

Agreements for the AFSCME units run through Dec. 31, 2013. [.pdf file – summary of AFSCME agreement] The agreements stipulate no wage increases unless property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012. In that case, a 1% wage increase will take effect on Jan. 1, 2013.

Other items include:

• a 10% employee contribution to the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS). The vesting period will increase from eight years to 10 years, though current employees will be grandfathered in at eight years.
• $75/month premium sharing for the core health care plan. Currently, employees do not pay premiums.
• Co-pays will increase or be added. For example, the co-pay for an emergency room visit increases from $50 to $250. Co-pays for prescription drugs will increase ($0 to $7 for generic drugs, $30 to $70 for brands).
• 10 bank leave days for 2012 and 2013. No furlough days will be imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay. In contrast, furlough days are deducted from the calculations toward retirement and longevity pay.
• Longevity payouts will be eliminated for new hires after Jan. 1, 2012; for other employees, longevity payouts will be reduced by 25% in 2012. There will be no reduction in longevity pay in 2013. (Longevity pay is a benefit provided to employees based on years of service with the organization – generally available after 5 years of service. Employees would receive between 3%-9% of their prior year’s wages, paid out either in a lump sum payment or bi-weekly throughout the year.)
• Step increases – automatic increases in wages that are built into an employee’s contract – will remain in place for 2012, but will be frozen for 2013.
• Tuition reimbursement is frozen at 0% for 2012 and 2013.
• Payout for excess vacation will be eliminated for 2012 and 2013.

Details of the Agreements: TPOAM

TPOAM (Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan) represents 27 total members in two bargaining units: (1) Unit I – all senior deputy district court clerks, deputy district court clerks and probation secretaries at the 14-A District Court; and (2) Unit II – supervisors and probation officers at the 14-A District Court, excluding magistrates and the deputy court administrator. Until last year, these employees had been represented by the Teamsters, but they voted to de-certify and become certified as part of the TPOAM union instead.

The TPOAM agreement also includes a 1% wage increase, effective Jan. 1, 2013, if property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012. [.pdf file – summary of TPOAM agreement] Though the “me too” clause will likely cause some of these items to be modified, other elements of the agreement approved by the board on Tuesday include:

• a 2% employee contribution to the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS).
• a $150/month premium sharing for the core health care plan for nine months.
• 10 bank leave days for 2012 and 2013.
• Longevity payouts will be eliminated for new hires after Jan. 1, 2012. For other employees, longevity payouts will be reduced by 50% in 2012 and 2013.
• Step increases will be frozen in 2012 and 2013.

Unlike the AFSCME agreement, the TPOAM agreement also states that if Gov. Rick Snyder does not sign the 80/20 legislation into law, the union can re-open negotiations with the county. That legislation would require public employees to pay 20% of their health care costs, effective Jan. 1, 2012, or would cap the amount that local governments would pay as premiums for employees.

Labor Agreements: Commissioner Vote

All resolutions are voted on twice by the board. First, they’re voted on at the meeting of Ways & Means, a committee of the entire board.  Resolutions are given a final vote at the regular board meeting. Ways & Means and regular board meetings are held back-to-back, but typically a resolution that’s passed at the Ways & Means meeting is considered at the regular board meeting two weeks later.

However, for some items that the administration or board wants to expedite, votes are taken the same evening at both meetings. That was the case with the resolution on the labor agreements at the Sept. 13 special meeting.

Early in the Ways & Means meeting, commissioners entered into a closed session to discuss labor negotiations, which lasted about 30 minutes. When they emerged, they handled the main action items on the agenda – resolutions to approve the three labor agreements.

There was no discussion about the agreements. Generally, commissioners follow the advice of the administration and corporation counsel not to publicly discuss labor issues, particularly during contract negotiations.

Outcome: The board’s vote at its Ways & Means Committee meeting passed unanimously. Wes Prater and Ronnie Peterson were absent.

The board moved immediately into it regular board meeting. Again, the main action items on the agenda were approval of the three labor agreements. And again, there was no discussion on these items.

