The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees. [.pdf of proposed dog license ordinance] One person, Tom Partridge, spoke at the Jan. 8 hearing.

The board had held a previous hearing at its meeting on Oct. 16, 2013, but it occurred after midnight and no one spoke.

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

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

However, the county board hasn’t yet taken the additional step of authorizing the issuance of a civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. There was no agenda item put forward for a vote on this issue at the Jan. 8 meeting, nor was there any resolution on the agenda regarding a new fee structure for dog licenses.

However, a draft resolution and staff memo were prepared in November 2013 but never brought forward to the board for a vote. [.pdf of November 2013 staff memo and resolution] The county treasurer’s office is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. More information about current dog licenses is available on the county website.

In addition, the draft memo provided a list of fees for violating the dog license ordinance: $50 (first offense); $100 (second offense); and $500 (third and subsequent offenses).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declan LaBarre, son of Andy and Megan LaBarre, was the youngest of many family members who attended the Jan. 2, 2013 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners to watch the new board get sworn in. Andy LaBarre is the newest Ann Arbor commissioner, elected on Nov. 6 to represent District 7. (Photos by the writer.)

After the swearing-in of commissioners – a ceremony officiated by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum – the two main agenda items were the election of board officers, and approval of revised board rules and regulations.

Two of the four new board officers are from Ann Arbor: Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who was elected chair of the board on an 8-1 vote, with Dan Smith (R-District 2) dissenting, and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who was unanimously elected chair of the board’s working sessions.

In explaining his vote against Rabhi later in the meeting, Dan Smith cited the previous tradition of rotating the chair position between Ann Arbor representatives and commissioners from the out-county area, to ensure that all voices are well-represented in all aspects of county business. Smith’s district covers some of the county’s more rural townships, including the townships of Webster, Northfield, Salem. The chair for the previous two years, Conan Smith (D-District 9), is also from Ann Arbor.

Dan Smith said it was especially troubling to have another Ann Arbor chair because Ann Arbor districts have declined proportionately to the rest of the districts – decreasing from four districts on an 11-district board to three districts on a 9-district board, because of redistricting.

Responding to those concerns, Conan Smith said he never liked the tradition of rotating chairs on the board, and felt they should choose the right person for the times. Rabhi said he hoped to set a tone of collaboration and cooperation, and looked forward to working with Dan Smith and other commissioners to help achieve their goals for the county.

Also elected were Alicia Ping of Saline (R-District 3) as vice chair and Felicia Brabec of Pittsfield Township (D-District 4) as chair of the board’s ways & means committee. Dan Smith also dissented on the election of Brabec.

The first meeting of each year includes a review of the rules and regulations that govern the board’s actions. The major change, on a 5-4 vote, was to remove the ability of a commissioner to abstain from a vote. The amendment to strike the rule was put forward by Conan Smith. Others voting in favor of the deletion were Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

The question of abstaining from votes typically relates to resolutions on state or federal issues, over which the county board has no control. This year, the county board already appears to be moving to weigh in on at least one state-level issue. The board called a special working session for Jan. 3 to discuss the state’s new “right to work” law, which was passed during the legislature’s lame duck session late last year and signed into law by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. That meeting will be covered in a separate Chronicle report.

The Jan. 2 board meeting also included an update on negotiations about the county’s contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV). The agreement, which hasn’t  yet been finalized, would pay HSHV $550,000 annually to provide animal control services to the county over four years. Of that, $460,000 would come from the county’s general fund. The remaining amount would be paid through contracts with other municipalities that have animal control ordinances: the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Pittsfield, Superior and Ypsilanti. County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’s already had discussions with those entities, as well as with the city of Saline.

Some commissioners expressed concerns about the Humane Society contract. Rolland Sizemore Jr. objected to HSHV receiving amounts over $550,000 if new revenue is brought in – because he felt the revenue should come back to the county instead. Ronnie Peterson worried about the additional financial burden that just a few municipalities would bear, and wanted to see every municipality help pay for animal control services. The new contract with HSHV is expected to be finalized later this month, and does not require board approval.

Swearing In and Officer Elections

Because the new board had not yet been sworn in following the end of the 2012 terms, the Jan. 2 meeting was convened by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum. He began by noting his own experiences on county boards during a transition in the number of commissioners. When he was first elected to the board of commissioners in Ingham County – where the cities of Lansing and East Lansing are located – it was just decreasing in size from 21 commissioners to 20. Kestenbaum also was on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners in 2000 when redistricting reduced the number of seats from 15 to 11. [He decided not to run again for county commissioner, rather than compete against the other incumbent Democrat in that redrawn district – Leah Gunn. He then ran for county clerk in 2004, and was re-elected in 2008 and 2012.]

Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum holds a meat tenderizer that was serving as a gavel during the Jan. 2 county board meeting. Outgoing chair Conan Smith brought the gavel as a joke for Yousef Rabhi, who was elected chair later in the meeting.

Kestenbaum was highlighting these transitions because the new county board has just nine districts, down from the 11 over the last decade. Kestenbaum was chair of a five-member Washtenaw County apportionment commission, which in May 2011 adopted the new redistricting plan. The change included a decrease in the number of Ann Arbor districts from four to three, and put incumbents Alicia Ping, a Republican, and Democrat Wes Prater into the same district – the new District 3, covering south and southwestern Washtenaw County, including the city of Saline. Ping, a former Saline city councilmember, won the Nov. 6 race against Prater.

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, based on population changes determined by the U.S. census. This is the fewest number of districts on the county board since the 1980s.

At the Jan. 2 meeting, Kestenbaum said that the former commissioners would be missed, and that changing even a few people on the board would create a different chemistry. Of the nine commissioners, all but two – Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) – are incumbents. The other commissioners are Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Kestenbaum implored the board to consider that the work product of the entire body is more important than their individual political gain. He asked them to consider scoring points for the county and the general public, rather than for themselves or their colleagues.

Kestenbaum then read the oath of office: “Do you solemnly swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Michigan, and that you will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of the Board of Commissioners in and for the County of Washtenaw, State of Michigan, according to the best of your ability.” Commissioners responded: “I do.”

After the swearing-in ceremony, commissioners introduced their family and friends who were attending. Also in the audience was former commissioner Barbara Bergman – and she was introduced by Rabhi as his “second mom.”

Officer Elections: Rabhi Chosen As Board Chair

Later in the meeting, the board also elected its officers for the coming year. Negotiations for these positions occurs privately in the weeks or even months before the actual officer elections are held, and in recent years there has not been more than one person nominated for each leadership role. This year, four positions were elected: Board chair and vice chair, and chairs for the board’s ways & means committee and working sessions. In past years, there were also vice chairs for ways & means and the working sessions, but those roles were eliminated this year.

As anticipated, Rabhi was elected as the new chair of the board, replacing fellow Ann Arbor resident Conan Smith, who has served in that role for the past two years. [Commissioners are elected by the general public to two-year terms.] Rabhi, who was chair of the board’s working session in 2011 and 2012, had announced last year his intent to run for the board chair. Although there was no previous substantive discussion about Rabhi’s candidacy, Smith referred to Rabhi as the “chair elect” in an announcement last month regarding a selection panel for the regional transit authority board appointments, and in subsequent communications had indicated an assumption that Rabhi would be the next chair.

At the Jan. 2 meeting, Conan Smith nominated Rabhi as chair, stating: “I rise from the new 9th district – the strongest, largest, most handsome, most prosperous place in Washtenaw County, and the most educated. And as the wisest in the county, we seek leadership that is kind, just, caring – the kind of leadership that can help us all as individuals succeed as a group, the kind of leadership that can keep our tempers even and keep our spirits high. It is my great honor to nominate for the chair of Washtenaw County commission [sic], Mr. Yousef Rabhi.”

Rabhi received a round of applause, and there were no other nominations.

Outcome: Yousef Rabhi was elected as board chair on an  8-1 vote, with dissent by Dan Smith.

Rabhi thanked commissioners for putting their faith in him to lead the board. “We have some tough issues ahead of us,” he said. “But I think by working all together, we can make some real positive change in this community.”

Also nominated were Alicia Ping as board vice chair, Felicia Brabec as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and Andy LaBarre as chair of the working sessions. There were no competing nominations for these positions.

Outcome: Alicia Ping and Andy LaBarre were unanimously elected board vice chair and chair of the working sessions, respectively. Felicia Brabec was elected chair of the ways & means committee on an 8-1 vote, with Dan Smith  dissenting.

Officer elections are held each January. However, it’s been the board’s custom to elect commissioners to the same leadership roles for two consecutive years, starting with the first year of their two-year terms. So it’s likely that these officers will serve in 2013 and 2014.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) take the oath of office on Jan. 2, 2013.

Near the end of the meeting, Dan Smith explained his rationale for voting no. The board has several long-standing traditions that have served all areas of the county – rural and urban – very well, he said. One of those traditions is to ensure that all voices are well-represented in all aspects of county business. And part of that tradition is to alternate the chairship between Ann Arbor commissioners and commissioners from the out-county area. The board didn’t do that this year, he noted.

Smith said it was especially troubling to have another Ann Arbor chair because Ann Arbor districts have declined proportionately to the rest of the districts. Previously, there were four Ann Arbor districts on the 11-district board. Now there are three Ann Arbor districts out of nine total districts. Having another Ann Arbor chair makes it “much more difficult to see a benefit to the many rural areas of the county – the 20 different townships that are scattered throughout the county.”

