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

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

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

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

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

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

A public hearing on this proposal was held at the April 2 meeting, when the board also voted to give initial approval to the plan. Only one person – Tyler Weston, representing Thompson Block Partners – spoke, telling the board that it would help the project. Weston attended the April 16 meeting, but did not formally address the board. There was no discussion on this item.

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

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, talked with an advocate from the homeless community before the April 2 county board meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The board ultimately voted to direct county administrator Verna McDaniel to work with community partners to address immediate needs of the homeless. In general, McDaniel has budgetary discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts, and up to $100,000 for any proposed goods, services, new construction or renovation. Later in the week, she allocated $35,000 to the Delonis Center – which is run by the nonprofit Shelter Association of Washtenaw County – to keep its nighttime warming center open through April 30. The warming center had originally been slated to close for the season on April 6.

The resolution also directed the administration to develop a plan by May 7 for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was adopted in 2004 but appears to be dormant. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) had initially suggested allocating $40,000 to the shelter to keep the warming center open another month. Other commissioners had concerns about throwing money at the shelter without any input from shelter staff, and without knowing specifically how the money would be used. Because the item hadn’t been included on the agenda, representatives from the shelter staff didn’t attend the meeting.

Some commissioners thought there should be a strategic plan in place before any additional funding is given – and they seemed to assume that such a plan doesn’t already exist. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, noted that the city of Ann Arbor and several other entities are working on this issue, in partnership with the Shelter Association. The board had received a briefing from the association’s executive director, Ellen Schulmeister, at their Feb. 6, 2014 working session.

The vote on the resolution was 6-2, over dissent from Republicans Dan Smith (District 2) and Alicia Ping (District 3), who both objected to the process. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Dan Smith called it “completely and entirely inappropriate” to be making policy and budgetary decisions on the fly, in response to a few people who showed up to speak during public commentary. He supported updating the Blueprint to End Homelessness, but thought it was a discussion that should take place at a working session before taking action at a regular board meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded by saying that commissioners are elected to work for the people. When people come to the board, it’s important to address their concerns in a serious manner, he said.

Because of the length of the meeting, some men who were staying at the shelter missed the 9:30 p.m. curfew. Typically, anyone showing up after that time isn’t allowed inside. Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management, contacted the shelter staff and made arrangements for the men to be accommodated.

In other action, commissioners gave initial approval to a two-year pricing proposal – for 2016 and 2017 – to provide police services to local municipalities through contracts with the county sheriff’s office. Some commissioners expressed concern about the financial sustainability of this approach to funding police services, and cited the need for new revenue sources for public safety. Sheriff Jerry Clayton was on hand to present the pricing proposal, and supported suggestions to seek a new funding source. As he’s done in the past, Clayton characterized the issue of public safety as one that encompasses economic development, human services and other aspects of the community.

Commissioners also gave initial approval to a new brownfield redevelopment plan for the Thompson Block in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town, and took final action to add autism coverage to the health care benefits for employees. They postponed action on a resolution related to the county road commission until May 7, following an April 17 working session that will focus on that issue. The board also was briefed on the 2013 audit and comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), and received an award for financial reporting from the national Government Finance Officers Association.

During communications, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) reported that the review of applications is underway for the current cycle of coordinated funding, a partnership to fund social service agencies that involves the county, city of Ann Arbor, and several other entities. For this cycle, 105 applications were received, representing $8.7 million in requests. The amount of available funding this year from all partners is $4.4 million. “So it’s a difficult, difficult process,” she said. Funding recommendations will be brought to the board in May.

On April 2, the board also honored five local businesses and institutions with “healthy workplace” awards, and recognized the Ann Arbor Community Center for 91 years of service.

Funds for Homeless Shelter

This year, the issue of homelessness has been highlighted during public commentary at several county board meetings. That was again true on April 2.

Washtenaw County owns the Delonis Center building at 312 W. Huron in Ann Arbor, but does not operate the shelter. Operations are handled by the nonprofit Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, led by executive director Ellen Schulmeister. Schulmeister had briefed commissioners about services for the homeless at their Feb. 6, 2014 working session. Her briefing had come in response to advocacy from several homeless advocates at the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when commissioners had also discussed the need to do more.

The county budget included $51,230 for the Delonis Center in 2013 and that amount was increased to $160,000 this year as part of the regular budget approval process late last year. The county funding is set to increase again to $200,000 in 2015 and remain at that level through 2017. The Shelter Association’s annual budget is $2.583 million.

The Delonis Center was built to house 50 beds, but there have been 75 beds since 2009. In addition, the Delonis Center operates a warming center in its dining room, for a maximum of 65 people – although during the harshest weather, more are accommodated. The warming center is open from mid-November through April 6. There is no drug testing, but people are given a breathalyzer test and are not admitted into the shelter if their blood alcohol level is over .10 – above the legal intoxication level of .08.

Funds for Homeless Shelter: Public Commentary

Several people spoke to advocate for the homeless at the April 2 meeting. Diane Chapman noted that the warming center would be closing on April 6, and she wasn’t sure the weather was good enough for that to happen yet. She said she personally has had to rescue people to prevent them from freezing, so she was asking commissioners to help. It’s not a good thing to put people on the street right now.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) talks with advocates for the homeless during a break in the April 2 county board meeting.

Ray Gholston introduced himself as a resident of the Delonis warming center. He said he was outraged at the planned closing of the warming center on April 6. “This is a potential crisis,” he said, which would result in dozens of people put out onto the streets, and some could possibly die because of exposure to the elements. Basic shelter is not just a right for the privileged few, he said. It is a human right for everyone. Even prisoners of war get food, clothing and shelter, he noted – the United Nations mandates it. How much money does it take to roll out a cot and give a man a blanket? he asked. There are animal shelters, and if dogs and cats were on the street, there would be outrage and anger, he said. Some people on the streets are U.S. veterans who’ve served honorably, he said – look at how they’re being repaid.

Gholston told commissioners that he has a full-time job. “I’m not some bum. I work for a living,” he said, but he can’t afford to rent an apartment in Ann Arbor. How is he supposed to keep up his appearance and hygiene for his job, if he has to sleep on the streets? If the warming center is closed, people will be sleeping on private property, he said, and urinating and defecating in the streets. “This is a shame,” he said. America isn’t a third-world nation, but it could turn into one. He requested that the board do anything in its power to extend the availability of the warming center. He hoped they’d use their humanity to do the right thing.

Elizabeth Kurtz reminded commissioners that a group of people had approached the county board in January about issues related to the warming center. [She was referring to the Jan. 22, 2014 meeting.] As a result, she said, some people from the warming center met with commissioner and board chair Yousef Rabhi; county administrator Verna McDaniel; Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development; and Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. During the meeting, Kurtz said, everyone agreed that there would be continuing dialogue about improving the warming center and addressing homelessness issues. At no point, no human being should be forced to sleep outside in the elements, she said.

Kurtz felt that the board had ignored these issues and had not given them the attention they deserve. She said the homeless community won’t rest until they have access to the human rights they’re entitled to. She read a statement that urged the board to force the Delonis Center to keep the warming center open, or to make other accommodations for people who are using it, such as hotel rooms or temporary trailers. The statement also referred to Kurtz herself, stating that she was “kicked out of the warming center for a non-criminal offense” and asking that she be allowed to return.

Christopher Ellis said he didn’t want to cast aspersions on the shelter. The staff does a humane job, and without it he wouldn’t have survived the winter. But he questioned the morality of closing the warming center on April 6. It should be looked at, he said.

Funds for Homeless Shelter: Board Discussion

Responding to the public commentary, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked the advocates for the homeless, and said he felt he’d had a lot of opportunities to talk with them about these issues. He thought he’d been open and honest with them about the barriers. He agreed that the community needs to care for everyone, but it’s important to realize that this is part of a broader picture that includes affordable housing and resources to find jobs. He hoped that the tax base problems caused by the down economy would be turning around, but there haven’t been as many resources to address the issue because of that.

The Delonis Center is a great partner, Rabhi said, in leveraging county tax dollars with private funding and other sources. It’s a complex issue with many moving parts, he said, which includes wage disparity and access to economic opportunity.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked to amend the April 2 agenda so that the board could formally discuss the issues that had been raised.

Because this issue had not originally been on the agenda, no one from the Delonis Center was on hand to answer questions. So later in the meeting, Mary Jo Callan – director of the county’s office of community & economic development – was asked to provide some context. Callan reminded commissioners that the former shelter, which was demolished several years ago, was an 80-bed facility. The current shelter was originally recommended to be 200 beds, but ultimately was built with 50 beds and opened in 2003. More beds were added later, bringing the total to about 75 beds.

The Shelter Association also has a rotating shelter of 25 beds that’s housed by local religious groups. There’s also a warming center, which began with just chairs set up in a room for about 50 people. In 2009, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority purchased bedding for the center, so that clients could sleep in the floor, Callan said.

This winter, there’s been an increase in the number of people seeking services from the shelter – some nights, as many as 80 people. The warming center and the rotating shelter operate from November 18 through April 6, Callan said. The intent is that during the harshest winter months, people are provided with safety and warmth.

There are about 4,500 homeless people in Washtenaw County, Callan reported. There’s a growing lack of affordable housing, both locally and nationwide. She noted that the Urban Institute recently issued a report indicating that for every 100 people in Washtenaw County who are earning 30% or less than the area median income, there are 18 units of affordable housing.

Callan said Schulmeister wasn’t able to rush to the April 2 meeting when this issue arose, but she’s very interested in the board’s discussion. Although the Shelter Association tries to be as responsive as possible, Callan added, as a single nonprofit, it’s difficult to address homelessness in the entire community.

Noting that the cold weather isn’t over yet, Conan Smith said he didn’t want to wait two weeks to make funding available for what might be an emergency situation. “You know me – I’m not a throw-the-money-at-a-problem kind of person,” he said, adding that he wants to understand the root cause and what’s at play. But this is a situation that might need the county to throw money at the problem in the short term, Smith said.

The county doesn’t have the capacity for a year-round warming center, Smith added, but he hoped there was a way to address the next several weeks, until the weather warms up. He also wanted to know what resources are needed for longer-term solutions.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Rabhi replied that the board needs to be respectful of the Shelter Association as an organization. It’s a separate nonprofit, and receives money from other sources, not just the county. So any solutions should be developed in conjunction with them, he said. For him, the closure of the warming center was a new issue, Rabhi added – he hadn’t realized until recently it was closing on April 6. There needs to be a long-term strategy, he said, because this would arise again in future years. But he acknowledged that there’s a spectrum of need, including short-term problems.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who serves on the sustainable revenues for supportive housing services task force that was created in 2007, reported that the task force is looking at long-term solutions, including a potential millage and an endowment.

Conan Smith then put forward a proposal to allocate $40,000 as emergency funding to the shelter for an additional month. His rationale was based on his recollection that Schulmeister had said it cost about $10,000 a week to operate the warming center.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he hoped commissioners would keep this discussion in mind as the county moves forward with the disposition of the Platt Road property. As chair of the board’s working sessions, he reported that the issue of homelessness would be a topic for the first working session in May.

LaBarre clarified with Callan that from November 18 through April 6, a nighttime warming center was open. During the day, it opens up if temperatures are 10 degrees or colder. Responding to another query from LaBarre, Callan said the other major public funders for the shelter are the city of Ann Arbor and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority.

Callan told commissioners that the shelter staff are interested in being as flexible as possible. “I also want you all to know that the shelter staff has been working overtime literally for months,” she said. It’s a very complex, crowded, difficult place to be. So the feasibility of keeping it open would depend on whether it’s tenable from the staff’s perspective, she said. It’s been a very difficult season for everyone, Callan added – both the people who need services, and the people who provide those services.