The final vote taken at the board’s regular meeting passed on an 8-1 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Wes Prater and Ronnie Peterson were absent.

Reached later this week by The Chronicle, Dan Smith indicated that his vote against the agreements was due in part to the health care benefits, which he described as significantly different from what he’d expected to see. He had believed the benefits would be similar to agreements previously approved by the board for the Michigan Nurses Association Units I and II, representing a total of 15 employees.

In those agreements, for example, health insurance premium sharing was $150 per month. In the AFSCME agreements, the premium sharing is half that amount – $75 per month. He noted that with “me too” clauses in other union agreements, the premium sharing will likely be lowered for other employees too.

Smith also noted that the AFSCME agreements aren’t congruent with the state law that’s expected to take effect Sept. 15, and he objected to rushing the agreements through at the last minute.

The state law that Smith referred to is the “Publicly Funded Health Insurance Contribution Act,” which was passed by the Michigan legislature on Aug. 24, 2011. It is scheduled to be signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on Sept. 15. Agreements that are in place before that date do not have to conform with the act, which is also often referred to as “80/20″ legislation. [.pdf of the bill]

The legislation stipulates maximum “hard cap” dollar amount equivalents that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage – for coverage years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2012. There’s another option that an employer can follow, if approved by a simple majority vote of its governing body, which would limit the benefit contributed by the employer percentage-wise instead of using a hard cap. On that option, public employers could contribute no more than 80% of their employees’ health care costs for coverage years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2012.

However, on a 2/3 majority vote, which must be repeated each year, a governing body of a public employer can opt out of these requirements. In an email to The Chronicle on Monday, county administrator Verna McDaniel stated that the board will be asked to opt out, which would exempt the county employees from the requirements of this law.

Reaction of Union Leaders

Several union representatives attended the Sept. 13 meeting, though they did not address the board during public commentary.

Caryette Fenner, president of Local 2733, said it had been a difficult negotiation, especially since union members had already given concessions in 2009, for the 2010 and 2011 calendar years. [At the time, those concessions were expected to save the county about $5.8 million over two years.]

She noted that one significant difference between the previous contract and the current one is the stipulation that members will receive a 1% raise in 2013 if the county’s property tax revenues increase 2% or more in 2012. They didn’t have that assurance when they made wage concessions in 2009, she said, and it turned out that tax revenues had been better than originally projected. [Though the county's property tax revenues have been better than projected, revenues still declined – falling 5.33% in 2010 and 2.85% this year. For this year, the county's equalization staff had originally projected a drop of 8.5%.]

Fenner also observed that even with the concessions made in this labor agreement, there’s no assurance that the county won’t cut jobs.

Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052 – which voted down their tentative agreement – told The Chronicle that the membership would be polled to determine what issues caused them to reject the tentative agreement. There’s a question about whether everyone is bearing their fair share, she said, as well as concerns over whether employees who are already struggling will be able to absorb even more cuts. Some union members have already lost their homes to foreclosure, she said, and others are worried that they won’t be able to make mortgage payments if their longevity pay is cut – that’s a direct hit to their paychecks, she noted.

Heine also said that only nine of the Local 3052 members are “general fund” employees – that is, employees whose salaries and benefits are paid for out of the county’s general fund, which gets the majority of its funding from property tax revenue. Savings from concessions made by non-general fund employees won’t help the county deal with its projected $17.5 million deficit, she noted. [Examples of non-general fund departments include the parks & recreation commission and CSTS (community support & treatment services).]

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, Conan Smith, and Rob Turner.

Absent: Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater

Next working sessions: Thursday, Sept. 15, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. An additional working session is set for Thursday, Sept. 22 at 6:30 p.m.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 21, 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!

In addition to the agreement with five bargaining units of AFSCME Local 2733, agreements were reached with: (1) the two bargaining units of TPOAM (Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan), representing 27 employees; and (2) one of two bargaining units of AFSCME Local 3052, representing four trial court supervisors. Also, the same benefits that AFSCME Local 2733 receives will be extended to non-union, court non-union and elected officials.