Smith said it’s also troubling when there’s a collection of three chairs and a vice chair who can get together on their own and discuss county business, because four out of nine commissioners does not constitute a quorum. Previously, the leadership structure of three chairs and three vice chairs prevented the six from gathering separately, he said, because six members of the 11-member board represented a quorum. [Under Michigan's Open Meetings Act, meetings with a quorum must be open to the public.]

Smith observed that there’s nothing illegal about the four board officers getting together on their own, but “it creates a perception that I think is a bit troubling.” He said he wasn’t faulting the officers who had been elected that evening – he had nothing ill against them. But for people who are looking at it from a distance, there might be the perception that things are awry.

He again stated that he was sure everything would be conducted above board – it was simply a matter of perception. “So it’s disappointing to me that we’re starting out a new year and a new board with breaking some of these traditions.” Noting that there’s another tough budget to face with a significant shortfall, Smith said he was hopeful the board could face these challenges together “despite this rough start to the year.”

Conan Smith responded, saying he had a different perspective. He never liked the tradition of de facto rotating chairs on the board. He felt it was better to evaluate the quality of the board’s leadership against the times they were in, and pick people that the board felt would address the issues of the moment. “Really, that’s the appropriate way for this board to work,” he said.

Rabhi represents someone who’s particularly well-suited for the time, Smith contended, adding that it is a smaller board with a lot of new people. Smith told Rabhi: “You’ve been an excellent consensus builder during your two years on the board already, and I think you’re the kind of person that should be the chair.” [Regarding the number of new commissioners, seven of the nine commissioners are incumbents. There are only two newly elected commissioners – Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Three of the incumbents – Dan Smith, Alicia Ping and Yousef Rabhi – were elected to their first terms in 2010. Felicia Brabec was appointed in October of 2011 to fill a vacancy left by resigning commissioner Kristin Judge. The board's longest-serving members are Ronnie Peterson of Ypsilanti and Rolland Sizemore Jr. of Ypsilanti Township, who were both first elected in 2000. Conan Smith was first elected in 2004.]

Prior to the start of their Jan. 2, 2013 meeting, the new nine-member Washtenaw County board of commissioners posed for their official group photo, taken by Anne Keesor of Anne Keesor Photography. This photo was taken while commissioners were getting ready for Keesor’s shot. From left, standing: Conan Smith, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Dan Smith. Middle row: Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr. Front row: Andy LaBarre, Yousef Rabhi, Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson.

Even though they shared a common city and a friendship, Conan Smith said he didn’t support Rabhi because Rabhi was from Ann Arbor. If Rabhi wasn’t the right person for the job, “I’d support somebody else – and I think that’s the way we ought to be making decisions on board leadership.”

As for the issue about a quorum, Conan Smith said that what actually happened in the past four years while he was board chair is that the three chairs would get together separately – they wouldn’t meet with the vice chairs. Because of that, people who were elected as leadership were exempted from important conversations, he said, and that’s more of a problem.

The way that the leadership is structured now, he said, allows the three chairs and vice chair to meet, to set the direction of the board, to consider the variety of issues that are in front of them, and to bring those issues back to the board. The leadership isn’t empowered to make decisions on behalf of the board, but he expects the leadership team to regularly meet and to work with county administration. “In order to do that, sometimes you need to be able to meet off-line,” Smith said. “That is, frankly, an important consideration when trying to lead a board through complex and possibly contentious issues.”

Rabhi spoke next, saying that some people might perceive Dan Smith’s vote and comments as something personal against him. “Despite commissioner Dan Smith’s concerns of myself being chair, I intend to work with each and every commissioner to move this county forward,” Rabhi said. “That’s really the tone that I will set this year – a tone of collaboration and cooperation, because we all bring different sets of experiences to the table, and we all come from different backgrounds. And that’s a strength, not a weakness.”

Officer Elections: Compensation

Based on increases to compensation that were approved by the board at its Dec. 2, 2012 meeting, the three chairs – Rabhi, Brabec and LaBarre – will each earn a base salary of $18,750. That’s $3,000 more than other commissioners. None of the positions are considered to be full-time jobs.

Also starting this year, commissioners will receive stipend payments based on the number of meetings that a commissioner is likely to attend for a particular appointment. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increase based on the number of meetings. Each commissioner typically has several appointments, so the new system will likely add several hundred dollars to their compensation. Commissioners will be able to waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk. In the past, commissioners were eligible for per diem payments for attending certain meetings, but had to file for those payments after the fact. The stipend payments will be made automatically.

Appointments to various boards, commissions and committees will be made at a future meeting. Rabhi has announced his intent to hold an appointments caucus in order to determine preferences for those appointments.

Revised Board Rules & Regulations

As part of the standard first-meeting-of-the-year action, commissioners discussed a revised set of board rules and regulations that are intended to govern their actions, meetings and other governance issues. [.pdf of revised board rules & regulations, with changes tracked. The document does not reflect amendments made at the Jan. 2, 2013 meeting.]

Commissioners suggested revisions to board chair Yousef Rabhi prior to Jan. 2 meeting, and he reviewed those changes during the meeting. This report highlights some of the main changes.

Revised Board Rules & Regulations: Compensation

At the board’s Dec. 5, 2012 meeting, commissioners approved several changes to their compensation. Those changes included increasing their base salaries from $15,500 to $15,750 annually, paying all three chairs an extra $3,000, replacing per diem payments with stipend payments – which will result in at least several hundred dollars of additional compensation each year – and eliminating the $3,550 flex accounts from which commissioners previously drew their per diem, travel and other expenses.

The board rules and regulations were revised to reflect those changes.

The stipends are based on the number of boards, committees and commissions on which a commissioner serves, and the number of meetings that commissioners are expected to attend. Stipend payments range from $50 per year for groups that meet only 1-2 times annually, up to $1,000 for groups that meet more than 24 times. There are 45 boards, committees and commissions to which commissioners are appointed.

Dan Smith pointed out that the changes to the rules and regulations eliminate the previous $3,550 spending cap that had been associated with each commissioner’s flex account. Now, there is no cap. However, “given the entirety of the rules and the other changes, I’m satisfied with them as they are currently drafted and presented,” he said.

Revised Board Rules & Regulations: Abstaining

A year ago, Dan Smith (R-District 2) successfully convinced a majority of commissioners to add to the board rules the ability to abstain from certain types of votes. The rule, added in February 2012, stated: “Commissioners may abstain from voting on resolutions that express support or opposition and otherwise take no action.” The question of abstaining from votes has related primarily to resolutions on state or federal issues, over which the county board has no control.

Dan Smith’s proposal had occurred in the wake of the board’s final meeting in December 2011, when Yousef Rabhi – a Democrat from Ann Arbor – brought forward a resolution urging state lawmakers to reject HB 4770, HB 4771 and “any legislation that codifies discrimination.” That state legislation, which was later signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, removed the ability to extend benefits to same-sex partners. During deliberations on that resolution, Smith and Rob Turner, another Republican commissioner who is no longer on the board, had objected to bringing forward resolutions that were not focused on Washtenaw County issues. They wanted the ability to abstain from voting on such resolutions.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

At the Jan. 2, 2013 meeting, Conan Smith (D-District 9) proposed an amendment to delete the rule that allowed commissioners to abstain. After an extended silence, no other commissioner seconded the motion and Rabhi, the new board chair, declared the motion dead for lack of a second.

Rabhi then asked for any other comments on the rules and regulations. At this point, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) asked if the board had changed the rule regarding a commissioner’s obligation to vote. Rabhi noted that Conan Smith had just made a motion about that, but nobody had seconded it. He asked Sizemore whether Sizemore wanted to second the motion.

Sizemore asked Smith to restate his motion. Smith explained that he wanted to delete the section that “allows a commissioner not to vote.” His feeling was that when there’s an issue before the board, “the citizens expect you to say yes or no on something, and you should do that.” The board had an experiment with the abstention process, he said, and “I didn’t like the way it worked out. I think it would be better if we just had to vote.”

Rabhi then allowed Sizemore to second the motion.

Dan Smith spoke next, saying he had hoped this amendment “would go away.” He noted that he had done some research and could find only three times during the past year when he had abstained from voting. The first time was on April 4, 2012 regarding a resolution that asked state legislators to halt any bills that would eliminate the state’s personal property tax. “The resolution made some extremely broad statements in it,” he said. Rather than getting into a lengthy discussion and picking at the wording of the resolution, he said he simply abstained.

The second time was on May 2, 2012, on a resolution that expressed support for the U.S. Clean Air Act. Smith noted that it’s a complex piece of federal legislation that has many different ramifications and impacts. That’s why we send representatives and senators to Washington to sort out those issues, he said. The third time was on Sept. 5, 2012, regarding a resolution urging the city of Ann Arbor to use the proceeds from the sale of city-owned land to support affordable housing. He didn’t feel that it’s the county board’s place to direct another municipality on how to use its proceeds.

He noted that he’d spent more time now explaining his reasons for abstaining than the time he’d taken over the course of the year on these items. He felt the rule should remain unchanged.

Sizemore responded, saying that commissioners represent the residents of this county. They were elected to make a stand, “one way or the other,” he said, regardless of whether the issue was local, state or federal.

Conan Smith said that while he believed the commissioners shouldn’t be abstaining, he agreed with Dan Smith that some of the resolutions aren’t germane to county business and don’t affect the county’s budget or operations. It’s important to be hyper-vigilant about those kinds of things coming before the board, he said, because commissioners often don’t take the time to really understand the complexity of the issues. But when there are issues of direct import to county business, he said – if the state legislature or Congress are considering new laws and rules that could impact county operations – “it is important that commissioners make their stances on these things known.”