Rabhi wondered if extending the warming center for a month would actually address the issues that have been raised. April 30 is an arbitrary end date, too, he noted. That’s a struggle for him.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked what the $40,000 would be used for. Is it for operations? Conan Smith said he was responding to the request for keeping the warming center open past April 6. Ping responded, saying that this is a bigger issue than just the next few weeks. She pointed out that the 10-day forecast called for temperatures in the 50s. “I don’t know that this is the right use of our money to keep the warming shelter open when clearly it is warming up.”

Ping also noted that the county isn’t in charge of the shelter. The county could provide funding, but the shelter can do anything it wants with that. Smith pointed out that the county owns the Delonis Center building.

Brabec noted that even though highs are forecast in the 50s, the lows will still be in the 30s. It highlights the struggle of needing to address short-term needs while also looking for long-term solutions. The $40,000 might help address the short-term need for residents, she said. It can run on parallel tracks.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wouldn’t support spending money unless there was also a long-term strategy in place before then, involving other partners who should also make an investment. Callan replied that more communications and connections could be made, but there’s also a lot happening regarding emergency shelter, rapid re-housing, supportive housing, and affordable housing. She suggested scheduling another working session on these issues.

People in the shelter are being housed, Callan said, “but that is an uphill battle.” Social equity and a dearth of affordable housing are issues in this community, she said, as is a lack of living-wage employment. “The most basic social service is a job,” she said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Rabhi agreed that the broader discussion needs to include the issue of a living wage. He noted that earlier in the day, President Barack Obama had talked about the need to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10. Even at that, Rabhi noted, people wouldn’t necessarily be able to afford housing in Ann Arbor, but it’s a good step. He planned to bring a resolution to the April 16 meeting in support of raising the minimum wage.

Rabhi also talked about the need to include regional partners, including other county governments in southeast Michigan.

Conan Smith said he didn’t expect the conversation to end when the warming center closes, but he hoped to provide funding to give people the flexibility of addressing short-term needs. He didn’t want to be inactive, when people had asked for a response.

Brabec suggested directing the county administrator to work with regional partners and return to the board with a plan, including both emergency shelter and also a longer-term strategy. Smith cautioned against spending $40,000 so that people earning $70,000 or more could come up with a plan, saying he trusted the county administrator not to do that. He wanted the $40,000 to directly help people who are homeless.

Ping opposed allocating any dollar amount, but noted that county administrator Verna McDaniel already has discretion to allocate funding if she chose to – up to $100,000.

C. Smith then made a formal motion – a resolution directing the county administrator to work with regional partners to address short-term sheltering issues and to bring a plan back to the board for longer-term housing issues by no later than May 21. LaBarre proposed amending the motion to replace “housing” with “shelter.”

Rabhi noted that the board is asking staff to come up with a solution “to a problem that we have not been able to solve in the history of mankind.” He hoped that the goal for the proposed resolution is to tell commissioners what tools are available to move forward, and to put the issue in context. McDaniel replied that it wouldn’t be possible to find a solution, but it would be realistic to propose a strategy.

Noting that the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness was created in 2004, Rabhi recommended that the board dedicate 2014 to updating that blueprint and making it relevant for today. It could be another 10-year plan with a strategy for moving forward. He suggested asking staff to develop that by the fall, while addressing short-term needs in the meantime.

Rabhi then proposed a substitute resolution:

Resolved that the Board of Commissioners directs the Administrator to work with the County’s Community Partners to address the short term needs of the homeless in Washtenaw County;

Be it Further Resolved that the Administrator develop a plan for the Board of Commissioners to engage in a comprehensive update to the Blueprint to End Homelessness;

Be it Further Resolved that this strategic plan be presented no later than May 7, 2014, the strategic plan shall include a context of the last decade’s investments in housing and homelessness in Washtenaw County, a current picture of where the county is at today and a strategy for updating the plan over the course of 2014;

Be it Further Resolved that the Board of Commissioners will conclude this process by October 1, 2014.

Conan Smith withdrew his resolution, and LaBarre withdrew his proposed amendment to Smith’s resolution.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) criticized the approach, calling it “totally inappropriate.” April 6 has been looming for months, and the county has been doing a lot of work on this issue for a long time, he noted. “To make public policy based on the number of people who show up and speak at the podium is entirely inappropriate.” There are other agenda items, and staff and members of the public had been waiting over three hours for the board to conduct its business, he observed. And yet, the board takes something that’s not on the agenda and spends 90 minutes discussing it, then coming up with a proposal “on the fly.”

D. Smith said he had no problem taking up this issue in the future, including updating the Blueprint to End Homelessness. It’s also an appropriate topic for a working session, he said. But Smith said he wouldn’t support this resolution.

Rabhi replied that the board works for the people of Washtenaw County, and when people come forward with a concern, it’s important to address it in a serious manner. “That’s what we owe to the citizens who elected us to serve on this board,” Rabhi said.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Funds for Homeless Shelter: Coda

Later in the week, McDaniel allocated $35,000 to the Delonis Center, which has agreed to keep the warming center open through April 30. The funding will come from the county’s unearmarked reserves.

Road Commission

The April agenda included a resolution regarding the county road commission. The resolution, if passed, would leave the county road commission as an independent entity. The resolution also states that the county board does not support making the road commission’s board an elected body. [.pdf of board resolution]

The resolution is in line with recommendations of a board subcommittee that was appointed in October of 2013 to look at the future of the road commission. At its final meeting on March 1, 2014, the subcommittee voted to recommend that the road commission remain an independent operation, and not be absorbed into the county government.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

That subcommittee vote came over dissent from Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9), who argued that consolidating the road commission into the county would allow for more flexibility and accountability in oversight. Currently, the road commission is overseen by a board with three members appointed by the county board of commissioners to six-year terms. Smith thought that asking voters to approve a countywide road millage – when the revenues aren’t allocated by an elected body – would be a tough sell. It would be especially tough to sell to voters in the city of Ann Arbor, who already pay a millage for street maintenance within the city.

But others on the subcommittee were in line with the strong support from township officials for keeping the road commission independent. Most township boards in the county have passed resolutions supporting the current structure, citing their strong relationships with the road commission staff and board.

The subcommittee did not make any recommendations on whether to expand the road commission from three to five members. The three county commissioners who served on the subcommittee – Conan Smith, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – had agreed that the question of expansion was primarily a political one, and should be taken up by the county board. Subcommittee members indicated that they’d be willing to discuss it further, if directed to do so by the county board.

Regarding the question of whether road commissioners should be elected positions, the subcommittee unanimously passed a resolution recommending not to pursue that option. The sense was that elections would be dominated by urban voters who are heavily Democratic, but who would be electing commissioners to oversee road projects in rural communities.

The three current road commissioners are Doug Fuller, Barbara Fuller, and Bill McFarlane, who was appointed by the county board at its March 19, 2014 meeting. At that time, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) voiced support for expanding the road commission board to five members.

These issues come in the context of a state law that opened the door to possible consolidation of the road commission into the county. In 2012, the Michigan legislature enacted amendments to Section 46.11 of Public Act 156 of 1851, which allows for county boards of commissioners to transfer the powers of the road commission to the county board. There’s a sunset to that section of the law, however. Unless extended by the legislature, it will expire at the end of 2014.

At the April 2 meeting, Conan Smith (D-District 9) moved to postpone the item until the board’s May 7, 2014 meeting. It’s the first board meeting that follows an April 17 working session, when issues related to the road commission will be discussed.

Outcome: On a voice vote, commissioners voted to postpone the road commission item until May 7. Dissenting was Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Thompson Block Brownfield Plan

A brownfield redevelopment plan for the Thompson Block in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town area was on the agenda for an initial vote. [.pdf of Thompson Block brownfield plan]

Fred Beal, president of JC Beal Construction Inc. and co-founder of Beal Properties LLC.

The plan covers 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St., an historic property that has been declared ”functionally obsolete and blighted.” That qualifies the project as a brownfield under the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing act (Public Act 381), which allows the owner to receive reimbursements for eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). Approval also will allow the developer to apply for Michigan Business Tax Credits. The property is currently owned by Thompson Block Partners LLC, led by Stewart Beal of Beal Properties. Beal’s father, Fred Beal, attended the April 2 meeting but did not formally address the board.

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

The resolution on the April 2 agenda also would end a previous brownfield plan for part of the same site, which was approved in 2008. A fire in 2009 delayed the project. The new plan now covers the 107 E. Cross, which was not part of the original plan, and includes public infrastructure improvements, such as streetscape enhancements along North River Street.

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

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

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

A public hearing on this proposal was also held at the April 2 meeting. Only one person – Tyler Weston, a real estate agent representing Thompson Block Partners – spoke briefly, telling the board that the financing would help the project.

Thompson Block Brownfield Plan: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) praised the project, saying it’s an example of Beal’s commitment to the community. It’s in the heart of Depot Town and has had a lot of challenges, he noted. Rabhi serves on the county’s brownfield redevelopment authority board, which had recommended approval of this proposal.

Responding to a query from Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Nathan Voght of the county’s office of community & economic development explained that the brownfield is the only TIF legislation that doesn’t allow for an opt-out – every taxing entity participates equally. But in this case, because of the “Obsolete Properties Rehabilitation” certificate, local millages will be frozen for up to 12 years, so there won’t be any increment available for TIF financing – with the exception of the state’s school taxes.

Brabec also asked about the differences between this proposal and the one approved in 2008. Voght noted that the 2009 fire damaged the entire structure, so the need for demolition changed. The overall eligible costs decreased from about $307,000 to about $271,000.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the brownfield plan. A final vote is expected on April 16.

Police Services Contract

A two-year pricing proposal for contracts to provide police services to local municipalities was on the April 2 agenda for initial authorization from the county board.

From left: Sheriff Jerry Clayton and Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On April 2, sheriff Jerry Clayton described the cost model, explaining that it includes direct costs like salaries and benefits, which are paid by each contracting entity. It also includes indirect costs and overhead, which those entities partially pay. The county covers a portion of the indirect costs and overhead. The county also picks up the difference between the cost estimates and the actual cost, he said. In 2011, for example, the actual cost for delivering services was about $2,000 more than what was estimated per PSU. In 2012, the difference was about $4,500 more per PSU than estimated.

Because the sheriff’s office has about 400 positions – full time, part time and seasonal – there will always be openings, Clayton said. And because of that, his office has been able to offset those higher-than-expected costs by leaving some positions unfilled. But through budget cuts over the last few years, that flexibility becomes more challenging, he said.

Clayton said he supports the 1% increases in 2016 and 2017, but noted that it doesn’t account for possible changes to the POAM and COAM contracts. The result of those contract negotiations could have a big effect on the final price, because of the direct cost, he said.

He urged commissioners to think about how to find a sustainable revenue stream to support public safety countywide. Clayton noted that in the previous budget, the sheriff’s office came under its expenditure targets without compromising service, and also exceeded revenue. So the office has met its obligations as it relates to the overall county budget, he said. “But the ability to do that moving forward becomes a little more challenging.”

Police Services Contract: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) agreed that the county needs a sustainable revenue source for public safety. She asked if it was a trend that the difference between cost estimates and actual costs is increasing. SiRui Huang, finance manager for the sheriff’s office, said she thought 2013 would be close to the estimate, because there was a reduction in the fringe benefit rates.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) described the county as growing, which results in demand for services. He wondered when they would revisit the methodology used for policing the county, and the policy for contractual agreements with local municipalities.

Clayton replied that the financial architecture that’s in place to establish cost and price is sound. But the most recent analysis of recommended staffing levels for public safety in the county was done in 2000, he said. It established ideal staffing levels and minimum staffing levels. One of the recommendations from that report, which hasn’t been implemented, is to mandate the minimum staffing levels in some jurisdictions.

In theory, the county could mandate those minimal levels before it enters into a contract with the jurisdiction, he explained. If the jurisdiction indicates that it can’t afford the minimal level, then the county could decide not to enter into a contract to provide police services. Clayton said he didn’t recommend this approach, but it was an option that had been recommended.