The second bargaining unit of AFSCME Local 3052, representing 60 general supervisors, voted down its agreement this week. Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052, told The Chronicle that union leaders will be polling their membership tomorrow to determine what issues caused members to reject the tentative agreement.

The agreements for AFSCME units run through Dec. 31, 2013. They include no wage increases unless property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012. In that case, a 1% wage increase will take effect on Jan. 1, 2013. Other items include: (1) a 10% employee contribution to the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS); (2) $75/month premium sharing for the core health care plan; and (3) 10 bank leave days for 2012 and 2013. Longevity payouts will be eliminated for new hires after Jan. 1, 2012; for other employees, longevity payouts will be reduced by 25% in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013.

The TPOAM agreement also includes a 1% wage increase, effective Jan. 1, 2013, if property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012. Other items include: (1) a 2% employee contribution to the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS); (2) a $150/month premium sharing for the core health care plan for nine months; and (3) 10 bank leave days for 2012 and 2013. Longevity payouts will be eliminated for new hires after Jan. 1, 2012. For other employees, longevity payouts will be reduced by 50% in 2012 and 2013. Step increases will be frozen in 2012 and 2013.

The TPOAM agreement also states that if Gov. Rick Snyder does not sign the 80/20 legislation into law, the union can re-open negotiations with the county. That legislation would require public employees to pay 20% of their health care costs, effective Jan. 1, 2012, or would cap the amount that local governments would pay as premiums for employees.

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

The city of Ann Arbor held a special meeting on Aug. 29, before its next regularly scheduled meeting on Sept. 6. The urgency to hold a special meeting was based on a typo in a legislative staffer's early draft of a subsequently corrected memo, not based on the actual date in the state's new employment health care legislation. (Simulated correction "illustration" by The Ann Arbor Chronicle)

Key features of the agreement with the 230-member union include: no across-the-board pay increases for the duration of the agreement; employees will make greater contributions to their pension and health care plans; a 10-year vesting period for the pension plan; and an access-only style plan for retiree healthcare benefits.

Council deliberations were relatively brief, with remarks focusing on praise for the city and the union’s respective bargain teams and details of the agreement. Almost equal time was given to the manner in which the special meeting was noticed to the public.

Though questions were raised by The Chronicle through the day on Monday about whether the city had met its obligation to provide notice to the public under the Michigan Open Meetings Act, city attorney Stephen Postema relied on a recent unpublished court of appeals opinion, which is not binding on other courts and which included a strong minority dissent, to justify the city’s failure to meet a basic noticing standard set forth in an opinion from Michigan’s attorney general.

That AG’s opinion – which is also not binding on courts, but which has guided the conduct of public bodies in Michigan for over 30 years – requires public bodies to post physical notice of special meetings in a way that makes the notice publicly accessible for the 18 hours preceding the meeting.

The council’s urgency in approving the contract, reflected in the calling of the special session, was based on recently passed state legislation that limits the amount that public employers can contribute to employee health care costs. Ann Arbor’s contract with AFSCME does not conform to the limits set forth in the legislation. So the council was keen to approve the contract before the effective dates stipulated in the legislation, and did so with only seven of its 11 members able to attend the meeting.

The legislation itself specifies Sept. 15, 2011 as the relevant date; however, Ann Arbor city staff appeared to rely not on the legislation, but on an early draft of a memo drawn up by a legislative staff aide to state senator Mark Jansen, which contained a typo. Although the draft was corrected immediately after its limited initial distribution, the original draft’s stipulation of “Sept. 1″ instead of “Sept. 15″ spurred the city of Ann Arbor to convene the special meeting. The council’s next regularly scheduled meeting is on Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2011 – well before the actual Sept. 15 date in the legislation. 