As an example, he cited the state’s 2011 legislation regarding domestic partner benefits. Washtenaw County was one of the first in the state to adopt benefits for domestic partners, he said, and it’s been a signature characteristic of the county. “Making sure that there’s an on-the-record stance about issues like that is relevant and important to our constituency.” He said if a resolution is not directly related to county business, he’d be one of the first people to ask the board to table it. But if it does affect the county, commissioners should vote on it, he concluded.

Outcome: The rule allowing a commissioner to abstain from a vote was amended out, on a 5-4 vote. Voting in favor of the deletion were Conan Smith (D-District 9), Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Revised Board Rules & Regulations: Committee Appointments

A new rule was proposed to be added to the section on board committees:

C. STATUTORY COMMITTEES AND BOARDS:

The Chair of the Board shall appoint and the Board shall confirm all individuals appointed to statutory committees and boards, except as otherwise directed by the laws of the State of Michigan.

Curt Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, explained that this codifies the practice of the board, although it had not previously been written into the board rules and regulations.

Ronnie Peterson pointed out that although he couldn’t recall a nomination that wasn’t confirmed by the board, he felt the language “shall confirm” was too strong. All commissioners are equally elected, he observed, but this language gives the rest of the board no flexibility. He said it had nothing to do with the current chair, but he did not want to give any board chair a rubber stamp on their nominations.

Hedger recommended altering the phrase to “shall confirm by majority vote,” which was agreeable to Peterson and met with no objections from the rest of the board. There was no vote on this change.

Revised Board Rules & Regulations: Oversight of Chair in Directing County Employees

The section on board procedures includes a rule noting that ”Individual members of the Board of Commissioners do not have the authority to direct the work of County employees; only the Board as a collective body speaks for the County and provides policy direction to the County Administrator and employees.”

Another rule in that section addressed how violations of this rule would be handled. The item was revised to include language that clarifies how a violation by the board chair would be handled [added language in italics]:

Concerns with violations of this rule shall be addressed by the Chair of the Board of Commissioners, unless the alleged violation involves the Chair, in which case the matter will be brought to the attention of the County Administrator who shall work with Board leadership to resolve the issue.

Revised Board Rules & Regulations: Overall Vote

Outcome: The vote on approval of the overall board rules and regulations, as amended, was unanimous.

Humane Society Contract Update

Conan Smith asked county administrator Verna McDaniel for an update on the county’s contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV).

From left: County administrator Verna McDaniel and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8). He has not yet ended his fundraiser, which will result in cutting off his long hair to raise money for charity. That’s likely to happen later this month.

McDaniel said she felt the county had reached an agreement with HSHV, which would provide animal control to the county for $550,000 annually over four years. Of that, $460,000 would come from the county’s general fund. The remaining amount would be paid through contracts with other municipalities that have animal control ordinances: the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Pittsfield, Superior and Ypsilanti. McDaniel said she’s already had discussions with those entities, as well as with the city of Saline. No formal contracts have yet been finalized, however.

McDaniel reported that she had been interviewed earlier in the day on this topic by Lucy Ann Lance on Lance’s radio talk show, which airs on WLBY AM-1290. [The interview is also available online.]

Curt Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel who has also been working on these negotiations, clarified that there has been no gap in service, even though HSHV’s previous contract with the county expired on Dec. 31. The two parties agreed to extend the current contract with a letter of intent, to serve as a stopgap until a new contract is finalized. That gave them more time to draft “a more meaty contract that will make sure we cover all the nuances,” he said.

Conan Smith thanked McDaniel and Hedger for handling the negotiations. He noted that last year, the board had discussed several options for raising revenues related to animal control. Saying he didn’t want to let up on pursuing those options, he asked Andy LaBarre, as the new chair of the working sessions, to consider adding those to future agendas. One option relates to civil infractions – setting up fines for residents who don’t buy licenses for their animals.

Felicia Brabec asked what would happen if other municipalities pay more, and the total amount is greater than $550,000 – would those extra revenues go to the county, or to HSHV? The Humane Society would get those extra revenues, McDaniel said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed some concern. He didn’t understand why additional money would be given to HSHV. Previously, he said, the board had been told that $500,000 was the amount that would be paid to HSHV – now it’s $550,000 over four years.

McDaniel noted that the county is obligated for no more than $500,000 – that’s all the county would pay, even if there were no other available revenues from other sources. That’s the amount that commissioners authorized the county to spend, in a vote taken at the board’s Nov. 7, 2012 meeting. McDaniel also said the county didn’t give up the revenues it might receive from a civil infractions ordinance.

The civil infractions ordinance was also approved by the board at the Nov. 7 meeting. It gives the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. [.pdf of ordinance] In the context of animal control, enforcement of the county’s dog licensing ordinance is low because the current penalty – a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine – is relatively harsh. The idea is that enforcement would improve if a lesser civil infraction could be used.

Sizemore said that his concern over a four-year contract is that the county will be negotiating a new contract with the unions that represent county employees. [Current union contracts end on Dec. 31, 2013.] His implication was that union negotiations would be more difficult if so much is being paid to HSHV.

McDaniel reported that the HSHV contract will include an out clause, allowing either the county or HSHV to get out of the contract after the first year.

Ronnie Peterson, whose district covers the Ypsilanti area, said he hoped that the contracts with other municipalities hadn’t been set in stone, and that the agreements would be brought to commissioners for review. Many of these communities are struggling financially, he noted, and now they would be faced with an additional burden. He hoped that the discussion about payments to HSHV would include all the communities in the county, not just those that had been mentioned.

The contentious debate about how to pay for mandated and non-mandated animal control services has been going on since 2011. For background in addition to the extended board discussion on Nov. 7, 2012, see Chronicle coverage: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society,” ”Next Steps on Animal Control Policy,” “Work Continues on Animal Control Policy,” and ”Revenue Options Eyed for Animal Control.” More information related to this process is also posted on the county’s website.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Special Working Session on “Right to Work” Law

As newly elected chair of the board’s working sessions, Andy LaBarre proposed holding a special working session on Thursday, Jan. 3 to discuss how “right to work” legislation will affect the county. The legislation was passed by the lame duck state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Rick Snyder in mid-December.

Peggy Rabhi, the mother of commissioner Yousef Rabhi, talks with commissioner Andy LaBarre, who is holding his son Declan prior to the start of the county board’s Jan. 2 meeting.

In an email sent to commissioners and commissioners-elect on Dec. 30, Yousef Rabhi – who was elected board chair earlier at the Jan. 2 meeting – announced the intent to call a special session: “Second, there is a group of Commissioners (myself included) that wish to call a Special Working Session on January 3rd at 6:00 p.m. Technically, this could have been done last year as there was more than 1/3 of the Board that desired to call the meeting. However, Curt [Hedger, the county's corporation counsel] advised that it would be best to call the meeting from the floor of the BOC meeting. The meeting would be for the purpose of discussing the implications of the ‘Right to Work’ legislation on the County.”

The state law – supported by the Republican-controlled House and Senate and the Republican governor – made it illegal to require employees to financially support unions as a condition of their employment. It’s viewed by Democrats as a way to undercut support for labor organizations that have historically backed the Democratic Party. The legislation, which will take effect in March of 2013, received national attention. It followed a failed ballot initiative by labor to protect collective bargaining rights in the state Constitution. That effort – Proposal 12-2 – was not supported by a majority of voters in the Nov. 6 election. [links to Public Act 348 of 2012 and Public Act 349 of 2012]

The majority of the county government’s 1,321 employees are represented by labor unions. All but two of the nine county commissioners are Democrats. The Republican commissioners are Dan Smith (District 2) and Alicia Ping (District 3). During the Jan. 2 meeting, both Smith and Ping told their fellow commissioners that they were interested in focusing on how the county might be affected, both in terms of the county government employees as well as the impact on the local economy. However, both also indicated that they did not want the board to advocate for the repeal of the legislation – Ping characterized such an effort as “a big waste of time.”

LaBarre, an Ann Arbor Democrat, said the session was intended to be broad based, but could include a discussion about how the board would like to voice the sentiment of the county on this legislation.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to hold a special working session on Jan. 3 to discuss the impact of right-to-work legislation.

The working session will be covered in a separate Chronicle report.

Resolutions of Appreciation

Alicia Ping, a former Saline city councilmember who represents District 3, brought forward two resolutions of appreciation for Saline officials: (1) Gretchen Driskell, who had served as Saline mayor for 14 years, and (2) Allan Grossman, who recently retired as Saline’s city attorney after 52 years of service. [.pdf of Driskell resolution] [.pdf of Grossman resolution]

Driskell, a Democrat, was elected on Nov. 6 to the state House of Representatives in District 52, defeating incumbent Republican Mark Ouimet, a former Washtenaw County commissioner. Ping is also a Republican.

Neither Driskell nor Grossman attended the Jan. 2 meeting.