When the study was done 14 years ago, the population of Washtenaw County was about 300,000, Clayton noted. Now, it’s closer to 350,000.

Peterson indicated that as the economy improves, he thought the county’s population would grow even more. The cost to the county’s general fund of providing public safety is increasing, but the county has to pay the price for the economic health of the community, Peterson said. There needs to be more discussion of this issue, he said.

Peterson said he’d like to see the “magic” of the current proposal work, but he didn’t see how it was a sustainable model.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked about the cost difference again, wondering if it would be consistent with the previous difference of about $25,000. Huang noted that the difference is estimated to increase in 2016 and 2017, but she restated that it doesn’t take into account any possible reductions that might occur based on current union negotiations. So the cost might change, she said.

Rabhi told Clayton that he wasn’t going to challenge this proposal strongly, adding that Clayton has been a great sheriff for the whole county. Rabhi noted that the cost difference, paid by the general fund, is borne by all county taxpayers – including those who live in jurisdictions that also have their own police departments, like Ann Arbor. That’s another issue to discuss in the future, Rabhi said, in addition to the funding sustainability. Whether you live in Ann Arbor or Bridgewater Township, public safety is important, he said, “and we need to find a way to fund it in a fair way, countywide.”

As the sheriff’s office is asked to bear more of the financial burden, Rabhi said, that makes it more fragile as a governmental unit. It’s important to look for new potential funding sources for public safety, he concluded.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said the board should be grappling more with the issue of funding for public safety, especially considering that public safety accounts for more than 60% of the general fund budget. [That amount includes funding for courts, the prosecutor's office and other criminal justice units – not just the sheriff's office.]

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) and Stefani Carter, a local attorney who was filling in for corporation counsel Curt Hedger.

Smith noted that the proportion of cost that’s being paid for by the sheriff’s office is increasing faster than the proportion paid for by the contracting entities. He wondered why that’s the case.

Clayton reiterated his point that it’s not a sustainable situation. He pointed out that while it’s not sustainable for the sheriff’s office, it’s also a problem for the contracting jurisdictions, which can’t afford to take on additional expenses. For some jurisdictions, the contract for police services accounts for almost 70% of their general funds. So raising the price for those jurisdictions isn’t really an option.

Public safety is key to other issues in the county, including human services and economic development, Clayton said. The county has reached the point where they need to consider creating other funding sources to sustain police services countywide. He noted that the sheriff’s office also provides services to jurisdictions that already have their own police departments, like Ann Arbor and Pittsfield Township. The sheriff’s office provides a safety net, he said, but there’s a limit to what they’re capable of in terms of resources, “and I think we’re there.”

C. Smith praised Clayton for making giant strides in integrating the sheriff’s office with nearly all aspects of the county, and for framing the issue differently for the board and the public. “I don’t see this as a city versus township fight,” Smith said. “I see this as a common struggle to provide public safety and quality of life for all of us.” The conversation should focus on what outcome the county is trying to achieve, he added, and how they fund that outcome.

Smith said he’d like to consider a countywide police force approach, whether that’s supporting the existing police forces or expanding the services that the sheriff’s office provides.

Clayton stressed that if other jurisdictions want to keep their police departments, that’s what they should do. He joked that it will save a lot of headache if that’s clear – the sheriff’s office isn’t trying to take over anything. C. Smith said he understood that Clayton was sensitive to that, but he thought it was a conversation they needed to have. It doesn’t make sense to “hyperlocalize” services in a lot of cases, Smith said.

There can be a happy medium, Clayton replied, in terms of collaborating. So that’s another option, and one that the sheriff’s office has pursued.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) agreed that public safety is a countywide issue, and praised Clayton and his staff for their work.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval the police services contract proposal. A final vote is expected on April 16.

2013 Audit

Two representatives from the accounting firm Rehmann, which conducts the county’s audit, attended the April 2 meeting: Nate Baldermann and Mark Kettner. They gave part of a presentation on the county’s 2013 audit and comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR). [.pdf of 2013 CAFR] [.pdf of 2013 audit summary]

From left: Mark Kettner and Nate Baldermann of the accounting firm Rehmann.

Baldermann, a principal at Rehmann and former board member of the Michigan Government Finance Officers Association, began by presenting the board with a certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting, for the county’s 2012 CAFR. The award is given by the national Government Finance Officers Association. Baldermann noted that this is the 23rd consecutive year that the county has received this award. Out of about 2,000 local governments in Michigan, only 102 are receiving this award.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, gave an overview of the staff process involved in developing the CAFR, which reflects thousands of individual financial transactions. She gave highlights from a 2013 year-end financial presentation that staff had made at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, showing that the county had ended 2013 with a $3.92 million surplus for its general fund.

The complete audit, which consists of multiple documents, totals over 400 pages, Belknap noted.

Pete Collinson, the county’s accounting manager, gave a summary of the CAFR, which is over 200 pages. Over the years, the requirements have grown in complexity, he noted, and that’s reflected in the amount of information that’s included in the CAFR. At the same time, the finance staff has been reduced, he said, so the auditors have been helping assemble it.

Collinson highlighted some upcoming changes, including GASB 67, which takes effect this year and will be reflected in the next CAFR, and GASB 68, which takes effect in 2015. In 2014, the main change will be more disclosures in notes to the financial statements, he said. But in 2015, the county’s unfunded actuarial accrued pension liability will be booked as a liability in the county’s statement of net position, which will be a significant change, he said. The county’s finance staff have been working closely with their auditors and actuaries to plan for that, Collinson said.

Mark Kettner of the accounting firm Rehmann also gave a few remarks, noting that the auditor’s letter is included in the CAFR. The new term is “unmodified,” he said, which means it’s a clean statement. It’s an opinion just on the financial statements, he said – it’s not an opinion on the county’s financial controls. And it’s not an opinion on the county’s financial position, Kettner said, “although your financial position is pretty good, all things considered – coming off the last five or six years we’ve gone through.”

Kettner referred to a meeting – an “exit conference” – that he held with county administrator Verna McDaniel, board chair Yousef Rabhi and financial staff. There were a few areas for improvement, he said, because it’s a large organization. But there was nothing that he felt he needed to tell the board that night, Kettner added. The county is doing great, he said.

2013 Audit: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked about a section of the auditor’s letter:

We did not audit the financial statements of the Washtenaw County Road Commission, which represents 77.4% of the assets and 90.5% of the revenues of the aggregate discretely presented component units. Those statements were audited by other auditors whose report was furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the Washtenaw County Road Commission, is based solely on the report of the other auditors.

He asked Kettner to explain what that means, and why the audit refers to the road commission at all.

Kettner replied that the county government is considered the primary government for purposes of the audit. But the audit also is required to include all of the “component units” of county government, which are shown on pages 66-67 of the CAFR. In addition to the road commission, those units are: the department of public works, the office of the water resources commissioner, the hazardous materials response authority, and the brownfield redevelopment authority. The financial notes describe these operations in more detail.

Component units are separate legal entities, with a majority of their governing boards appointed by the county board of commissioners, or with the county board taking some level of financial accountability. For example, the county board must authorize any debt that’s issued by these other component units.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) talks with auditors from the accounting firm Rehmann before the start of the April 2 meeting.

Kettner noted that some of these component units conduct separate audits – that’s the case with the road commission. If Rehmann, as the primary unit’s auditor, takes responsibility for these separate audits, then it’s not mentioned in the auditor’s letter, Kettner said. But if the firm is not taking responsibility – “and there’d be no reason that we’d want to,” he said – then it’s mentioned in the letter, along with a perspective in terms of the financial significance of that unit. That’s why the letter includes the percentages reflecting the road commission’s assets.

Smith pointed out that even though the county board is responsible for the road commission’s debt, county commissioners don’t see the road commission’s budget or approve it. The road commission’s funding comes from the state, through Act 51, he noted. He observed that the GASB accounting standards are national, and probably don’t recognize the rather unique place that Michigan’s road commissions hold compared to all other states.

Kettner replied that although Rehmann doesn’t review the road commission’s financial statements annually, there is a periodic evaluation. The CAFR includes a description of the road commission, he said. That description states: “The Road Commission may not issue debt or levy a tax without the approval of the County Board of Commissioners. The Road Commission deposits its receipts with and has investments through the County.”

Noting that it’s outside of Kettner’s purview, Smith pointed out that the road commission has been the topic of discussion by the county board in Washtenaw County as well as across the state, as the result of state legislation passed in 2012 that allows for the possibility of county governments to absorb road commission operations. [For background on that discussion, see Chronicle coverage: "No Major Change Likely for Road Commission."]

Referring to the auditor’s management letter, Smith highlighted a statement that Michigan state statutes require local governments shall not spend in excess of amounts appropriated in a budget. But in many cases, Smith noted, there isn’t much of a penalty for violating those statutes. What’s the mechanism for enforcing that?

Kettner replied that page 81 of the CAFR lists the instances in which county units spent money in excess of appropriations during 2013. For an entity the size of Washtenaw County, he said, it’s unrealistic to expect that there would never be an item that’s over budget. Sometimes these items don’t show up in the CAFR because the county board amended the budget after the fact. In 2013, many of the excess expenditures were relatively minor, Kettner said. The largest one – $1.75 million over a budgeted $3.27 million in the accommodations ordinance tax line item – reflects a decision by the county board to distribute additional funds from the accommodations tax. The board voted to do that, he explained, but they didn’t do the technical step of voting to amend the budget.

From left: Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the ways & means committee, and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

There were about a half dozen items that Kettner said were relatively significant, and “we don’t want to see those again.”

Smith noted that to him, the words “shall not” in the state statute seemed like pretty strong wording, but there’s nothing to enforce it. Kettner replied: “That’s how the state writes those laws, you know.” The auditing firm submits its report to the state, Kettner explained, and that includes an audit procedures report form. The form includes boxes that must be checked if there’s an issue, he said. That will result in a letter from the state, asking how the county plans to address it.

Smith then asked how the audit and CAFR will look when GASB 68 takes effect. Kettner referred to page 119 of the CAFR, which contains a table of the county’s pension system. One column lists the unfunded actuarial accrued liability for the system, which in 2012 was $126.28 million. In 2015, when GASB 68 is implemented, the county will have to add that liability as part of the county’s statement of net position – page 41 of the CAFR. That liability will result in a deficit for the county’s unrestricted net position. For the 2013 CAFR, the unrestricted net position shows a positive $32.826 million.

However, Kettner stressed that this change will not affect the general fund budget. “You’re going to continue making your contributions to fund those pensions as you always have,” he said. But the financial statements will be more meaningful by adding that liability to the statement of net position.

There were no questions from other commissioners.

County Jail Bonds

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to authorize the re-funding of up to $16.5 million in outstanding capital improvement bonds, which were originally issued in 2006 to fund expansion of the county jail.

John Axe, the county’s bond counsel, brought reading material to the April 2 meeting.

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

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) asked the county’s bond counsel, John Axe, about interest rates. Axe told the board that current interest rates on the bonds are between 4% and 4.3%. He estimated that the re-funding interest rates would be between 2.2% and 3.8%. The bonds would be sold in June.

Axe said he hoped the savings would be even higher than the estimated $869,000.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the bond re-funding. A final vote is expected at the board’s April 16 meeting.

Autism Coverage

At the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, commissioners had given initial approval to add an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rider to existing active employee and retiree benefits. It would allow the county to provide health insurance coverage for the treatment of autism, and was on the April 2 agenda for a final vote.

Adding the rider would cost the county an estimated $182,589 this year, according to staff – to be paid to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. To cover that cost, each county department will be charged on a per-employee basis. In addition, the county will pay for claims made by employees for this benefit, with the assumption that most if not all claims would be reimbursed by the state.

Ellen Rabinowitz, Washtenaw County’s interim public health officer. She is also executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan.