AFSCME Contract

The Aug. 29 special session had one item on its agenda – the new AFSCME contract. In mayor John Hieftje’s absence, the meeting was chaired by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). The council’s attendance at the meeting exceeded the minimum number required for a quorum. Besides Hieftje, absent were Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

AFSCME Contract: Council Deliberations

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) began the deliberations on the contract. [Rapundalo chairs the council's labor and administration committee, but was not part of the city's bargaining team. According to Robyn Wilkerson, head of the city's human resources department, the bargaining team consisted of Wilkerson and Aimee Carroll in the city's human resources department, and Nancy Niemela in the city attorney's office. They had support from human resources staff Richard Martonchik and Sharie Sell.]

Rapundalo said it was a pleasure to bring the contract forward. He said credit has to be given to the AFSCME  leadership and the two negotiating teams. He noted the short time period since the expiration of the previous contract on June 30. The negotiations entailed very earnest discussions that were beneficial to city, he said.

Ticking through the key features of the contract, Rapundalo noted that for its duration, there would be no wage increase. Union employees would increase their contribution to the pension plan by 1%. Eliminated is the 457 match – a 457 plan is roughly a public sector equivalent of a 401(k) plan.

Health care, Rapundalo continued, will be based on a high-low plan through the remainder of the contract period. [Under the old contract, AFSCME union employees did not make a monthly contribution for health care costs and paid a $225 deductible. Under the new contract, they can continue to pay no monthly contribution (low design), but incur a higher deductible – $1,000 per individual. On the high design, an employee would make a $44 monthly contribution, but pay only a $300 deductible. ]

The union was adamant, Rapundalo said, about retaining a full-time union official, and the city had agreed to continue that city-paid position through the current contract. But the city had put the union on notice that the city would ask it to eliminate that position at the conclusion of the ratified contract period, Rapundalo said. The city had asked for a daily activity report of the union official to get a sense of what that person did.

Rapundalo said there’d been “a lot of give” on the use of temporary employees and restrictions on their use. The union had also agreed to the new-hire program in which employees will take 10 years be vested in the retirement program instead of five.

The total savings to the city, Rapundalo said, was just shy of $700,000, 25% of which is savings in the general fund. That amounted to a reduction of  just over 3%, which had been the target, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) stressed a contract feature under which new employees will have the same retiree health care as non-union employees. Asked for any additional details he wanted to add, interim city administrator Tom Crawford replied, “It sounds like you guys covered it.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) questioned the relative brevity of the contract. Assistant city attorney Nancy Nimela explained that it goes through Dec. 31, 2013. The council had requested that the city keep the contracts as short as possible, given the economic times, Nimela said. The contract was ending in December, in part because the city is changing AFSCME’s health care to a calendar year period.

Briere asked if the agreement conformed to the requirements of the new state legislation that was passed but still awaiting the governor’s signature – which limits the amount that public employers can contribute to employee health care. Nimela described it as “closer” to meeting the constraints of that legislation, but it’s not quite there.

Briere wanted to know if the city would need to open up contracts and revise them in light of the new state legislation. Nimela explained that it would not be necessary, and the contract could last through its entire period under the new state legislation. However, when the contract expires, the new contract will need to conform.

Open Meetings Act: Public Notice of Aug. 29 Meeting

During deliberations at the council’s meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she’d seen correspondence on email over the weekend and through the day about the proper noticing of the meeting, and had dealt with multiple questions from constituents about the meeting – what was the meeting supposed to be about?

Briere drew out the city’s contention that the paper posting of the meeting was put in a glass display case in the lobby of city hall on Friday, Aug. 26. From Tom Crawford, interim city administrator, she elicited the fact that the posting was not placed in the glass display case designated by a label for the city council’s business, but rather in an adjacent, unlabeled window.

The unlabeled case contained three other postings, unrelated to council business – a medical marijuana licensing board notice, a board of canvassers notice and an election commission notice. The three non-council related notices were poster-like inasmuch as they appeared designed for posting on a wall, with bold headlines containing the name of the entity that was meeting in what appeared to be roughly half-inch high letters. The city council special session notice was simply the same memo, in ordinary typeface, that was sent by the clerk to councilmembers to satisfy the city charter requirement that the members of the council be notified of the special meeting.