Outcome: Without discussion, both resolutions of appreciation were passed unanimously.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The county would not likely pay that entire amount, however. According to a staff memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution, county administrator Verna McDaniel has received preliminary commitments from five municipalities that have their own animal control ordinances, and that have agreed to help the offset the cost of the HSHV contract. Those entities are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township. The memo states that those local governments have agreed to execute contracts with the county to provide funding for animal control services. The Nov. 7 resolution authorized McDaniel to finalize contracts with each of these local entities. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”]

Several commissioners expressed concern that the county is essentially at the same position as it was when this process began. Wes Prater objected to the fact that the county’s procurement policy wasn’t being followed, because a request for proposals (RFP) wasn’t issued. Leah Gunn and Barbara Bergman indicated that although they weren’t happy with the agreement, they would support the resolution in deference to the hard work of McDaniel fellow commissioner Rob Turner, who took the lead on this issue along with board chair Conan Smith. Ultimately, a sufficient number of commissioners agreed to back the resolution, giving it final approval.

In another move later in the meeting that’s related to animal control services, the board gave initial approval on Oct. 17 to a civil infractions ordinance, giving the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. [.pdf of proposed ordinance]

In the context of animal control, enforcement of the county’s dog licensing ordinance is low because the current penalty – a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine – is relatively harsh. The idea is that enforcement would improve if a lesser civil infraction could be used. The proposed fines would be $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense. An increase in dog licenses would provide additional revenue to be used for animal control services.

Commissioners gave final approval to the civil infractions ordinance at their Nov. 7 meeting, following a public hearing on the item. Only one person – Thomas Partridge – spoke during the hearing. He objected to it.

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

The meetings of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners are held at the county administration building at the corner of Main and Catherine in Ann Arbor.

County administrator Verna McDaniel is bringing forward a resolution for a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 annually – the same amount that HSHV was paid in 2011, before a controversial decision to cut funding for animal control services. HSHV’s current contract with the county, which expires on Dec. 31, is for $415,000. Originally, the county had planned to cut funding for mandated animal control services to $250,000 annually for 2012 and 2013.

If approved, the resolution would authorize a contract with HSHV for up to four years, and would direct McDaniel to seek separate contracts with other local governments to offset the county’s costs. According to a staff memo, five municipalities with their own animal control ordinances – the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township – have made preliminary commitments to help fund those services.

The new contract with HSHV would require a revision to the budget – one of several budget adjustments that are proposed for 2013. The county works on a two-year planning cycle, but must approve its budget annually. In late 2011, commissioners approved budgets for 2012 and 2013. On Nov. 7, the board will be asked to “reaffirm” the 2013 general fund budget, with revisions that bring revenues and expenditures to $102.84 million.  Commissioners will also receive a third-quarter budget update for 2012.

It’s possible that commissioners will make additional amendments to the 2013 budget at the meeting. For example, the agenda includes a placeholder item related to commissioner compensation. [See Chronicle coverage: "Compensation Change for County Board?"]

A public hearing on the 2013 budget is set for the board’s final meeting of the year, on Dec. 5. Commissioners are expected to take a final vote on the budget at that meeting.

Commissioners are also planning a caucus immediately prior to their Nov. 7 meeting, starting at 5:30 p.m., to discuss nominations to various county boards, commissions and committees. Those appointments are expected to be voted on at the board meeting later that evening.

Animal Control Services

In action related to how the county handles mandated and non-mandated animal control services, the board will consider a resolution authorizing a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 annually. If approved, it would allow the administration to contract with HSHV for up to four years, with the option of adjusting the contract for inflation.

The county would not likely pay that entire amount, however. According to a staff memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution, county administrator Verna McDaniel has received preliminary commitments from five municipalities that have their own animal control ordinances, and that have agreed to help the offset the cost of the HSHV contract. Those entities are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township. The memo states that those local governments have agreed to execute contracts with the county to provide funding for animal control services. The Nov. 7 resolution would authorize McDaniel to finalize contracts with each of these local entities.

The $500,000 amount had been the level that the county paid HSHV in 2011. But late last year, the county proposed cutting that amount to $250,000 in both 2012 and 2013. Following protests by HSHV and its supporters, who argued that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover their costs, the county ultimately agreed to pay HSHV $415,000 in 2012. As part of that agreement, an effort began to develop a new policy for animal control services. [.pdf of policy task force report] The board also formed a work group, led by Sheriff Jerry Clayton, to analyze costs for services that HSHV provides. As part of that process, commissioners contemplated issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit other entities that could provide animal control services. [For recent Chronicle coverage, see: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”]

On Sept. 19, 2012, the board passed a resolution directing county administrator Verna McDaniel to start negotiations with HSHV on a new contract. The resolution also stated that if McDaniel didn’t believe sufficient progress was being made by the end of October, then she was authorized to issue an RFP to seek bids from other organizations.

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

And in a move that’s also related to animal control services, the board gave initial approval on Oct. 17 to a civil infractions ordinance, giving the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. [.pdf of proposed ordinance]

In the context of animal control, enforcement of the county’s dog licensing ordinance is low because the current penalty – a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine – is relatively harsh. The idea is that enforcement would improve if a lesser civil infraction could be used. The proposed fines would be $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense. An increase in dog licenses would provide additional revenue to be used for animal control services.

The civil infractions ordinance is on the Nov. 7 agenda for final approval. A public hearing on the item is scheduled for the same meeting.

2013 Revised Budget

The county works on a two-year budget planning cycle. In late 2011, commissioners set the budget for 2012 and 2013. However, state law mandates that the board must approve the budget annually. So on Nov. 7, a resolution is on the agenda to give initial approval to the budget “reaffirmation” for 2013, including several proposed adjustments. It’s also possible that commissioners will make additional amendments from the floor on Nov. 7. A final vote and public hearing on the 2013 budget will be held on Dec. 5 – the board’s last meeting of 2012. [.pdf of proposed 2013 budget]

A year ago, the 2013 budget was set at $97.066 million. Now, the 2013 budget proposed by the administration is $102.84 million – $5.774 million higher in both revenues and expenditures. Property taxes typically account for about 63% of revenues, and the general fund budget is based on an operating millage rate of 4.5493 mills. Because property values have not decreased as much as originally anticipated, the county expects about $2.4 million more in property tax revenues for 2013 than it had previously accounted for in the 2013 budget. The budget assumes that property tax revenues will be 2% lower than in 2012.

Among the other revenue sources expected in 2013 are the state revenue sharing/county incentive program ($2.7 million), and state convention facility/liquor tax funding.

Also on the revenue side, the 2013 budget includes a planned use of $3.287 million from the fund balance. Of that, about $2 million is estimated to be carried over from a budget surplus in 2012. Previously, the county had expected to use $1.8 million more than that from the fund balance in 2013 –  for a total $3.8 million. The fund balance is expected to be $16.54 million at the end of 2012, and would drop to $13.257 million in 2013.

The 2013 budget proposes a net increase of one full-time-equivalent (FTE) position – eight jobs are being created, and seven will be eliminated, including two county commissioner positions. [The commissioners are considered part-time positions for purposes of providing health insurance coverage and other benefits, but are included in this count as full-time positions.] Two additional jobs will be placed on “hold vacant” status.

The largest expenditures relate to personnel, which accounts for 66% of general fund expenses. The proposed 2013 budget shows a $4.7 million increase in that category, compared to the original 2013 budget that commissioners approved in 2011. According to a staff memo, those additional costs relate to increases in fringe benefits, medical costs, and a higher number retirees than expected. There were 118 retirements in 2011, which added to pension costs.

As part of information provided in the Nov. 7 board packet, a 52-page document is included that gives details about the expenditures and FTEs associated with mandated and discretionary county services, including the number of employees used to provide those services. [.pdf of mandated/discretionary services document]

2012 Third-Quarter Budget Update

Another budget-related item on the Nov. 7 agenda is a financial update on the third quarter of 2012 – the period from July 1 through Sept. 30. The most recent previous update – for the first six months of the year – was delivered at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting.

Washtenaw County general fund budget update for the first nine months of 2012.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Public Hearing/Commentary

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

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

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

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Board Discussion – Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

County commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

County commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Board Discussion – Main Resolution

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

Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith.

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

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

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

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

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

Accommodation Ordinance

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

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

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

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

Accommodation Tax Ordinance: Public Commentary

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

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

Accommodation Tax Ordinance: Board Discussion

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

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

Animal Control Services

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

County commissioner Barbara Bergman.

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

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

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

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

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

Animal Control Services: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Awards

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

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

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

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

Misc. Communications

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

Misc. Communications: Appointments Caucus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

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

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

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

At the Sept. 19 meeting, Alicia Ping had objected to the process, saying that it could undercut HSHV’s position if the board eventually decides to issue an RFP, because other bidders would know how much HSHV is willing to bid. She had also objected to taking action without knowing the task force recommendations.

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

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

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

Bergman originally brought forward two resolutions. The first one – which she later withdrew – included a list of recommendations from the policy task force. The full board had not been presented with formal recommendations, and board chair Conan Smith – who led the task force meetings – described the resolution as Bergman’s “interpretation” of those recommendations. The board took a recess so that commissioners could read the resolutions, and when they reconvened, Bergman withdrew the one that included the recommendations.

Much of the debate over the second resolution centered on the fact that formal recommendations hadn’t been presented to the board. There were also questions over how much flexibility McDaniel will have in her negotiations. The current 2013 budget has allocated $250,000 for animal control services. This year, the county is paying $415,000 to HSHV, down from $500,000 in 2011. Commissioners expect that the final amount negotiated for 2013 will be higher than the budgeted $250,000 – and if that’s the case, the board will need to amend the budget.

Ping objected to the process, saying that it could undercut HSHV’s position if the board eventually decides to issue an RFP, because other bidders would know how much HSHV is willing to bid. She also objected to taking action without knowing the task force recommendations. “This whole process is flawed on its face,” she said.