At its Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, the board received a staff presentation about the possibility of offering such coverage. Colleen Allen, CEO of the Autism Alliance of Michigan, attended that meeting to answer questions and advocate for coverage. The board created a committee to explore the cost to the county for providing employee health insurance coverage for autism. Committee members were LaBarre, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). The committee’s charge was to: (1) investigate the cost and sustainability of coverage of autism spectrum disorders; and (2) recommend a policy providing and funding coverage if the state reimbursement fund is exhausted.

The federal Mental Health Parity & Addiction Equity Act of 2008 mandates that any group plan with 50 or more members – like Washtenaw County government – must offer both medical and mental health benefits. Under more recent federal health care reform, there’s been an expansion of benefits, and mental health benefits are considered a mandatory part of basic health care, starting this year. However, autism isn’t included as part of that mental health mandate.

On the state level, in October 2012 a state of Michigan mandate took effect stating that all fully insured plans must provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The county is not a fully insured plan, however. Because the county is self-funded, it was exempt from this state mandate.

The costs of treatment are estimated to be about $60,000 a year to cover a child with autism. The state of Michigan has made coverage a priority, and has started setting aside funds to reimburse organizations that provide coverage. In fiscal year 2012-13, $15 million was made available, with an additional $11 million in fiscal 2013-14. Of that, only about $500,000 has been expended on reimbursements. The program is handled by the Michigan Dept. of Insurance and Financial Services.

The state program provides for reimbursement of up to $50,000 per year per child between the ages of 0 to 6, up to $40,000 per year from ages 7-12, and up to $30,000 per year for ages 13-18.

County staff have estimated that offering the coverage would result in up to a 5% increase in medical expenses, or up to $1 million annually. This year, medical expenses are budgeted at about $20 million. The county is expected to be fully reimbursed by the state of Michigan for the amounts that are allowed under the autism program.

Autism Coverage: Public Commentary

Ryan Schuett, a Washtenaw County employee whose daughter has been diagnosed with autism, thanked commissioners for acting quickly. He talked about the effect that the autism spectrum disorder has on employees. “Speaking humbly, I’m tired – very tired,” he said. In 2013, he worked over 1,000 hours of overtime to cover out-of-pocket costs associated with his daughter’s treatment. He averages between 64-72 hour workweeks, while also trying to be a good father and husband.

As an emergency dispatcher, he deals with other people’s problems while putting his own aside, Schuett said. He enjoys his work, and even more so when he knows he works for an institution that stands beside him. The treatments for his daughter are life-changing, he said. But because of the treatment costs, he has sometimes had to make the decision not to provide it. The board’s decision has made it possible for him not to seek employment elsewhere, Schuett said. Autism is affecting more people nationwide, and isn’t going away. He again thanked commissioners for helping the families of employees.

Autism Coverage: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she was pleased to see this move forward. It was very poignant that they’d be voting on it that day, she noted, because April 2 is World Autism Awareness Day. It’s a much-needed benefit, she said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed to numerous county liabilities that are laid out in the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), which the board had been presented earlier in the evening. Those are significant, he noted, and the unfunded liabilities will continue to hamstring the board’s ability to be nimble and responsive.

He said he wasn’t happy to see the autism coverage brought forward for a final vote at this time. He supports adding the coverage, but thought it should be part of the board’s regular budget reaffirmation process later in the year. “However, given that it is World Autism Day, I think it would be a little uncouth to vote against this at this point,” he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to adding autism coverage.

First-Quarter Entitlement Grant Update

A report from the county’s office of community & economic development was included in the April 2 agenda, updating the board on the roughly 30 state and federal formula grants administered by the OCED. The grants are awarded based on state or federal allocation formulas. In 2014, those formula grants total about $9.6 million. [.pdf of entitlement grant update]

There was no presentation or discussion of this item.

Recognitions & Proclamations

Several resolutions honoring local individuals and businesses were on the April 2 agenda. Here are some highlights.

Recognitions & Proclamations: Public Health Week

The agenda included a resolution proclaiming April 7-13 as Public Health Week. Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s interim public health officer, was on hand to present the Washtenaw Healthy Workplace Awards to five local businesses. Each institution has taken great strides to promote healthy behaviors in their work places, she said.

The awardees are:

• National Kidney Foundation of Michigan
• Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority
• Manchester Community Schools
• Manpower Inc. of Southeast Michigan
• City of Ann Arbor

Recognitions & Proclamations: Ann Arbor Community Center

Reverend Yolanda Whiten, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor Community Center, was presented with a resolution honoring the center for 91 years of service. She has served in that position since 2007.

Reverend Yolanda Whiten, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor Community Center.

From the resolution: “Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby honors and expresses its sincere appreciation and deepest respect to The Ann Arbor Community Center for continuing to achieve its mission: ‘Influenced by a rich African American heritage, the Ann Arbor Community Center is a catalyst for transformation within the city and its greater community. With a primary focus on youth, adults and families, the Ann Arbor Community Center provides programs and services that promote self-reliance, social and economic well-being, diversity and community involvement.’”

Several supporters of the community center attended the meeting and gave Whiten a round of applause.

Communications & Commentary

During the April 2 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Same-Sex Marriage

During public commentary, Sandi Smith – president of the Jim Toy Community Center board – thanked the board for its help in opening the county clerk’s office for four hours on Saturday, March 22. “It was an amazing experience,” she said. Over 70 couples got married, including some who’d been waiting 20-30 years, she said. “Trust me – you’ll all be on the right side of history on this,” Smith said.

Federal judge Bernard Friedman had issued a ruling on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision.

Smith noted that county clerk Larry Kestenbaum was obviously very instrumental in allowing same-sex marriages to take place on the morning of March 22. Smith also thanked county administrator Verna McDaniel, sheriff Jerry Clayton, the clerk’s office staff – including Ed Golembiewski – and the facilities staff, who had to clean up afterwards. She hoped that it would never have to be repeated again, because she hoped the right to marry would soon be open to everybody.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Responding to Smith’s commentary – and noting that Smith and her partner, Linda Lombardini, are his friends – Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he was proud of what the county could do in moving this issue forward. It warmed his heart. He noted that during U.S. president Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Michigan earlier that day, Obama had told the audience not to jeer at things they don’t like, but to organize. In that context, Rabhi said Michigan needs a new attorney general – someone who’ll stand up for the people in Michigan and not waste taxpayer dollars in appealing a ruling that provides for marriage equality. Everyone who loves each other should be able to get married, he said. He thanked Smith and Lombardini for their activism.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said Kestenbaum deserves the most credit. Kestenbaum had asked the board “to do something that was real easy,” Smith said. He noted that it was a tough vote that the board had debated, but it was Kestenbaum’s leadership that made it happen, he said.

By way of background, the county board – at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting – had approved what’s essentially a fee waiver for the expedited processing of a marriage license, which ordinarily takes three days. The resolution passed by the board on Feb. 19 allows the county clerk, consulting with the county administrator, to establish a “fee holiday” on the day preceding a period during which the office’s vital records division would be closed for four or more days, or when an unusual number of marriage license applicants are expected to appear. During a “fee holiday,” the charge for immediately processing a marriage license is 1 cent.

Last year, Kestenbaum had publicly indicated that he intended to waive fees for same-sex marriages, in anticipation of a court ruling that would allow such marriages. Subsequently, however, his authority to waive fees was challenged, and he learned that the county board would be required to grant that authority.

On Feb. 19, Kestenbaum had told the board that he expected various legal challenges to same-sex marriage bans to wind their way through the federal court system without a specific ruling affecting Michigan, and that his office would be unlikely to see a sudden influx of requests for same-sex marriage licenses.

Communications & Commentary: Coordinated Funding

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) reported that the process of reviewing applications for coordinated funding is underway.

The county is one of several partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners include the city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, and the RNR Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010, and has been extended twice since then. The most recent extension was approved by the county board at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, and authorized the allocation of children’s well-being and human services funding for 2014 through 2016. That resolution also authorized the continued management of those funds through the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED), using the coordinated funding approach – with some modifications.

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

During the current funding cycle, 105 applications were received, representing $8.7 million in requests. That compares with 76 in the previous funding cycle, Brabec noted, for requests of $6.6 million. The amount of available funding this year from all partners is $4.4 million. “So it’s a difficult, difficult process,” she said. Brabec is one of 18 volunteer reviewers, plus four staff.

The recommendations will be brought to the board in May.

Communications & Commentary: Misc.

During public commentary, Thomas Partridge referred to U.S. president Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Michigan campus earlier in the day, where Obama advocated for raising the federal minimum wage. Partridge called on lawmakers to provide adequate resources for affordable housing and public transportation. He called attention to the May 6 election, when voters in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township will be voting on a new public transit tax for expanded services. He said all public bodies in Washtenaw County should work to weed out corruption. He criticized Gov. Rick Snyder and other Republicans, and urged voters to elect progressive Democrats this year.

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

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The plan covers 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St., an historic property that has been declared ”functionally obsolete and blighted.” That qualifies the project as a brownfield under the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing act (Public Act 381), which allows the owner to receive reimbursements for eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). Approval also will allow the developer to apply for Michigan Business Tax Credits. The property is currently owned by Thompson Block Partners LLC, led by Stewart Beal of Beal Properties. Beal’s father, Fred Beal, attended the April 2 meeting but did not formally address the board.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A public hearing took place at the board’s Oct. 16 meeting. It occurred after midnight and only one person – Lara Treemore Spears of ASTI Environmental, a representative from the project – spoke briefly. She indicated that two company officials had been at the meeting but left around 11:30 p.m.

There was no board discussion on this item before the final vote on Nov. 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand Your Ground

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

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

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

Stand Your Ground: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand Your Ground: Initial Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

Stand Your Ground: Final Board Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand Your Ground: Legal Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veterans Relief, Act 88 Tax Hikes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veterans Relief, Act 88: Public Commentary & Public Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

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

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

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

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

Outcome: The motion died for lack of a second.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act 88: Board Discussion – Partnerships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act 88: Board Discussion – Legal Opinion

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

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act 88: Board Discussion – Policy

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

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

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

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

Veterans Relief, Act 88: Board Votes

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

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

Pittsfield State Street CIA

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

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

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

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

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

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Postponement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Substitute Resolution

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

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Original Resolution

Discussion continued.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pittsfield State Street CIA: TIF Policy

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

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

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

Washtenaw County Court Budget

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

Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw Trial Court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washtenaw County Court Budget: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinated Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

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

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

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

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014-2017 Budget

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apportionment Report

On the Oct. 16 agenda was a resolution to approve the 2013 apportionment report – giving details of the 2013 taxable valuations for property in the county, broken down by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. December tax bills will be mailed out to property owners based on these calculations. [.pdf of 2013 apportionment report]

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

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

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

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

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

Apportionment Report: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the 2013 apportionment report.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield

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

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

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

Chelsea Milling Brownfield: Public Hearing

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

Chelsea Milling Brownfield: Board Discussion

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

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

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

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

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

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

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

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

Road Commission Appointment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dog License Civil Infraction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

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

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

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

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

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

The public hearing took place after midnight and only one person – a representative from the project – spoke briefly. She indicated that two company officials had been at the meeting but left around 11:30 p.m.

A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

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

Three of the hearings that will take place on Oct. 16 relate to:

• An increase to the Act 88 millage from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills. The millage would be levied in December 2013 and would raise an estimated $972,635.
• The proposed 2014-2017 budget, which was presented by county administrator Verna McDaniel on Oct. 2. The board is required to approve the $103 million general fund budget for 2014 by the end of this year. [.pdf of draft 2014-2017 budget]
• A proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog, and to establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions. The public hearing on Oct. 16 would also cover proposed licensing fee changes.

The fourth hearing, set for Nov. 6 also on Oct. 16, is for a proposed brownfield plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix. The plan relates to a renovation of an abandoned warehouse at 140 Buchanan in Chelsea. The company plans to invest more than $4 million in the project. If the project is given brownfield status, it would allow the company to be reimbursed for up to $376,805 in eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). The total amount to be captured through TIF over 16 years is $580,677, which includes fees paid to the county brownfield program administration and the county’s local site revolving remediation fund.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) cast the lone vote against setting the Oct. 16 brownfield public hearing. He said he continues to be concerned about the lack of an overall policy regarding the creation of TIF districts.