The four notices in the glass case adjacent to the one labeled for the city council were arranged in a 2 x 2 matrix, with the city council special session notice in the lower left corner, separated from the city council glass case by a column of two non-council-related notices and the window divider.

At the council’s meeting, city attorney Stephen Postema was unperturbed by the placement of the meeting notice, saying that the labels on the glass display cases are there as a courtesy, not as a requirement. [On previous occasions, the city has also defended placement of meeting notices in locations not in the glass cases at all, but in a different part of the building.] He explained that the labels aren’t required to be there at all.

Also at issue was the public accessibility of the meeting notice. The glass cases where the meeting notice was placed are not visible from outside the city hall. The city hall lobby was locked through the weekend. In an email to The Chronicle, Postema admitted that the city hall building was not unlocked until 6 a.m. on Aug. 29, leaving the city well short of the 18-hour time window set forth in a Michigan attorney general opinion issued by Frank Kelley in 1980. The state’s Open Meetings Act statute explicitly requires that notice of a special city council meeting be posted at least 18 hours in advance of the meeting. And Kelley’s opinion interprets that part of the statute to require that the notice be accessible to the public continuously for the 18 hours preceding the meeting.

However, in advising councilmembers that they could hold their meeting without violating the Open Meetings Act, Postema relied on a recent court of appeals decision that rejected the reasoning in Kelley’s opinion. In the May 26, 2011 decision, (Citizens For Public Accountability & Responsible Development v. Northville Charter Township Board Of Trustees) two out of the three judges on the panel found that “In short, there is no time requirement inherent in the definition of ‘public notice,’ …”

However, the court did not choose to create a precedentially binding decision for other courts, which it could have done by publishing its decision. In dissenting from her colleagues on the panel, Judge Elizabeth Gleicher echoed the attorney general’s approach to statutory interpretation, which addresses the purpose of the legislation. She wrote in her dissent:

Construing the OMA as a whole and harmonizing its terms, I conclude that the Legislature intended that the public have access to a “public notice” for the entire designated 18-hour period. In my estimation, “public notice” means exactly that—notice made available to the public, not dark, deserted building corridors. The majority construes the OMA’s notice provision in a manner that would permit a public body to notify the public of a special meeting commencing at 9:00 a.m. on a Monday by posting a notice at closing time on a Friday afternoon. Indisputably, this “notice” would frustrate the legislative purpose expressed in the statute. But with its analysis, the majority sanctions precisely such “public notice.” Rather than interpreting MCL 15.265(4) expansively, the majority reads the term “public notice” out of the sentence requiring 18 hours’ notice.

At the council’s meeting, Briere also drew out the fact that the city’s press release sent out on Aug. 25, about the new AFSCME contract, mentioned that the council would be considering the contract at its next meeting, on Aug. 29, but did not mention the unusual 5:15 p.m. starting time. The press release also did not mention the fact that the Aug. 29 meeting was a special meeting that had been called.

By way of additional background, The Chronicle inquired with the city’s communication unit, which sent out the press release to The Chronicle among other news organizations, whether a special meeting had been called. City of Ann Arbor communication director Lisa Wondrash confirmed the intent of the council to convene a special meeting, but did not provide the time of the meeting. The Chronicle has a standing request made under the OMA statute, that the city notify The Chronicle of any special meetings at the same time they are posted; however, the city clerk’s office did not send out a notification that included the time of the meeting, until The Chronicle notified the city attorney about the city’s failure to notice the meeting properly.

At the council meeting, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), responded to Briere’s description of receiving questions from her constituents about the topic of the meeting. He contended that the agenda for the meeting was posted in the city’s online Legistar system on Friday, Aug. 26.

Based on a conversation with AnnArbor.com’s regular city council beat reporter, Ryan Stanton, who was arriving at city hall around 6:55 p.m. as The Chronicle was departing, the unusual 5:15 p.m. start for the meeting was not well-publicized. AnnArbor.com’s reporter expressed surprise that the meeting had already concluded and stated that he thought the original posting had specified 7 p.m.