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]

From left: Jenny Paillon, director of operations for the Humane Society of Huron Valley, and HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf. They were attending a Sept. 13, 2012 meeting of the county’s animal control policy task force.

But at the end of the two-hour task force session, commissioners also opened the door to start direct negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, rather than pursuing a request for proposals (RFP) from other vendors. For many years HSHV has held the contract to provide services to the county, including those that are state-mandated. Its current contract expires on Dec. 31, 2012. Key points of contention have been the amount that the county is willing to pay for animal control services, both mandated and non-mandated, and how much those services actually cost.

In advocating for negotiations with HSHV, Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed concern that if the board pursues the RFP process, a service provider won’t be lined up by the end of this year. Then the county will be in the same position it was in the beginning of 2012 – scrambling to get a new contract. He also pointed out that if the county issues an RFP and no other organizations respond, then the HSHV will have more leverage over the county “because they’ll know we’re screwed.”

Tanya Hilgendorf, HSHV’s executive director, supported starting contract negotiations. She attended the Sept. 13 meeting and praised the work of the task force as well as a separate group led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, which has been analyzing costs for animal control services. People are more informed than they were when this process began in May, she said, adding that there was more trust between the county and HSHV, too.

At least one commissioner, Barbara Bergman, had explicitly stated earlier in the meeting that she didn’t trust HSHV yet. She said the last time that the county had trusted HSHV, commissioners didn’t get good data about the services that were being provided, and the cost of those services. Bergman – who had left the meeting by the time a suspension of the RFP process was discussed – has been a strong advocate for curbing costs related to animal control, in favor of funding programs for human services.

The task force reached consensus on eight recommendations for animal control services to include in an RFP, or for a contract with HSHV. Those include licensing all dogs at the point of adoption or recovery, holding all stray animals for the minimum number of days required by law, and providing animal cruelty investigations.

The group also reached agreement on broader policy recommendations, including several longer-term goals: creating a civil infractions ordinance and fee structure for unlicensed dogs, and working with local units of government to create a unified, countywide dog licensing program. Currently three other jurisdictions – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – have their own dog licensing programs, with varying fee levels.

Several other changes might be proposed in the future. Hilgendorf offered to draft language for an ordinance prohibiting ownership of certain types of exotic animals. She also hoped that commissioners eventually would consider an anti-chaining ordinance and spay/neuter ordinance – “even if it’s just for pit bulls,” which has worked well in Ypsilanti Township, she said. [The township has an ordinance requiring that pit bulls must be spayed or neutered.] Hilgendorf also suggested addressing the issue of feral cats, which are a problem in some parts of the county. HSHV already operates a “trap, neuter, return” program aimed at curbing the feral cat population.

When the task force was formed earlier this year, it were given a deadline of Oct. 15 to bring recommendations to the full board. It’s likely that will happen sooner, possibly at the board’s Sept. 19 meeting. As of Sept. 16, however, there was no agenda item for these recommendations on the board’s ways & means committee agenda or the regular board agenda.

The relationship between HSHV and the county has a long, complex history. For additional background, see ”Next Steps on Animal Control Policy,” “Work Continues on Animal Control Policy,” and ”Revenue Options Eyed for Animal Control.” More information related to this process is also posted on the county’s website.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations

A draft set of recommendations had been developed by board chair Conan Smith, based on discussions at previous task force meetings as well as feedback from commissioners at their Sept. 6 working session. [.pdf of slides from Smith's working session presentation]

Smith was one of five commissioners who attended the Sept. 13 meeting. Others included Barbara Bergman, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., and Rob Turner. Of those, Bergman, Rabhi and Smith represent three of the four districts in Ann Arbor. Turner’s district covers portions of the west and northwest part of the county, while Sizemore represents a district covering most of Ypsilanti Township, on the county’s east side.

During 90 minutes of discussion, the draft recommendations were modified in several ways. Two recommendations – related to monthly reporting requirements, and holding animals for bite quarantines or court mandates – were added during the meeting. A recommendation for marketing adoption services was eliminated.

Here’s the list of recommendations that is expected to be brought to the full board of commissioners, possibly on Sept. 19. The idea is that these services would form the basis for a request for proposals (RFP) to be issued by the county:

• License all dogs at point of adoption or recovery.
• Hold all stray animals for the minimum number of days required by law.
• Provide animal cruelty investigations.
• Post information on website about animals being held by the county to facilitate adoption or recovery.
• Provide medical attention and basic humane care – to be specified in a contract with the County – during the holding period.
• Support county policies for registration and licensing of animals.
• Make a monthly report to county board on operating metrics.
• Hold animals for bite quarantines and court-mandated holds for the minimum required by law.

Before reaching consensus on this list of recommendations, commissioners had a wide-ranging discussion on each item, and brought additional issues to the table. This report summarizes some of the highlights of those discussions.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations – Duration of Holding Strays

The original draft recommendation stated: “Hold all stray animals to a maximum of 10 business days or as otherwise required by law.” There was considerable discussion about this item, because there are several different scenarios under which an animal might be held, and different durations that are required by law for holding an animal. Some of these issues are in dispute regarding what the county mandate entails.

The state mandates that the county has a duty to hold: (1) unlicensed stray dogs for four business days; (2) licensed stray dogs for seven business days; and (3) dogs, cats, or ferrets for 10 business days if suspected of rabies. Weekends and state holidays can’t be counted in calculating these mandated hold periods, nor can the first 24 hours be counted.

The average number of holding days is about 10 days, according to HSHV. That average factors in the much longer holding periods that are court-mandated in animal cruelty cases.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wanted to know what happens after the holding period ends? Tanya Hilgendorf, HSHV’s executive director, explained that if a stray animal is not returned to its owner or adopted by then, the county is no longer obligated to pay for holding that animal. The costs then are incurred by HSHV.

Conan Smith advocated for keeping the maximum hold of 10 business days to make it easier for residents – people shouldn’t have to worry about figuring out how long their animal might be held, he said. Barbara Bergman said that’s not the county’s problem. She suggested that the requirement be for the minimum amount of time required by law.

Hilgendorf supported Bergman’s suggestion. Making it a requirement to hold an animal for longer than the minimum time required is actually a detriment, she said. The goal is to adopt out an animal as soon as possible – that’s best for the animal, and saves expenses too. The key to a good save rate is fast flow-through, she explained.

Commissioners consented to changing the recommendation for holding stray animals to a minimum time required by law.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations – Marketing of Adoption

One item in the original draft recommendations for contract services was eliminated, related to marketing of adoption services.

From left: Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, and Tom Brush of the Dispute Resolution Center, which is helping to facilitate the board’s animal control policy task force meetings.

Conan Smith had originally proposed this item: “Market adoption services throughout the county.” When Yousef Rabhi asked what those services would entail, Smith replied that it wasn’t their job to articulate how an organization might respond to the request for proposals. The goal is to develop items to include in the RFP, he said.

Barbara Bergman wanted to remove it. Rolland Sizemore Jr. said it’s HSHV’s business to promote adoption services, and the county shouldn’t tread on that. Rob Turner added that the county could certainly provide a link from its website to the HSHV adoption site. He liked the service, but agreed that it was beyond what the county should be doing.

HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf suggested that perhaps the intent was to identify an organization’s capacity to do this work, which affects the “save rate” of animals – the percentage of animals that are not euthanized. So she wondered how the county could communicate to potential vendors that adopting out is important.

It’s not important, Bergman replied – at least, not in her role as a county commissioner, she added. Turner stated that adopting out animals is important to him, but he wasn’t sure it needed to be among the services that the county contracts for.

Smith said he hoped to contract with HSHV. But his concern is that if the county’s RFP doesn’t include this item for marketing, then respondents won’t necessarily do it. Smith said if the county board is willing to forego the RFP process and negotiate directly with HSHV for a new contract, then he’d be willing to eliminate the marketing item.

Hilgendorf noted that outside of her role at HSHV, she has done assessments of other animal shelters. Some of them are “houses of horror,” she said, because the values that Smith is trying to communicate aren’t absorbed. Hilgendorf said she loved the idea of negotiating with the county – there’s more trust between the county and HSHV now, she said, and more people in government who understand animal control issues. But if the board doesn’t go that way, she’d advocate to include some kind of statement in a contract with any vendor that reflects the values that the community wants. She said that would go a long way in responding to the community that’s been watching this process unfold.

Bergman objected, saying that such a statement was too open to interpretation. The item for marketing adoption services was eliminated.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations – Educational Services

There was also debate about the item related to animal cruelty investigations. The original item stated this service would: “Provide animal cruelty investigations and educational services.” However, Bergman objected to the county paying for educational services. ”We should not be in that business,” she said. “It’s way beyond our mandate, and there are hungry children.” She resented the implication that some supporters of HSHV had made regarding the importance of empathy to animals in a child’s development. It felt like extortion, she said, adding that you can’t expect children to grow up with empathy if they also don’t have adequate food, shelter and clothing.

Conan Smith argued that providing education can be cost effective. Only 5% of animal cruelty calls end up being prosecuted, he said. The majority of calls don’t rise to the level of going to court, which is expensive. Educating people about their bad behavior regarding animals is a preemptive measure, he said.