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

Doug Smith, standing, talks with other members of the Washtenaw Watchdogs before the start of the July 10, 2013 county board meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Several of those who spoke are affiliated with the Washtenaw Watchdogs. The group has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve.

The bond initiative, publicly proposed in May, was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The original maximum amount for the bonds had been estimated at up to $345 million. But updated actuarial data resulted in a lower estimate of about $295 million.

However, on July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put bond-related action items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address unanswered questions, including uncertainty about the state approval process. No date has been set to reschedule action, if any, on the proposal.

In addition to the bond proposal hearing, the board held three other public hearings during its July 10 meeting: on two brownfield plans in Ann Arbor – for 544 Detroit St. and Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall) – and for annexing land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter to accommodate the expansion of Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. All items were subsequently approved by commissioners.

The board also gave final approval to a range of infrastructure projects totaling about $5 million for county government facilities – including redeveloping the Platt Road site in Ann Arbor where the old juvenile center was located. An amendment brought forward by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) called for creating a 9-member advisory committee to guide the dispensation of the Platt Road site, which is located in his district. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the authority of such a committee. He was assured that the board retains control over whether to act on the committee’s recommendations. Details of how the advisory committee will be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, will require approval from the board at a later date.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to a modest increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office – bumping up a staff position from part-time to full-time – primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications. Commissioners also made several appointments to various boards and commissions, nominated by Rabhi as board chair. He announced he wasn’t yet ready to make nominations to the county’s historic district commission.

Also pushed back was a final vote on a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. Initial approval for this action came on a 5-4 vote at the board’s June 5, 2013 meeting. But on July 10, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – who had originally brought forward the proposal – asked for postponement until the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, citing communications she’d had with trial court chief judge Donald Shelton. The vote to postpone was 6-2, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

In addition to feedback about the bonding proposal, commissioners heard from leaders of two nonprofits – Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative and Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House – about the need to support human services funding. Uncertainty about the upcoming budget has caused concern among nonprofits that have been historically funded by the county.

Also during public commentary, two members of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Ann Arbor thanked commissioners and staff for quickly restoring domestic partner benefits to nine county employees, following recent court rulings that enabled the county to reinstate such benefits.

Facial hair got a minor mention at the July 10 meeting, when Rabhi told Dan Smith: “Your beard is epic – congratulations on it.” Smith used the opening to mention that he’s growing the beard for his role as Lazar Wolf in the upcoming production of “Fiddler on the Roof.” The show runs from July 19-21 at the Whitmore Lake High School Theater. He received a round of applause from the board. Peterson joked that he was glad for the explanation – Peterson had been prepared to reach out to Smith with the name of his barber.

Bond Proposal & Budget

Though a controversial bond proposal had been pulled from the agenda the previous week, on July 10 commissioners held the scheduled public hearing for that proposal . The original bonding proposal of potentially up to $345 million was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The board had set the public hearing at its meeting on June 5, 2013, and had also intended to take initial votes on July 10 on several items related to the bonding.

However, on Wednesday, July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put the bond-related items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address questions and concerns that had been raised by commissioners and the public, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that’s required for this type of bonding. [See Chronicle coverage: "County to Push Back Vote on Bond Proposal."]

Some commissioners have also asked whether alternatives to a bonding approach might also be viable, but the administration has not provided other options, other than a list of major cuts to programs and services. The original plan put forward by the administration was to bond for up to $345 million, although officials believed the amount would be lower than that, pending an updated actuarial report.

The printed agenda for the July 10 meeting still included the bond-related items, though the items had been removed from the agenda before the meeting. The printed agenda listed the proposed bonding amount at $295.115 million. That’s the figure that Rabhi reported in a phone interview with The Chronicle on July 3.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle on July 16, McDaniel said the $295 million figure was based on updated preliminary estimates for unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL) totaling $272.999 million for both WCERS and VEBA. Interest and fees on that amount for bonding is being recalculated, she reported, but it will likely be a week or two before the new calculations are completed.

After the July 10 board meeting, the county administration released an updated “experience study” from Buck Consultants, the actuarial firm used by the county. An experience study is the basis for the final actuarial report, which has not yet been completed. [.pdf of 2013 experience study report] A preliminary report on this study was presented at a special joint session of the WCERS and VEBA boards on June 25. The 7-member WCERS board includes county commissioners Dan Smith and Conan Smith, county administrator Verna McDaniel and county finance director Kelly Belknap. Conan Smith also sits on the 5-member VEBA board, which is chaired by county accounting manager Pete Collinson.

Buck Consultants had recommended adopting a 10-year amortization schedule for the county’s unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL), in order to cover those liabilities as quickly as possible. The county administration had originally expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward the WCERS and VEBA obligations in 2014, if bonding did not occur. That amount was based on the 10-year amortization schedule.

At the June 25 special meeting, however, the WCERS and VEBA boards voted to adopt a longer, graduated amortization schedule for the UAAL of 27 years (WCERS) and 26 years (VEBA), with the amortization schedule decreasing annually by a two-year period. This change will lower the UAAL contributions county will need to make to cover its obligations each year.

In an email to The Chronicle on July 16, McDaniel indicated that revised estimates for the 2014-17 budget will be reported at the county board’s July 24 ways & means committee meeting. She estimated the amount for 2014 is now expected to be about $26 million, instead of $30 million.

The final actuarial report by Buck Consultants is expected to be delivered to the WCERS and VEBA boards later this week. Those boards have set a joint meeting for Tuesday, July 30 to review the material. The meeting starts at 10:30 a.m. in the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

Bond Proposal & Budget: Public Commentary & Public Hearing

The first public hearing on the bond proposal had been held on June 5. That public hearing drew four people who all expressed caution about the possible action, as some attendees suggested a millage or additional budget cuts to cover the retiree obligations – instead of bonding.

On July 10, more than a half dozen people spoke at the public hearing as well as during two opportunities for public commentary. Many of the speakers were affiliated with a group called the Washtenaw Watchdogs, which has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve. In addition to the speakers, several other members of the Washtenaw Watchdogs – many of them wearing the group’s T-shirt – attended the meeting.

The back of a T-shirt for the Washtenaw Watchdogs.

Doug Smith, one of the group’s organizers, spoke at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as at the bond proposal’s public hearing. He told commissioners that he’d watched presentations at the board’s last working session on June 6, and noted that the projections all assume that the bonds could be sold at a 4% interest rate, while the market returns would be about 6 or 6.5%. The proposal ignores the millions of dollars it would cost to initiate an intermediate trust and to sell the bonds, he said, as well as the cost of managing the trust. The bonds would be taxable, and could be recalled early, Smith said – which is good for the county, but makes the bonds less attractive to investors. Current rates for taxable municipal bonds are rising, and will likely to continue to increase, he noted.

Smith suggested looking at the county’s current pension trusts to gauge possible investment returns, and the cost of managing those investments. The WCERS trust has earned an average 8.2% since it was formed in 1981, he noted, but most of the higher returns were in the 1980s and 1990s, when inflation and interest rates were much higher than now. The country was also going through a tech revolution at the time, he said, and it’s unlikely the markets will see another period like that. Since 2000, the net gains for the WCERS trust have been 2%. The VEBA trust has an average 3.5% net gain since it was formed in 1997, and since 2000 the net gain is 2.4%. The trusts are paying more than $1 million in expenses to financial managers that are underperforming, he said.

Smith also pointed to the actuarial risk – what if retirees live longer than expected? If the county ends up needing to pay more to retirees while it also repays the bonds, that’s a money crunch. “But all of you will be long-gone from the board by then,” he said. It’s also possible that the bonds will be sold at up to 5.5% interest, and that the return on investments from those funds will be lower, he noted – that’s not an unrealistic scenario.

He then described two scenarios for possible outcomes of the bond’s investment trust. If the county borrows $300 million and invests it in the stock market, in one scenario the investment return might be 10% ($30 million) in the first year. But if the required contribution that year to the retirement trust is $29 million, and the investment expenses are $1 million, you end the year with the same $300 million. Smith described a second scenario in which the county loses 10% ($30 million) in the first year, but still has to make the $29 million contribution to the retirement trust and the $1 million in expenses. So the county ends the year with only $240 million. All future years would reflect that initial loss, he said.

In 2008, the WCERS fund lost 33% on its equity investments, Smith noted. Though there might not be a worse year in the future, he said, it’s likely there will be another financial meltdown of some sort in the next 25 years. Bond counsel John Axe and the Eastern Michigan University professor who made a presentation at a board working session earlier this year made rosy projections, he said. But those projections don’t consider that funds must be paid out every year to the WCERS and VEBA trusts, Smith said. The payouts make the timing of losses important, and the county might never recover from early losses.

Smith also pointed out that most experts feel the market is currently overvalued. And because there’s an inverse relationship between the bond market and stock market, the county might be putting taxpayer money into the stock market at just the wrong time, he said. What will happen if the intermediate trust runs out of money before the bonds are paid off? The county would have to pay off the bonds as well as contribute to the retirement trusts. “That’s going to be a much worse cash flow problem than you’re now facing.” He asked commissioners not to approve the bonding proposal, or at the very least to let the voters decide.

If the board votes to move ahead with the bonding, Smith said, he and others are prepared to gather the required signatures to put the proposal on the ballot as a voter referendum. They need only 15,000 signatures, he noted, and they already have about 25 volunteers to circulate petitions. The Washtenaw Watchdogs will have a booth at the Ann Arbor art fairs on Liberty Street near Division, and they’ll be going to other events and canvassing neighborhoods as well. He also encouraged potential volunteers to visit the group’s website.

Ray Williams asked how many commissioners would mortgage their house to play the stock market. That’s what the county is planning with this bond proposal, he said. “If you are not prepared to do the same with your own money, why is it a good idea for the taxpayers of Washtenaw County to do the same thing?” He didn’t want Washtenaw County to be like other counties that had made risky investments and that were now bankrupt. It’s hard to believe the county can’t find ways to eliminate its deficit without bonding, he said. The decision will affect citizens for the next 25 years, Williams said, and it should be put on the ballot so that taxpayers can decide. If the board votes to bond, Williams said he’d do everything he could to help collect the 15,000 signatures needed to force a ballot referendum.

Thomas Partridge also spoke at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as during the public hearing. He expressed concern over the proposed bonding, and urged the board not to do it. The county’s ability to bond should instead be used to build affordable housing and to provide other services for this area’s most vulnerable residents. He criticized the fact that most of the county’s revenues come from property taxes, which he characterized as a 19th century concept that gives property owners more influence in the political process. He accused Democratic commissioners of supporting a totalitarian state administration that aims to limit the role of government, even though there are homeless people outside the door of the county administration building, he said.

Judy Bloss began by saying she didn’t pretend to understand the complexities for the bonding proposal. She could understand the desire to have her children take care of her, but she had questions about the county’s bond counsel, John Axe, having his daughter profiting from that deal. [Axe & Ecklund provides a 15% discount on its fees if the county also hires Municipal Financial Consultants Inc. (MFCI) as the financial consultant on the bonding deal. Although it wasn't disclosed at public meetings about the proposal, MFCI president Meredith Shanle is Axe’s daughter.]

During her second turn at public commentary, Bloss told commissioners that she’s experiencing some unfunded liabilities in her own life, related to medical expenses. However, she’s not planning to borrow money from her home equity line of credit to pay those bills and to invest in the stock market, hoping to realize a profit. It’s not the job of county government to borrow money and invest it to make a profit, she said. Bloss noted that about 70% of the county budget funds mandated expenses, but the rest is discretionary. She suggested as a starting point to cut taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, which she accused of killing babies. She didn’t want blood on her hands.