Reason for Urgency

The special meeting called for Aug. 29, 2011 came just a week before the next regularly scheduled council meeting, on Sept. 6 – which falls on a Tuesday due to the Labor Day holiday.

The state legislation mentioned by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) during the council meeting – which includes provisions with which the new AFSCME contract does not conform – is the “Publicly Funded Health Insurance Contribution Act” given approval by the legislature on Aug. 24, 2011. It has not yet been signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, but is scheduled for signing on Sept. 15.

So why did the Ann Arbor city council have sense of urgency about ratifying its AFSCME contract?

Reason for Urgency: What the Legislation Says

The guts of the legislation is in Sections 3 and 4 [.pdf of the bill]. Section 3 describes maximum “hard cap” dollar amount equivalents that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage – for coverage years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2012.

Section 4 describes an option which an employer can follow, if approved by a simple majority vote of its governing body, which would limit the benefit contributed by the employer percentage-wise instead of using a hard cap. On that option, public employers could contribute no more than 80% of their employees’ health care costs for coverage years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2012.

On a 2/3 majority vote, which must be repeated each year, a governing body of a public employer can opt out of the requirements in both Section 3 and Section 4.

When does the legislation go into effect? The legislation states that [emphasis added]:

Sec. 5 (1) If a collective bargaining agreement or other contract that is inconsistent with sections 3 and 4 is in effect for a group of employees of a public employer on the effective date of this act, the requirements of section 3 or 4 do not apply to that group of employees until the contract expires. …

So what is the effective date? Based on Chronicle conversations with legislative staff members in the offices of Rep. Jeff Irwin, whose District 53 covers Ann Arbor, and Sen. Mark Jansen, who sponsored the bill, the working understanding is that the effective date is Sept. 15, when Gov. Rick Snyder is scheduled to sign the legislation into law. Based on remarks made at the Aug. 29 city council meeting, there appears to be some perception that if Snyder were to sign the law earlier than Sept. 15, this would have an impact.

The legislation itself is straightforward about when collective bargaining agreements must comply with the new law [emphasis added]:

Sec. 5 (2) A collective bargaining agreement or other contract that is executed on or after September 15, 2011 shall not include terms that are inconsistent with the requirements of sections 3 and 4.

So it’s clear why the council might have wanted to make sure to act before Sept. 15 – the AFSCME contract included terms inconsistent with sections 3 and 4.

But the council has a regularly scheduled meeting on Sept. 6. So why did it need to convene a special session on Aug. 29?

Reason for Urgency: An Early Draft Memo

Queried about the urgency of the council in convening a special meeting, interim city administrator Tom Crawford emailed The Chronicle that the city had received the following guidance from the state [emphasis added]:

Q: When does this law take place?

A: The act applies to medical benefit plan coverage years beginning on or after January 1, 2012. However, contracts settled between Sept. 1, 2011 and January 1, 2012 must not contain terms that are contrary to the act, and will go into effect upon the expiration of the medical benefit plan year.

The Chronicle traced the language cited by Crawford to an FAQ document developed by the state legislature’s conference committee for the bill. Authorship of that document was then traced to a legislative staffer with Sen. Mark Jensen’s office, Debbie Drick. She indicated in phone conversation with The Chronicle that the Sept. 1 date was in fact simply a typo – it should have been Sept. 15. But she continued, saying that almost immediately upon distribution of that version to the conference committee, she’d collected the errant copies and swapped in a corrected version.

Apparently enough copies survived in the wild for Ann Arbor city staff to use that initial, uncorrected version without questioning the accuracy of the Sept. 1 date – which is not referenced anywhere in the actual text of the legislation.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, Christopher Taylor, Tony Derezinski

Absent: Mike Anglin, Margie Teall,  John Hieftje, Carsten Hohnke

Next regular council meeting: Tues. Sept. 6, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]