Bergman wanted to know who is measuring that cost effectiveness. Smith replied that HSHV had provided a breakdown of expenses related to animal cruelty calls, including expenses related to calls that don’t become cases. [.pdf of HSHV cost analysis, including animal cruelty] It’s possible to make assumptions based on that data, he said. Bergman replied that she had trouble making decisions based on assumptions, and wanted a cost/benefit analysis instead. If such an analysis can’t be provided, she was against paying for educational costs.

Rob Turner noted that there are different types of animal cruelty calls, ranging from inadequate food and shelter to far more serious physical abuse. For many situations, a little bit of education can reduce recidivism, he said. Otherwise, you have to keep returning to the same place over and over, responding to the same issues. The suggestion is not to provide general education about animal cruelty prevention, he added. It’s simply to provide education as part of responding to animal cruelty calls. Education goes a long way towards preventing one call from becoming three or more.

Bergman contended that if there aren’t any metrics to measure the cost effectiveness of educational services, then the county was just being an irresponsible spendthrift. Smith joked that it wouldn’t be the first time someone had called him that.

Hilgendorf said HSHV employs a teacher who runs the organization’s educational program, which includes a variety of outreach efforts. The county shouldn’t pay for that, she said. Rather, this recommendation referred specifically to educational services connected to animal cruelty calls. It’s simply a matter of talking with pet owners as part of the call response, telling them things like why they need to take their pet to the vet, for example. It’s just part of the process, and doesn’t incur an additional cost.

Commissioners later reached consensus to eliminate the recommendations for educational services as related to animal cruelty investigations.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations – Block Grant vs. Fee-for-Service

Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed frustration at allocating line-by-line expenses in a contract. He proposed giving HSHV a certain amount of money and letting their staff allocate it as necessary. ”Like when my wife gives me an allowance,” he joked. “I can go to McDonald’s or Burger King.”

From left: County commissioner Barbara Bergman of Ann Arbor, and Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Dispute Resolution Center.

Barbara Bergman told him that “the days of block grants are over.” She supported paying for specific services. The county no longer provides block grant for other services, like mental health programs. She didn’t think they should give block grants for any reason.

Conan Smith described himself as “pro-block grant.” He noted that the board hadn’t raised this issue previously, but it’s a good question to discuss.

Bergman observed that in recent years, the county has paid HSHV $500,000 annually without getting detailed data about the services that were being provided. The data was terrible, she said, and going back to that approach would be frivolous.

Smith countered that a block grant allows services to be leveraged in a cost effective way. He said he believes that the county needs to be data-driven, and they’ve worked for months with HSHV to get that data. At this point, he wants to trust the professionals.

Bergman replied that she doesn’t yet trust the HSHV. The last time the county trusted that organization, she said, they didn’t get good data. Bergman then reported that her grandson Jonah had been the one to make HSHV’s 2,000th adoption this summer. Her son had chosen not to reveal their relationship with her, she said, because of accusations that people have made against her that she “doesn’t give a damn about animals.” Despite what people say, Bergman added, in fact she does care about dogs – but she also cares about providing support for children.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations – Oversight

At a couple of points during the meeting, Rolland Sizemore Jr. raised the issue of oversight, and suggested that the county board should have a dedicated seat on the HSHV board of directors. Yousef Rabhi agreed that the recommendations should address the issue of oversight. He noted that contracts with HSHV state that the organization must make regular reports to the county about its activities. [.pdf of current HSHV contract] It’s worth putting in specific language about what kind of information the county board wants, and how often those reports should be made, he said.

Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director who was representing the county administration at the task force meeting, suggested keeping the recommendation fairly broad. That way, the board can later tailor its requests in the contract as it sees fit, he said.

Rabhi proposed the following recommendation: “Make a monthly report to County board on operating metrics.” His recommendation was added to the list. However, no recommendation was added to request that a county commissioner serve on the HSHV board.

Animal Control Policies, Practices

The final 30 minutes of the Sept. 13 meeting focused on refining a draft of proposed county policies and practices for animal control. At this point, only four commissioners were still present: Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith and Rob Turner.

The group reached consensus on these recommendations:

• Adopt a civil infractions ordinance and fee structure for unlicensed dogs.
• Adopt a voluntary pet registration program that is cost neutral and does not expand the county’s mandate.
• Develop an ordinance prohibiting ownership of certain types of exotic animals.
• Design and implement a veterinary partners program to support licensing.
• Work with the county prosecutor and courts to promote forfeiture in animal cruelty cases.
• Work with the courts to implement a collections-compliance program for infraction violations and cruelty cases.
• Work with local units of government to create a unified dog licensing program across that county and a common ordinance standard.
• Develop cost-sharing with local governments to offset increases driven by local ordinance requirements.

Animal Control Policies & Practices: Unified Licensing

Several of the items relate to generating revenues, and questions about who will pay for animal control services. One of those recommendations was for a unified countywide dog licensing program. The state mandates that the county is responsible for dog licensing, unless that task is picked up by another local jurisdiction. In Washtenaw County, five communities have animal control ordinances: the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Pittsfield, Superior and Ypsilanti. However, only three of those – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – also have licensing programs, which generate revenues for animal control. The licensing fees vary, depending on where you live.

Creating a unified system is something that Yousef Rabhi sees as a long-term vision. But in the short-term, the county needs to immediately work with other communities and “get money in the form of a check,” he said.

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, representing District 11 in Ann Arbor.

Rob Turner agreed. He noted that Ypsilanti Township has a very aggressive ordinance to combat dog fighting, but the county ends up picking up some of the costs for that. The township just needs to pay for some of the costs that the county incurs, he said.

Rabhi added that for the county’s next budget cycle, he felt that there needs to be a specific financial commitment from communities with animal control ordinances.

Greg Dill reported that earlier in the afternoon, he had met with sheriff Jerry Clayton and county administrator Verna McDaniel to discuss this issue of cost-sharing with other communities. He said they’ve come up with a formula that will significantly reduce the amount that the county currently pays for animal control services, and that there will be meetings in the coming weeks with the leaders of other communities to talk about a new approach. He did not give additional details about the proposed cost-sharing formula.

Conan Smith felt it would be much more lucrative and efficient to have a unified licensing program countywide. Turner and Rabhi agreed, but again emphasized that this should be a longer-term goal.

The discussion prompted Smith to propose the final policy recommendation that was added to the list: Develop cost-sharing with local governments to offset increases driven by local ordinance requirements.

Animal Control Policies & Practices: Animal Census

Another item that had been originally included in the draft recommendations was deleted: Work with the county treasurer to design and implement an annual pet census.

Rob Turner noted that a census would cost money, but it might be possible to hire student interns to do the work in the summer. It’s also likely that a census would generate more revenue than it would cost, as owners of unlicensed pets would end up paying for licenses.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. mentioned a point that Wes Prater had raised during the board’s Sept. 6 working session. Prater indicated that the state dog law of 1919 mandates each community to take a dog census, and that the responsibility for doing the census falls to the assessors in each jurisdiction. If that’s what the dog law states, Sizemore said, then that’s how a census should be handled.

Here’s the section of the dog law that Prater had pointed out – the “board of supervisors” mentioned in this law is the historical precursor to the current county board of commissioners:

Sec. 16. The supervisor of each township and the assessor of every city, annually, on taking his assessment of property as required by law, may make diligent inquiry as to the number of dogs owned, harbored or kept by all persons in his assessing district; and on or before June 1, make a complete report to the county treasurer, for his county, on a blank form furnished by the director of agriculture, setting forth the name of every owner, or keeper, of any dog, subject to license under this act, how many of each sex are owned by him, and if a kennel license is maintained such fact shall be also stated. Every supervisor or assessor shall receive for his services in listing such dogs at a rate determined by the board of supervisors for each dog so listed, which sums shall be paid out of the general fund of the county. [.pdf of Michigan's dog law]

Yousef Rabhi felt that a census should be a longer-term project. He first wanted to increase licensing compliance through other approaches. A census might be putting too much on their plate, he said.

Conan Smith recalled that county treasurer Catherine McClary had identified a three-step process to increase dog-licensing compliance: (1) adding the option of a three-year license, so that owners could renew licenses on the same cycle as the dogs’ rabies shots – and the county board approved that change in September 2010; (2) making the lack of a dog license a civil infraction, rather than a misdemeanor; and (3) doing an annual pet census.

Catherine Jones, a business analyst with the county who’s been working on the financial aspect of animal control issues, noted that McClary believes it’s not useful to do a census until a civil infractions ordinance is in place. Otherwise, there would be no feasible tool to force compliance.

Rabhi suggested removing the recommendation for the proposed policy list, and other commissioners agreed.

Animal Control Policies & Practices: Voluntary Pet Registration

There was a fair amount of discussion about the policy item related to pet registration. The original draft proposed by Conan Smith stated: “Adopt a voluntary pet registration program for cats and exotics.”

Yousef Rabhi and Rolland Sizemore Jr. both wondered why anyone would voluntarily want to register their cat or exotic animal. HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf said this type of registry isn’t done here, but it’s common in other areas. Catherine Jones, a business analyst for Washtenaw County, pointed out that if an animal is registered and later becomes lost, it would be easier to identify if someone finds it and brings it to the Humane Society.

In Washtenaw County, there’s a low return rate for cats, Hilgendorf said. But if cats are registered and can be returned to their owners quickly, that’s less cost for holding the strays at HSHV. A registry could also be seen as a possible way to raise revenues, she added.

Jenny Paillon, HSHV’s director of operations, thought this item might have morphed from an HSHV suggestion that the county create an ordinance to prohibit ownership of certain exotic animals. Right now it’s a gray area, she said. It’s legal to own certain exotics, so when they are brought to HSHV as strays, they must be handled like other stray animals.