A man from Webster Township told commissioners that they were elected to spend the money that the county collects from him and other taxpayers. But now, the board is looking to borrow money on behalf of the taxpayers. In the past, the county has borrowed for things like the jail and civic improvements, he said. It’s a noble reason to pay for retiree pension and health care, but the county would be borrowing against the fiscal well-being of its residents. It’s disrespectful if commissioners don’t put it on the ballot for voters to decide, he said. The July 4th celebration was initially based on the issue of rebelling against taxation without representation, he noted. And even though the bond proposal isn’t direct taxation, he concluded, it’s still a burden on the community.

Les Heddle referred to the information about the bonding proposal that’s posted on the county’s website. Many pertinent questions are still unanswered, he said, including the fact that the county is using data that’s 18 months old. It’s hard to believe that there isn’t a way to get more current data, he said. He believed current data would show a much lower level of unfunded liabilities. He also didn’t understand how the board had been ready to vote on this proposal when the staff hadn’t provided all of the necessary information regarding the state requirements. Who’s doing the due diligence? he wondered. It’s an egregious error and lack of judgment by the staff. He said he was trying not to get angry, because he had a lot of friends on the board. He indicated that if this had happened in the private sector, it would not be acceptable. “There should be some accounting for that, all the way up and down the line,” he said.

Heddle said that in his business, if he doesn’t live up to his clients’ expectations, they can take their money elsewhere. [Heddle is a financial advisor with Edward Jones in Ypsilanti.] He again questioned why the county administration wasn’t able to provide a proposal based on more up-to-date information. The board needs to get an answer from the administration about why they’re using data that’s so old. It might give some insight into why the county is in its current situation, Heddle said. He also criticized the county’s bond proposal website for not being updated regularly.

From left: County financial analyst Tina Gavalier and finance director Kelly Belknap.

During the public hearing, Heddle addressed several issues related to the list of answers to Frequently Asked Questions on the county’s bonding website. For example, one of the FAQs asked what will happen to the proceeds if the intermediate trust outperforms the bond payments, he noted, but it doesn’t ask what happens if the trust underperforms. Heddle said it’s difficult to find useful, up-to-date information, or anything that indicates what will happen if the bonding doesn’t work as planned.

Stephen Ranzini suggested an alternative to the current bonding proposal, which he called misguided. He indicated that although interest rates are low, the stock market is overvalued and that will result in future substandard performance. The short-term benefit from the “financial engineering” that the bond deal promises will turn into future losses. He told commissioners that in 1988 when he was 23 years old, Bank One lent him $3.2 million to buy a tiny bank that’s today is known as University Bank. The loan for this leveraged buyout was made because “I’d figured out something the sellers didn’t know – that the bank’s pension fund was overfunded.” After buying the bank, he terminated and defeased the bank’s pension plan by buying an annuity from a triple-A-rated life insurance firm. The extra funds from that deal – about $800,000 – were used to fund an employee stock ownership plan, he said, which purchased common stock in the bank holding company and paid down the loan to Bank One.

In a similar way, Ranzini said, the county could defease its retirement plan by buying an annuity from a top-rated insurance firm. It would require taking on debt, he noted, but this approach would lock in today’s low interest rates and eliminate future investment risk. Because insurance companies are “hungry” for these types of long-term annuities, he added, it would likely cost less than the bond proposal. The downside is that the county would lose control over its pension fund dollars, but it’s no great loss if the county doesn’t intend to use those funds for local economic development, Ranzini argued: “In fact, it prevents possible future mischief.” He recommended this same approach to all local units of government.

Wes Prater, a former county commissioner from York Township, noted that the county’s No. 1 guiding principle – as posted on the county administrator’s website – is to ensure long-term fiscal stability. He believes in that principle, and there’s a lot of work to be done. Since 2007, the county’s long-term liabilities have increased over $15 million each year, he said. Some of those liabilities don’t show up on the balance sheet, he noted. At the end of 2012, the county had net assets of $230 million, Prater said, compared to $446 million in long-term liabilities, including between $250 million to $300 million for pension and retiree health care. The board needs to look at what has happened in the past, Prater said, and at how the county has arrived at its current situation. He said he was willing to step forward and work on a committee to research how to address these issues.

Prater also wondered when the updated actuarial report and the independent financial analysis of the bond proposal would be completed. How do citizens get the information they need to make informed decisions? he asked. Prater also wanted to know how the intermediate trust fund would work. There are several issues that need to be cleared up, he concluded.

Bond Proposal & Budget: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson said he appreciated the delay in voting on the bond proposal. He noted that advocates for human services programs are interested in the impact on their funding if the county doesn’t bond. [Two leaders of nonprofits that the county funds – Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative and Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House – spoke during public commentary, urging continued support of human services.] He assured these groups that he will advocate for them. Peterson asked for the board chair or administrator to explain what will happen next regarding the bond proposal. He vowed that the county would honor its obligations to retirees, regardless of whether the board decides to bond.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi responded, first by describing the public outreach that had been done related to the bond proposal, including public hearings, coffee hours, a press conference and public forum. None of that had been required, he said, but the board believes in engaging citizens in these decisions. The delay is due in part because of a recognition that more questions need to be answered, he said. Several commissioners had raised concerns that need to be addressed, he added, and the state still is figuring out the process for this kind of bonding.

Two months ago, Rabhi said, when the bonding proposal was first publicly floated, it wasn’t known how long the state approval process would take. So it’s not necessarily the case that the staff was remiss in getting information, he said, it’s just a new process. “I don’t want anybody to blame anybody.”

The fact that residents showed up that night to address the board is a testament to the fact that this has been an open process, Rabhi said. The public has been engaged and has asked questions.

Moving forward, he said, the county must have a balanced budget for 2014 by the end of this year, independent of any decision to bond. The board has held discussions at its meetings and retreats about the budget, he noted, but now it’s time to really focus on priorities and engage the community on that. The board will be moving into an intensive process now, delving into the budget and providing guidance to the administration, he said. Rabhi said he feels optimistic about the process, and that the county is emerging from the recession and looking at better times ahead.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith asked for clarification about the process by which the board will explore other alternatives to the bonding proposal. He said he wasn’t asking about specific alternatives at this point, but wanted to know how various alternatives would be discussed and vetted by the board.

From left: County commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Andy Brush, the county’s IT manager.

Rabhi replied that any alternatives would be brought forward as part of the budgeting process. Felicia Brabec will be leading the budget process for the board, he said, including a discussion at the board’s July 11 working session. Dan Smith noted that until now, the board has generally discussed the budget and the bonding proposal separately, although he observed that obviously the topics are intertwined. Now, he said, it seems those discussions will be brought more closely together than previously.

Peterson asked whether the discussion would revolve around a four-year budget. When Brabec noted that the board had authorized the administration to move forward in developing a four-year budget plan, Peterson pointed out that he had voted against that action. [The board had taken that vote at its May 1, 2013 meeting, over dissent from Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr.] Peterson said he would vote against a four-year budget if it’s presented. Multi-year budgets sometimes result in problems getting pushed back, he said, or in borrowing a lot of money to deal with the county’s obligations.

Andy LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, noted that the following night there would be a discussion of budget priorities, and he implored everyone to attend. Peterson reported that he had a previous commitment and would not be present.

LaBarre also responded to a remark made by Doug Smith during public commentary. LaBarre noted that the EMU economics professor mentioned by Smith was Jens Stephan, who LaBarre said gave up about 4.5 hours of time to talk with commissioners at the June 6 working session. Stephan wasn’t advocating for any particular approach, LaBarre stressed, and was simply showing commissioners a tool they could use in making their decisions. “I want to make sure that’s on record, that he did us a public service,” LaBarre said.

Rabhi also provided a phone number that residents can call to give input on the bonding proposal via voicemail: (734) 222-6666. He also requested that the staff update the website with answers to the questions that had been raised during public commentary and the public hearing.

Peterson wanted to know that if the county changes its plan for the bonding proposal, would the board hold another public hearing? Rabhi replied that none of the public hearings were required by law. But if commissioners feel the need for more public participation, they can certainly schedule more public hearings, he said. Peterson felt it would be respectful to citizens to hold another public hearing, if the proposal changes in any way.

It’s unclear what actions might be taken next regarding the bonding proposal. The administration has previously stated that the bonding proposal was crucial to developing a four-year budget from 2014-2017. The administration has set a goal of identifying $6.99 million in structural reductions for the overall 2014 general fund budget, based on the assumption that the bonding would take place. Without the bonding, the county had expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward these obligations in 2014, with additional amounts varying in subsequent years. That amount will likely be lower – estimated by McDaniel at around $26 million – based on updated actuarial information and recent decisions by the WCERS and VEBA boards.

Commissioners had previously voted to hold an extra meeting this month, on July 24. That meeting will be held as planned, but instead of bonding, the main topic will be a discussion of budget priorities.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Brownfield Plans

Two brownfield plans – for projects located in Ann Arbor – were on the agenda for both initial and final votes of approval, following public hearings on each plan. The projects are at Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall) and 544 Detroit St. The Ann Arbor city council had signed off on the plans at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

Both plans had been recommended for approval by the county’s brownfield development authority at its June 6, 2013 meeting.

Brownfield Plans: 544 Detroit St.

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors.

According to a staff memo, up to $698,773 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund over an estimated 25-year period. The county’s annual millage revenues on that site are estimated to increase from about $277 now to $6,150 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of 544 Detroit St. brownfield plan]

At a July 9 working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission, city planning manager Wendy Rampson had reported that the site was more contaminated than the developers originally thought. Although it was clear that the site was contaminated, she said, “I don’t know that they knew how much it would cost to remediate it.”

At the county board’s July 10 public hearing on this project, two people spoke. Thomas Partridge criticized the board for not providing sufficient information about items on the agenda. He called on the owners of these sites to explain how the sites became contaminated, and asked that the current developers explain why the site can’t be developed without governmental assistance. That assistance could better be spent on other programs for the public benefit, like Head Start and affordable housing, he said.

Bret Stuntz spoke briefly on behalf of the developer – 544 Detroit Street LLC – saying he was there to answer any questions. Stuntz is a project manager at AKT Peerless Environmental & Energy Services.

Brownfield Plans: Packard Square

For Packard Square – the former Georgetown Mall site at 2502-2568 Packard St. – approval related to an amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board also approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development. That grant was later awarded to the project. The project entails building more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

Equipment at the Packard Square site. Buildings at the former Georgetown Mall have been demolished.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add two eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing: underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012. According to a staff memo, TIF-eligible activities total $3,582,222. Over the 14-year period of the plan, up to $5,840,557 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund. This amount is unchanged from when the plan was initially adopted.

County millage revenues from the property are estimated to increase from about $8,701 annually to $64,138 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of Packard Square brownfield plan amendment]

The developer of this project is The Harbor Companies of Bloomfield Hills, via Harbor Georgetown LLC.

Ann Arbor city planning manager Wendy Rampson had updated planning commissioners about the status of Packard Square at the commission’s July 9 working session. The good news was that the buildings have been demolished and the contaminated soil has been removed, she reported. But heavy rains had compromised a retaining wall on the northwest side of the site, adjacent to the neighboring property, and the wall had to be shored up. Rampson also reported that EQ – the company that was doing the remediation work under contract with the developer – had “demobilized” from the site because they hadn’t been paid. She indicated that the financing situation was tenuous. “We’ll see – it’s still early,” she told planning commissioners. “But it’s possible that this may be where the project ends.” [Representatives of the development told The Chronicle at the county board's July 10 meeting that the project was moving ahead.]

Two people spoke at the county board’s July 10 public hearing for Packard Square. Thomas Partridge said he was concerned about the practice of local governments applying for federal or state funds simply because those funds are available. In this case, public funds are being used to remove toxic substances and contaminated soil from these sites, so the need for those funds should be substantiated at a public meeting, he said. Partridge was concerned about the possibility of contaminated soil being spread around the neighborhood. Developers should be able to finance these projects without public assistance, he concluded.