Rob Turner proposed adding that as another recommendation: Develop an ordinance prohibiting ownership of certain types of exotic animals. The details about which exotics to include could be worked out later, he said. Hilgendorf offered to draft ordinance language for the board to consider.

Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director who was representing the county administration at the task force meeting, suggested eliminating reference to specific types of animals and simply call for a voluntary pet registration program, period.

Yousef Rabhi objected to a registration program – even a voluntary one. It would still become a county responsibility, he said, and he was reluctant to expand the county’s scope of services in this way.

Smith replied that there was a clear distinction between voluntary registration and licensing, which is mandatory. He said he had talked about the issue with Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

In that case, Rabhi said, he would support having a voluntary registration program, but wanted to state explicitly that the program should be cost neutral and not expand the county’s mandate. Other commissioners agreed with that revision.

Eliminating the RFP Process?

Toward the end of the task force meeting, Rolland Sizemore Jr. stated that he was getting tired of this process. Why not propose that the county will pay the Humane Society of Huron Valley $325,000 per year, then ask HSHV to negotiate with other communities that have animal control ordinances for the remaining amount? Whatever amount HSHV can get from these other communities, HSHV can keep, he suggested.

Sizemore was concerned that if the board pursues the RFP process,  a service provider won’t be lined up by the end of the year, and they’ll be in the same position they were at the beginning of 2012 – scrambling to get a new contract. He also pointed out that if the county issues an RFP and no other organizations respond, then the HSHV will have more leverage over the county “because they’ll know we’re screwed.”

He also said he wanted HSHV to know that while he preferred working with them, if it comes down to funding programs for kids or for animals, “I’ll go with kids.”

Related to the issue of possibly suspending the RFP, earlier in the meeting paper copies of an email sent from county administrator Verna McDaniel to commissioner Barbara Bergman – and cc’d to the full board – had been passed out. The email was responding to a query from Bergman about the RFP process, and addressed the issue of canceling the RFP. In relevant part, McDaniel’s email stated:

I wanted to provide some information on the process for Requests for Proposals. As with any RFP that the County submits, we reserve the right to cancel the request at any time during and after we have received proposals. I have verified this with Purchasing and Corp Counsel as we have a clause in our boilerplate stating our right to cancel at any time. As such, this will apply to the Animal Control Services RFP. After the bid opening, bids are subject to FOIA [Freedom of Information Act].

Responding to Sizemore, Conan Smith said he hadn’t written down a specific recommendation about it, but one way to handle the situation is to decide not to issue an RFP and start negotiations with HSHV now.

From left: County commissioners Rob Turner, Conan Smith, and Yousef Rabhi.

Rob Turner expressed support, but felt the county should commit to covering the cost of existing services with HSHV. The board should then direct county administrator Verna McDaniel to work with other communities that have animal control ordinances, and “get those local areas to chip in,” he said.

Turner also pointed out that sheriff Jerry Clayton had expressed caution about using another vendor, noting that transportation costs could increase depending on where an animal shelter is located.

Smith said he heard three of the four commissioners in the room leaning toward negotiations with HSHV. Yousef Rabhi said he was neutral, and felt that they should comply with the board’s resolution, which had called for an RFP. Sizemore observed that the board could simply change that at its Sept. 19 meeting by passing another resolution that called for negotiations instead of an RFP.

There was no formal vote taken on this suggestion, but the consensus appeared to be that the recommendation to suspend the RFP process might be brought to the board at its Sept. 19 meeting.

As the task force meeting concluded, HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf thanked everyone for their hard work, creativity and dedication. She said that despite what Barbara Bergman might think, Hilgendorf knew that Bergman had a huge heart and is very compassionate. [Bergman had left the meeting by this point.]

Hilgendorf said she understood that it’s a balancing act when it comes to available money for these services. She felt like a lot of people had dug through data in this process, and that there were now more experts at the government level on these issues. ”To me, it’s only going to get better from here,” she said.

In the future, she hoped that they could address some other issues as well, including an anti-chaining ordinance and spay/neuter ordinance – “even if it’s just for pit bulls,” which has worked well in Ypsilanti Township, she said. [The township has an ordinance requiring that pit bulls must be spayed or neutered.] Hilgendorf also suggested addressing the issue of feral cats, which are a problem in some parts of the county. HSHV already operates a “trap, neuter, return” program aimed at curbing the feral cat population.

All of these efforts would be preventative and save money down the line, she said, as well as creating a safer community for people as well as animals.

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

From left: Mike Walsh and Mark Heusel, board members of the Humane Society of Huron Valley, and Jenny Paillon, HSHV’s director of operations, at a July 25, 2012 Washtenaw County board of commissioners’ animal control policy task force meeting. The session was held outside at the Learning Resource Center on Washtenaw Avenue near the county jail – because at the time electricity was out in that area of town. (Photos by the writer.)

The idea is that if more revenue is available to cover costs, the county can contract out for a higher level of service – beyond what’s mandated by the state. The question of what the county is obligated to do regarding animal control services, and how much those services cost, has been a contentious issue since the last budget cycle. That’s when county commissioners cut the amount allocated to the contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which has provided animal control services to the county on a the  basis of that contract. A new contract was negotiated with HSHV at a lower rate; and that arrangement ends on Dec. 31, 2012.

The current contract with HSHV was approved at the county board’s Feb. 15, 2012 meeting. At that same meeting, the board created its policy task force and a separate work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, to develop a cost structure for those services. These two groups are laying the groundwork for soliciting proposals later this year for an entity to handle the county’s animal control services. HSHV is viewed by many commissioners as the preferred agency to continue handling this work. Representatives of the nonprofit have attended the policy task force meetings, and are members of the sheriff’s work group.

A discussion at the task force’s previous meeting on June 29 had indicated that representatives from other communities with their own animal control ordinances – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – would be invited to participate at the July 25 session. That didn’t happen, though it will likely occur at a future meeting. Commissioners also had planned to invite county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie –as his office has purview over prosecuting animal cruelty cases and other legal issues related to animal control, which have an impact on expenses. Board chair Conan Smith reported that it hadn’t been possible for Mackie to attend.

Several revenue options were discussed on July 25, but no clear consensus was reached about which of them to pursue. Ideas included (1) licensing cats and exotic animals, like snakes; (2) allowing veterinarians to issue licenses; (3) easing other roadblocks to licensing; (4) taking a summer census of animals, then following up to ensure that the animals are licensed; and (5) making the lack of a license a civil infraction, rather than a misdemeanor. This would allow the county to impose fines, rather than jail time.

The next session is set for Thursday, Aug. 9 at 2 p.m. at the county administration building, 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor. It’s expected to include both the policy task force and the sheriff’s work group, and set the stage for an Aug. 22 meeting that would include staff from the county prosecutor’s office and judiciary. A recommendation and RFP (request for proposals) are expected to be presented to the board in September.

For additional background on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “Work Continues on Animal Control Policy” and ”Next Steps on Animal Control Policy.” More information related to this process is also posted on the county’s website.

Status of Request for Proposals (RFP)

At the previous task force meeting, on June 29, Washtenaw County commissioner Barbara Bergman had advocated for the county to issue a preliminary RFP (request for proposals) to get responses about costs for a minimum level of service. On July 25, Conan Smith told the group that a draft RFP had been prepared, with a placeholder for inserting the level of service that the county board will determine. It could be “released on a dime,” Smith said, as soon as the board sets the level of service it wants to request. Responding to a query from Wes Prater, Smith confirmed that the RFP had been prepared by the county’s purchasing staff and conformed to procurement policies.

Ronnie Peterson wondered what would happen next regarding the RFP. Smith replied that when the task force determines a recommendation for the level of service to request, that recommendation will go to the full board. It will likely be on the agenda at one of the board meetings in September, he said.

Bergman wanted to know why a recommendation couldn’t be presented at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting. [The board is on a summer schedule, with only one meeting each month.] A recommendation wouldn’t be ready by then, Smith replied. The task force doesn’t have a completed cost analysis yet, for example.

Bergman was concerned about the tight timeline, noting that a recommendation in September only gives the county three months to issue the RFP, get responses and award a contract before year’s end, when the current deal with the Humane Society of Huron Valley expires. County administrator Verna McDaniel said it would be helpful if the board approves a recommendation at its Sept. 5 meeting, rather than waiting for final approval at its meeting on Sept. 19.

Peterson expressed concern about the task force meetings, and said he hoped they were not intended to circumvent the board. If the task force is making any kind of decision, he said, it wasn’t appropriate and he would leave. Smith responded, saying that the board had passed a resolution outlining this process. The task force is intended to develop a policy framework that will guide development of the RFP. [The policy task force and cost work group were created by the county board at its Feb. 15, 2012 meeting, when commissioners also approved a $415,000 contract with the HSHV to provide animal control services for the county through Dec. 31, 2012.]

County commissioner Rob Turner. In the background is commissioner Ronnie Peterson. Barely visible between the two commissioners is county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Rob Turner noted that only a few commissioners had consistently participated in the policy task force meetings. He hoped they could schedule a working session in early August on the topic, so that everyone could give input before the recommendation is formally brought to the board. The working session could include representatives from the sheriff’s work group, he said.

Bergman replied that all commissioners were invited to attend these task force meetings – it wasn’t an exclusive group. Turner noted that some commissioners have work obligations that prevent them from attending. [The meetings have been set for certain Wednesdays over the past three months, from 8-10 a.m.]