John Byl introduced himself – he works for the law firm Warner Norcross & Judd, which is working on the Packard Square project. He thanked Nathan Voght and other county staff for their work, and thanked the board for considering the brownfield plan amendment. The maximum amount is unchanged, he noted, but a couple of categories are being added to the list of things that can qualify for TIF. Byl thanked the Ann Arbor city council and county brownfield authority board for approving the plan. He noted that Bruce Measom, representing the developer, was on hand to also answer any questions that commissioners might have.

During a break at the July 10 meeting, Byl and Measom told The Chronicle that the project was moving ahead.

Brownfield Plans: Board Discussion

The public hearings reported above were held at the board meeting, which takes place after the meeting of the ways & means committee, on which all board members serve. But the brownfield items were first considered at the ways & means committee for an initial vote, prior to the public hearings.

As the board reached the brownfield agenda items at its ways & means committee meeting, Thomas Partridge spoke up from the audience, saying he wanted to comment. Felicia Brabec, who chairs the ways & means meetings, told him that it wasn’t an appropriate time to address the board, but that there would be a public hearing on these items at the regular board meeting that night.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Their exchange prompted commissioner Ronnie Peterson to raise some procedural concerns about the approval process. He felt the public hearing should be held prior to the initial vote at the board’s ways & means committee meeting. So he thought that Partridge’s interruption had been appropriate.

When Brabec told Peterson that the public hearing would happen at the board meeting, he protested, saying “I’ve been around this track a few years” and he found it out of the norm. “This is backwards,” he said, and disrespectful to the public. He apologized to Partridge. The board was being asked to take action without knowing how the public feels, he said. [For agenda items that require public hearings, those hearings are generally held at the regular board meeting, just prior to a final vote on the item. There is typically not a public hearing before the board takes its initial vote at the ways & means meeting.]

Peterson objected to taking the final vote on the same night as the initial vote, even though it was the summer schedule. [Typically, an initial vote is taken at the ways & means committee, followed by a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. For most of the year, the ways & means committee and regular board meetings are held every two weeks, in back-to-back sessions on the same night. During the summer, those meetings are usually held only once a month.]

Andy LaBarre clarified with the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, that there would be an additional public commentary time at the start of the board meeting, as well as the public hearing – two additional opportunities for input. Hedger said that under law, since the public hearing comes before the final vote, there is adequate opportunity for public input. In a perfect world, he added, it would be better to hold the public hearing on a different day, and then take an initial vote at ways & means on one date, and a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. But an accelerated approach has been taken in the past, he noted, especially during the summer months when agenda items often receive an initial and final vote on the same night.

Peterson responded, saying “Expediency sometimes gets you in a lot of trouble.” He wanted to take the time to be cautious. He said he’d be voting no on this item because he didn’t feel there had been adequate public input, adding that it’s no reflection on the projects. He called his record “99 and a half percent voting pro-business.”

Conan Smith said he wanted to clarify the history of this process. A brownfield plan goes through the county’s brownfield authority, and any plan for property in Ann Arbor also goes to the city of Ann Arbor. There are public commentary opportunities at both the county brownfield authority board and at the city council. Then there’s public commentary at the county board’s ways &  means committee meeting before the initial vote, followed by another general public commentary time at the start of the board meeting, and a public hearing on the brownfield plan itself. [Partridge had spoken at the ways & means general public commentary prior to this discussion, but did not talk about the brownfield plan at that point.]

Smith argued that the public hearing can’t be scheduled before the regular board meeting, because the item hasn’t been properly brought before the board until then. [After consulting with Hedger later in the meeting, Smith retracted this statement. When an item is on the ways & means committee agenda, it is considered to be before the board. The ways & means committee is a "committee of the whole," meaning that all board members serve on it.]

There’s been abundant opportunity for public participation, Smith said. He also pointed out that action on the Packard Square plan is an amendment to change the scope of the project, but it doesn’t change the brownfield investment. He characterized it as a “ministerial” change. There has already been a robust public process for that Packard Square plan, Smith said.

Yousef Rabhi noted that he serves on the county’s brownfield development authority board. He praised the 544 Detroit St. project, saying it would be a great addition to the neighborhood and will clean up a contaminated site.

The Packard Square project is in his district, Rabhi said, and he asked Nathan Voght – an economic development specialist with the county – to give an update. Voght described how the board had authorized applying for a $1 million state grant two years ago, which had been received last year. The part of the project covered by the grant started in late May of 2013, and included demolishing the buildings and cleaning up contaminated soil. That’s been done, he said, and there will be a slight period of “demobilization” as the developer puts in place all of the financing and development plans.

Peterson clarified that he had no problems with the plans or the staff, calling the projects “outstanding.” He felt the board needed to follow proper procedures, and suggested that the summer schedule should be reconsidered.

Regarding 544 Detroit St., Dan Smith said he has nothing against the project. But he noted that the board continues to approve various TIF programs – for brownfields, downtown development authorities (DDAs) or local development finance authorities (LDFAs) – without a plan for the outcomes of those investments. “We pretty much rubber stamp these programs. We don’t really have any criteria to evaluate them against,” Dan Smith said, adding that anyone who votes against any particular project would be perceived as being against that specific project or community. He said he wanted to raise that concern again.

Outcome: To protest the process, Ronnie Peterson cast the sole vote against both brownfield plans on the initial vote at the ways & means committee meeting, but joined all other commissioners in supporting the plans in the final vote at the board meeting.

Strategic Plan for County Facilities

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a range of infrastructure projects totaling about $5 million for county government facilities – including redeveloping the Platt Road site where the old juvenile center was located. Commissioners had given initial approval to the overall proposal – called the “strategic space plan” – at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

In addition to the Platt Road site, other projects in the plan include:

• At 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor, consolidate the land records from the building’s lower level to the 1st floor, and remodel the lower level to accommodate administrative offices.
• At 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor, repurpose space in the garden level, including redesigning conference room space.
• At 110 N. Fourth in Ann Arbor (known as the Annex), relocate the Office of Community and Economic Development, Office of Infrastructure Management, and the Public Defender’s office to other leased and county-owned space.
• At the county’s service center near Washtenaw and Hogback, redesign the Learning Resource Center (LRC) as a full conference center, providing county-owned space for large and small meetings. Also, make parking improvements, including adding 110 new spaces, rebuilding the lot between the LRC and the courthouse, and resurfacing the entry drive off of Hogback.
• At a location to be determined, develop a specialty vehicle storage facility for the sheriff’s office and other departments.

According to Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, no general fund dollars will be used for the projects, which are estimated to cost about $5 million. Funding will come from several sources: (1) $1 million from the 1/8th mill fund balance; (2) $650,000 from the facilities operations & maintenance fund balance; (3) $650,000 from the Office of Community & Economic Development reserves; (4) $500,000 from the tech plan fund balance; and (5) $2.2 million from the county’s capital reserves. Dill had briefed commissioners on the plan at a March 20, 2013 working session.

In addition to the projects listed above, other changes will be made to accommodate the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) unit, which provides contract services to the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). The WCHO will pay for that facilities work, including moving the entire Adult MI program staff to the Annex at 110 N. Fourth; repurposing vacated space at 2140 Ellsworth for Youth and Family Services; and relocating all “service delivery” units to the 1st floor of the Towner II building at 555 Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Strategic Plan for County Facilities: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre proposed a two-part amendment. One part directed staff to use the county’s existing vendor pool for work on these projects, whenever feasible.

The amendment also called for the creation of a 9-member community advisory committee to guide the dispensation of the Platt Road site, which is located in LaBarre’s district. The space plan proposes demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee will be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, will need to be worked out and will require approval from the board at a later date.

LaBarre said that his amendment was intended to address some of the issues that had been raised when commissioners discussed this item on June 5.

Regarding the advisory committee, Ronnie Peterson said the proposal was a “total surprise” to him, and it seemed to be giving control over a $1 million property to an entity other than the county board. There are procedures for dealing with the dispensation of county property, he said, and he wondered what authority the committee would have.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger clarified that the committee is advisory only. It has to report back to the board, he added, and the board can either accept the committee’s recommendations or not. “Ultimately, it’s still up to the board as to what they want to do, collectively, with the Platt Road site,” Hedger said. The intent of the committee is to have citizen input.

Peterson indicated that the board has dealt with other controversial proposals, like the jail expansion, without this kind of committee. He said he wasn’t against the advisory committee or citizen input, but he was concerned about setting a precedent. Peterson wondered if they could postpone action until there were more details about how the process would work. Hedger replied that a more detailed resolution would be required at a future meeting to appoint the members and approve the committee’s charge.

At the request of LaBarre, Hedger drafted a revised version of that portion of the amendment to address Peterson’s concerns:

Be it further resolved that the board of commissioners create a nine-member Platt Road community advisory committee to review and develop a recommendation for the disposition of the county’s Platt Road site. The composition and charge of the advisory committee will be determined by the board of commissioners at a later date, provided however that the board of commissioners shall have the authority to ultimately determine the disposition of the Platt Road site.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi clarified that he would be nominating people to the committee, who would then be confirmed by the full board. Alicia Ping felt the process should follow the board’s normal process for other boards and commissions, with people submitting applications for the positions. Rabhi indicated that as an ad hoc committee – not a standing committee – the process would be different, but that applications can be solicited if commissioners wanted to handle it that way. Ping encouraged that approach.

Regarding the vendor pool portion of the amendment, Ping asked for more background about why this direction was necessary. Dill replied that any of the county’s capital projects use the vendor pool to help augment outside professional services that are hired. The pool allows the county to be more efficient and cost effective, he said, in terms of keeping up with a project’s timeline. Every company that’s part of the vendor pool has already gone through the county’s procurement process, he noted, and has been vetted by the purchasing department.

Ping wondered if the county had a sufficient number of companies in the vendor pool to match all of the needs for upcoming capital projects. No, Dill replied. But using the vendor pool would allow projects to use some companies that have already gone through the RFP (request for proposals) process, rather than issuing RFPs for every aspect of a project.

Ping clarified that for larger projects, the work goes out for a competitive bid. Dill said that when a project goes over a certain dollar amount, the county moves away from using the vendor pool and uses a competitive bidding process. The strategic space plan encompasses several smaller projects, he added.

Conan Smith noted that the amendment is worded in such a way that could lead to a very large piece of work being handled by a firm in the vendor pool, rather than going out for a competitive bid. He proposed amending LaBarre’s amendment to designate using the vendor pool for projects under $100,000. His suggestion was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the strategic space plan, as amended.

County Courts Budget

A proposal to postpone the final vote on a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system was on the July 10 agenda.

The board had voted last month 5-4 to give initial approval to the notice – at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The proposal had been brought forward by commissioner Alicia Ping. The move caught some commissioners by surprise, though for several weeks during budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

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

No court officials had attended the June 5 meeting, because the proposal had not been on the published agenda. However, Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, subsequently spoke with several commissioners, including Ping, about their intent. The courts have historically been in favor of a lump-sum approach – rather than the line-item budget provided by most other units of county government.

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

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

County Courts Budget: Board Discussion

Ping reported that she and Dan Smith had met with Shelton, who had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget from 2008. [.pdf of trial court budget document] She said Shelton had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. Shelton had wanted to make clear to the public that the courts submit a line item budget to the county board, she said. However, Ping noted, “they can submit to us whatever they want, and then they can do with it whatever they want, according to current law.”

She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund, which is expected in October. If the board decides to move forward with terminating the memorandum of understanding, it would still give the courts enough time to prepare for the next budget year (2015).

Outcome: On a 6-2 vote, commissioners postponed the item until the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting. Dissenting were Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Dextech Property Annexation

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to the annexation of land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter. They had taken an initial vote at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

According to the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, the annexation of township property into a village is one of the few instances that requires county board approval. Generally, annexation is handled by the individual municipalities where the annexation occurs.

A letter to the county from Dexter village manager Donna Dettling stated that the annexation request – for a 16.66-acre property – was made by the property owner, Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. The land is adjacent to the Dexter Business & Research Park, where Dextech hopes to expand. The company is Dexter’s largest employer.

On May 13, 2013, the Dexter village council unanimously passed a resolution in support of the annexation. The resolution indicates that although the Scio Township board did not take formal action about the request, there was generally support for the action. [.pdf of communications from Dexter regarding the annexation]

Dextech Property Annexation: Public Hearing

Four people spoke at a public hearing on the annexation. Thomas Partridge said the proposal reflected 19th century politics, and he urged all the townships, villages and cities in Washtenaw County to combine resources into one metropolitan authority under one government, with shared tax revenue and shared purpose. He indicated that such an approach would provide resources for health care, transportation, education, food and other needs.

Dexter village president Shawn Keough thanked commissioners for putting it on their agenda in a timely fashion. He called Dexter Fastener Technologies a wonderful business in the community. As the largest business in the Dexter area, the firm provides a lot of taxpayer dollars to the village, Scio Township and the county, he said. He asked for the board’s support.

Wes Prater said he’s a member of the state boundary commission. The village of Dexter has been working steadily for about two years trying to become a city, he said. There was some difficulty in getting everything done, he added, but the communities worked together, and the outcome will be good overall. He joked that he and Keough “have had our differences, but it’s all worked out.”

A representative of Dextech told commissioners that the firm needs to expand to meet the needs of its customers, which are primarily in the automotive industry. He said the firm doesn’t take this move lightly, and company officials appreciate the cooperation of Scio Township and Dexter to come up with a plan that’s beneficial to all concerned.

Dextech Property Annexation: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson expressed support for economic development, and joked that the firm should visit the county’s east side. “You will find it’s a little quicker and easier to develop on the eastern side of the county,” he said, adding that he’d love to show the firm some sites. [Peterson represents District 6, which includes the city of Ypsilanti and portions of Ypsilanti Township.]

Dan Smith wondered how the boundary change would affect Dexter’s attempt to become a city. Dexter president Shawn Keough responded, saying that it has a very small impact procedurally at this time. After the village receives cityhood status for its current boundaries, an additional boundary modification would be required to bring in that parcel.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the annexation.

Staff for County Clerk’s Office

On the agenda for initial approval was a modest increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office, primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications.

The change involves creating a full-time administrative coordinator position from a job that’s currently part-time (an 0.64 full-time equivalent position). The total cost for that full-time position is estimated at $56,902 – or an additional $15,631 in general fund support. It’s expected that a decrease in the need for temporary workers will help offset the payroll increase, as will a projected surplus in license and permit revenue. According to a staff memo, that revenue is expected to exceed projections by at least $33,824.

From left: Ed Golembiewski, the county’s director of elections, and county clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum.

Until mid-2008, the office had 5 full-time employees (FTEs) in the elections and administration division, which handles passport applications and concealed pistol licenses (CPL). The economic downturn and subsequent restructuring dropped staffing levels to 3.64 FTE positions.

CPL applications increased 140% between 2009 to 2012, to an average 2,091 applications per year compared to 870 in 2009. This year is expected to set a record for CPL applications. For the first quarter of 2013 there were 1,168 applications, compared to 540 in the first quarter of 2012. [.pdf of application data from 2004-2013] [.pdf of approved licenses from 2008-2013]

If the total number of applications in 2013 reaches projections of at least 3,225, then that will generate revenue of $83,824 to the general fund – above the original 2013 budget amount of $50,000.

In addition, on July 10 commissioners were asked to give initial approval to shift support for one full-time position in the clerk/register of deeds office back into the general fund, at a cost of $56,117. That position – a records management specialist – is currently funded by revenues from the office’s “automation fund.” Until 2008, that position was paid for out of the general fund.

The automation fund gets revenue from a $5 surcharge on every deed that’s processed, and is a statewide authorized fee that pays for technology related to the work of the clerk/register of deeds office. It pays for digitizing the county’s land records from 1824 through 1958, which are currently available only on paper. The goal is to relocate the paper records and clear out space in the lower level of 200 N. Main Street, as part of the county’s “space plan.” Digitization will also allow the public to quickly search and retrieve county records electronically, which will generate usage revenues for the general fund. Revenues for online usage increased from about $220,000 in 2010 to about $323,000 in 2012.

According to a staff memo, the number of documents recorded by the county clerk/register of deeds office has increased from fewer than 53,000 documents in 2008 to more than 85,000 documents expected in 2013. Revenues from the office to the general fund have grown from $2.248 million in 2011 to $3.198 million in 2012. Those revenues are expected to continue growing as the local real estate market recovers.

Staff for County Clerk’s Office: Board Discussion

Dan Smith pointed out that this is the third time in 2013 that the board has been asked to approve an increase in staffing. In isolation, each increase makes sense, he said. But as the headcount changes over time, it’s troubling.

County clerk Larry Kestenbaum responded, saying: “This doesn’t change headcount at all.”

Felicia Brabec asked Kestenbaum to elaborate and explain why it doesn’t change the headcount. Kestenbaum said the change entails moving a position from part-time to full-time. That’s based on the need to cover the tremendous increase in applications for concealed weapon licenses. The other change is to shift the funding source for an existing position into the general fund. As the land economy has improved, the number of associated transactions handled by his office has increased, Kestenbaum said. It’s important to keep up with those transactions to avoid delay, he added.

Kestenbaum also noted that his office is giving up its space in the lower level of the administration building at 200 N. Main, as part of the strategic space plan for county facilities. The documents stored there are being digitized, and he wasn’t expecting the move to happen on such an accelerated schedule. Money for this digitization process comes from the automation fund, he noted. By shifting the funding for one employee out of the automation fund and into the general fund, it frees up more funds from the automation fund to pay for digitizing documents. He noted that the paper documents will still be stored, but not at that location. He also reminded commissioners that the increased general fund revenue that’s generated by his office will more than cover the cost of the employee.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the requested changes for the clerk/register of deeds office. A final vote is expected at the board’s meeting in August.

Appointments

Appointments to five Washtenaw County boards and commissions were on the July 10 agenda.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi made the following nominations:

• Police services steering committee: Scott Cooper, representing non-contract areas for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.
• Washtenaw County/City of Ann Arbor community corrections advisory board: Tori Noe for a term ending Dec. 31, 2013.
• Food policy council: Seema Jolly, filling a slot representing a nutritionist, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2013.
• Workforce development board: Renee Adorjan for the community-based organization slot for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014; and Fred Pittman for the veterans slot for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015.
• River Raisin watershed council (alternate): Evan Pratt.

Rabhi said he planned to hold off on making nominations to the county historic district commission.

Outcome: All nominations were confirmed unanimously without discussion.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Human Services Funding

During public commentary, two people spoke about the importance of funding human services organizations. Margy Long, director of Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative, thanked commissioners for their support of human services in this community. She described the importance of investing in early childhood programs. Success by 6 has one goal, she said – to ensure that every child in Washtenaw County reaches kindergarten in good health and ready to succeed in school.

Margy Long, director of the Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative, talks with county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

As many as two out of four kids don’t meet that goal at this point, she said, and there are over 40 organizations collaborating to find ways to improve that number. Research has shown that the first five years of a child’s life are critical to their success in learning throughout their life, she said. Long pointed to the return on investment that comes from support during those early years of childhood, including an increased likelihood in graduating from high school and earning a higher income later in life, and less likelihood of criminal activity.

Nicole Adelman, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House, described the nonprofit as an emergency shelter for children and families experiencing homelessness. Her organization works with families to find employment, increase income, and find affordable housing. She also serves on the board of the HIV-AIDS Resource Center (HARC) and the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Adelman said she knew she was preaching to the choir for many commissioners, and she thanked them for their support.

IHN-Alpha House receives about $90,000 each year from the county’s office of community & economic development through the coordinated funding approach. Losing that funding would devastate the agency, she said. It doesn’t get much worse than not having a place to live or knowing where your next meal is coming from, she said. The demand already exceeds the available resources, Adelman added. Budget cuts are incredibly hard, she said, but she’s asking the board to dig deeper and find somewhere else to cut. She noted that she’s a 30-year resident of Washtenaw County, and she votes. The county funds services for people who have nowhere else to go. She said she’d bet that the board’s constituents are willing to vote for those who support human services funding. “I know I will,” she concluded.

The county handles its support for human services through a coordinated funding approach managed by the county’s office of community & economic development. The approach involves a partnership of the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw Urban County, the United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Felicia Brabec, during her report as ways & means committee chair, noted that the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) has selected the coordinated funding program to profile as a best practices case study on social sustainability. [.pdf of ICMA letter]

Communications & Commentary: Benefits for Same-Sex Partners

Cynthia Emerick, a Manchester resident and member of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Ann Arbor, thanked commissioners “for moving so quickly to correct a wrong.” Nine employee families of Washtenaw County government lost health care coverage when the state banned domestic partner benefits for public employees, she noted. [As background, new 10-year labor contracts that the county negotiated earlier this year – to avoid the impact of Michigan's "right to work" law – resulted in the elimination of the county’s healthcare benefits for domestic partners. When the county’s previous labor contracts were opened for renegotiation, that triggered the need to comply with a state law passed in late 2011: PA 297, which restricted public entities from offering domestic partner benefits. For the county, those benefits had been offered to “other eligible adults” who met certain criteria, like sharing the same residence. Nine county employees had been using those benefits, which had been eliminated as of April 1.]

But in late June – soon after a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a ruling came down from U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Michigan that blocked the state from enforcing its ban on domestic partner benefits. Emerick noted that board chair Yousef Rabhi and the county administration acted quickly, and in less than one business day, those nine county employees had their health care coverage reinstated. She thanked the county staff and commissioners for their action, saying it affected a lot of people.

Deborah Dean-Ware, pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd, also thanked the board. She said her church has a long history of supporting the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community, and they are working hard to see marriage equality become reality in Michigan. The county’s work on the domestic partner benefits “is a very powerful statement for justice,” she said.

Communications & Commentary: Head Start

Felicia Brabec reported that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District has received a notice of award from the federal government, designating the WISD as the organization that will take over management of the Washtenaw Head Start program. The county has been administering the program for more than four decades, but last year decided to relinquish that duty. Brabec said that plans are being made for handling the transition.

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

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 24, 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!

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors.

According to a staff memo, up to $698,773 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund over an estimated 25-year period. The county’s annual millage revenues on that site is estimated to increase from about $277 now to $6,150 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of 544 Detroit St. brownfield plan]

For Packard Square, located at 2502-2568 Packard St., approval related to an amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development. That grant was later awarded to the project. The project entails building more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space at 2502-2568 Packard Street.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add two eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing: underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012. According to a staff memo, the total TIF-eligible activities will now be $3,582,222. Over the 14-year period of the plan, up to $5,840,557 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund. This amount is unchanged from when the plan was initially adopted.

County millage revenues from the property will increase from about $8,701 annually to $64,138 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of Packard Square brownfield plan amendment]

Both plans had been recommended for approval by the county’s brownfield development authority at its June 6, 2013 meeting.

Public hearings were held for both projects at the county board’s meeting on July 10. In addition to representatives of the developers, the only other speaker was Thomas Partridge.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised some procedural concerns about the approval process. He felt the public hearing should be held prior to the initial vote at the board’s ways & means committee meeting. Peterson also objected to taking the final vote on the same night as the initial vote. [Typically, an initial vote is taken at the ways & means committee – on which all board members serve – followed by a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. For most of the year, the ways & means committee and regular board meetings are held every two weeks, in back-to-back sessions on the same night. During the summer, those meetings are held only once a month.]

To protest the process, Peterson cast the sole vote against both brownfield plans on the initial vote at the ways & means committee meeting, but joined all other commissioners in supporting the plans in the final vote at the board meeting.

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