Smith said he had talked with sheriff Jerry Clayton about the need to merge the two groups – the policy task force, and cost work group – possibly in August. If they are smart and aggressive, he said, they can accommodate the RFP process while having a robust public discussion.

With that, Smith turned the meeting over to Belinda Dulin of the Dispute Resolution Center, who facilitated the remainder of the session.

Sources of Revenue

The focus of the July 25 meeting was on ways to generate more revenue for animal control services. The idea is that if more revenue is available to cover costs, the county can contract out for a higher level of service – beyond what’s mandated by the state.

In framing the task force’s work, Conan Smith explained that part of the job is to look at possible revenue options and decide whether the board needs to change its policies to accommodate those options. For example, if the county decides to implement the licensing of cats, what policies need to be in place to allow that to happen?

Barbara Bergman said they also need to consider the cost involved in implementing these options – what extra staffing would be needed, for example? Later in the meeting, Jenny Paillon, HSHV’s director of operations who has been attending these task force meetings, reminded commissioners that because HSHV must comply with the county’s living wage policy, that adds to the expense of operations. [The living wage applies to contracts with the county valued at more than $10,000 annually. It requires that the contractor pay employees $11.40 per hour if health care benefits are provided, or $13.37 per hour if no benefits are provided. The current amount is set through April 30, 2013.]

Wes Prater expressed concern. There are three communities with their own animal control policies – Ypsilanti Township, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – but that doesn’t relieve the county of its responsibilities, he said. Prater didn’t think the county should foist off its responsibilities onto these other municipalities, nor should the county craft policies that would conflict with these other units of government. He wondered how the county planned to extract funding from those communities. It’s a real issue, he said, and could result in litigation.

Paillon noted that almost every city or township in Washtenaw County has animal control ordinances, although only the three communities that Prater mentioned have their own licensing. [.pdf of local animal control ordinances] It’s a fragmented approach, she said, and at the sheriff’s work group, they had talked about setting up a more uniform system. She noted that she had given the work group an extensive presentation on this issue, and that she’d be happy to share it.

Yousef Rabhi told Prater that the county wouldn’t be compelling other communities to contribute revenues, but would be helping the communities understand that some local ordinances go above and beyond what the county is required to do, and that costs money. The county should ask other communities to contribute an amount that reflects those expanded services, Rabhi said. Prater wondered what made Rabhi think that approach would be successful.

County administrator Verna McDaniel indicated that she and sheriff Jerry Clayton had already talked about this with officials in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, and didn’t receive any pushback. Those officials seemed open to the idea of contributing revenues, she said.

Sources of Revenue: Specific Options

Conan Smith suggested two revenue options: partnering with other communities, and cat licensing. Wes Prater immediately responded that licensing cats is a bad idea. Barbara Bergman suggested licensing goldfish – but it appeared that she was joking. Sally Brush, a facilitator with the Dispute Resolution Center who was taking notes, translated that suggestion into licensing exotic animals.

Several other ideas were floated in the ensuing discussion, including (1) allowing veterinarians to license dogs; (2) easing other roadblocks to licensing; (3) taking a summer census of animals, then following up to ensure that the animals are licensed; and (4) making the lack of a license a civil infraction, rather than a misdemeanor. This would allow the county to impose fines, rather than jail time.

Crystal Collin of the Dispute Resolution Center talks with Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

After a fair amount of discussion – and offers by HSHV representatives, including board vice president Mark Heusel, to share their presentation on revenue-generation strategies – Felicia Brabec asked a process question. If these ideas had already been developed and shared with the sheriff’s work group, she didn’t understand why the policy task force was spending their time brainstorming on the same topic.

Smith acknowledged the tension, but noted that it’s not the role of the sheriff’s work group to develop policy. So the task force needs to discuss the same issue, even though there’s overlap, he said. Then when the two groups come together, everyone will understand the policies they want to explore, and can start to talk about the cost of implementing those policies before making a recommendation to the full board.

Bergman said she was starting to feel this meeting was fruitless. Without knowing the costs of different levels of service, there was no point to the discussion, she said.

Yousef Rabhi said he felt this was the most exciting discussion the task force has had so far. Even if the sheriff’s work group had gone over the same issue, Rabhi felt that the task force might come up with new ideas that hadn’t yet been considered.

Brabec said her point was that the discussion should be additive – it wasn’t a good use of time to brainstorm on ideas that had already been outlined.

At that point, Smith asked Jenny Paillon, HSHV’s director of operations, to share any ideas for revenues that hadn’t been discussed so far.

Paillon reviewed some additional options that had been part of her presentation to the sheriff’s work group, which included a range of suggestions for programs and ordinance changes. [.pdf of Paillon's full presentation] In addition to suggestions mentioned earlier in this report, other options for licensing include:

• Expand the licensing program to allow HSHV and veterinarians to sell licenses, in addition to the county treasurer’s office. That way, licenses could be bought at the same place and time when animals are adopted or vaccinated.
• Issue a free three-month license at the time of adoption to get people into the system, then follow up with that owner for regular licensing. Violations can result in a “fix-it” ticket that would cost the same as a license.
• Use part-time temporary workers for an annual summer census campaign, which would enable violations to be identified en masse.
• Offer graduated license fees, with significantly higher fees for unsterilized animals.
• Sell higher-cost “vanity” licenses, with funds supporting a spay/neuter program.
• Hold a licensing event and vaccine clinic, which can also be used to provide educational information. This approach is used in Ypsilanti Township.
• License cats as well as dogs – there are an estimated 99,000 cats in Washtenaw County, according to the HSHV.

Paillon’s report included an estimate of potential revenue. A $12 annual license for both dogs and cats would bring in an estimated $1.122 million if there is 50% compliance. If the license is increased to $32/year, annual revenues for 50% compliance would be an estimated $2.992 million.

County commissioners Wes Prater and Felicia Brabec.

Wes Prater argued that 25 of the 28 municipalities in Washtenaw County don’t have animal control ordinances, so none of these changes would affect them. [Paillion had earlier noted that several other municipalities do have animal control ordinances – just not licensing.] Yousef Rabhi replied that the county’s licensing program applied to everyone in the county, except for the three communities with their own licensing programs. He noted that these are just ideas, and that they were taking a big-picture approach.

Prater said everyone needs to think about the citizens that these changes will be imposed on. To that, Conan Smith joked that Rabhi isn’t opposed in the Aug. 7 primary. [Prater, a Democrat like Rabhi, is also unopposed in the primary. However, because of redistricting that takes effect with the upcoming election, Prater will be in the same district as incumbent Republican Alicia Ping, and faces a difficult race in the Nov. 6 general election.]

As a practical matter, Mark Heusel of the HSHV board noted that when the county issues its RFP, they’ll need to ensure that respondents have processes in place for managing records and payments, if the county wants its animal control contractor to handle licensing.

Bergman wondered whether it was possible under state law for veterinarians to give out licenses. When Conan Smith replied that the county treasurer can delegate that duty, Prater noted that the treasurer would have to consent to this approach. [Catherine McClary is the county treasurer.] Bergman wanted a legal opinion from the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger. Heusel indicated that he had talked with Hedger about this issue, and Hedger agreed that licensing could be privatized. Nevertheless, Bergman said, she wanted Hedger’s legal opinion.

Next Steps

Toward the end of the July 25 session, the group discussed what steps need to be taken to move this project forward. Mark Heusel suggested bringing in representatives from the county prosecutor’s office and the district courts, because enforcement is a big piece of this issue.

Rob Turner mentioned that a report about the cost structure for animal control services had been given to Conan Smith, who chairs the board of commissioners, and to county administrator Verna McDaniel. That’s where the rubber hits the road regarding policy, Turner said. The two groups – the policy task force and the sheriff’s work group – need to come together and develop a recommendation based on their respective work. Turner felt that needed to occur before bringing in the prosecutor and judicial staff.

Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Dispute Resolution Center.

Belinda Dulin of the Dispute Resolution Center noted that the next scheduled meeting for the task force is Aug. 22. Do they need a meeting earlier than that too? The consensus was yes – it was subsequently scheduled for Thursday, Aug. 9 at 2 p.m. in the basement conference room at 200 N. Main, the county administration building in downtown Ann Arbor.

Smith noted that there are two paths. One is related to the RFP, which needs to be issued so that a contract will be in place when the current HSHV contract expires on Dec. 31. He offered to draft a list of items that he feels are essential to be included in the RFP, based on the task force discussions. He said he’d distribute that document to the group to get their feedback.

There are some controversial items that can be deferred until a later date, he said, and that don’t need to be included in the RFP. Prater suggested cats should fall into that category, and Bergman added exotic animals. Prater also felt that conducting a summer animal census was controversial, though Turner noted that it’s done in other Michigan counties.

Smith said he’d work to get a list of items that would be acceptable to most commissioners for the RFP. They could address other possible options at a later date.

Prater felt there should be some discussion of sections 14-17 in the state’s Public Act 339 of 1919 – the dog law that mandates county responsibilities. Those sections address details about how licenses are issued, the role of the county treasurer, and the role of law enforcement officers. [.pdf of Michigan's dog law] The meeting conlcuded without that topic being addressed.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Rob Turner. Also from the county administration: Verna McDaniel.

Next meeting: Thursday, Aug. 9, at 2 p.m. in the lower level of the county administration building, 200 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date and location]

The Chronicle would 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!