The resolution passed on Feb. 5 established that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions. It also set new licensing fees. [.pdf of dog license ordinance]

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

An increase in 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.

A draft resolution and staff memo had been prepared in November 2013 but the item was not brought forward to the board for a vote last year. The current proposal is similar to that initial draft. [.pdf of Jan. 22, 2014 resolution and memo]

The county treasurer’s office also 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. There would be no charge to license service dogs, with proper documentation and proof of rabies vaccination. More information about current dog licenses is available on the county website.

Deliberations at the Jan. 22, 2014 meeting – when commissioners gave initial approval to this ordinance – included the importance of outreach to educate residents about the changes.

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]

Some of the crowd at the Jan. 22, 2014 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Speaking during public commentary, several people argued that the Delonis Center‘s warming center should be made available when temperatures are lower than 45 degrees. One woman presented a list of specific requests for expanded services at the homeless shelter, including 24-hour access to shower facilities and increased hours for access to laundry facilities.

There was no formal agenda item on this issue, but several commissioners agreed that the community needs to do more for the homeless. Conan Smith (D-District 9) noted that county had a 10-year plan to end homelessness, “and then we got socked by a terrible economy and made pretty dramatic reductions in the county’s spending.” [The Blueprint to End Homelessness was adopted in 2004 but appears to be dormant.]

The board ultimately voted to direct county administrator Verna McDaniel to address issues related to services for the homeless. They’ll be getting an update at their Feb. 6 working session from Ellen Schulmeister, director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) cautioned against the county overstepping its bounds, and pointed out that the shelter is run by a separate nonprofit – although the county owns and maintains the building where the shelter is located at 312 W. Huron in Ann Arbor, and contributes some funding. Ping noted that the county also currently pays the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for several parking spaces used by Delonis Center employees, and suggested that the money might be better spent on direct services to the homeless. The county is continuing to negotiate its parking contract with the DDA.

Also at the Jan. 22 meeting, the board made a range of appointments, including confirmation of Dan Ezekiel, former Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioner, to replace Nelson Meade on the county parks & recreation commission. And former state legislator Alma Wheeler Smith was appointed to fill an opening on the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) board. Richard Murphy – one of two RTA board members from Washtenaw County – was not seeking reappointment. Smith was the only eligible applicant and is the mother of county commissioner Conan Smith, who abstained from the confirmation vote.

In addition, during the Jan. 22 meeting the board created a new committee to explore the cost to the county for providing employee health insurance coverage for autism. The board had received a staff presentation earlier in the evening about the possibility of offering such coverage.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog, with a final vote expected on Feb. 5. The ordinance could take effect 50 days after that, in late March, but county treasurer Catherine McClary indicated that her office would be looking to implement the changes in June or July. Several  commissioners advocated for educational outreach to ensure that residents – especially in rural areas – will be aware of the changes.

The board also gave initial approval to establish a countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, after hearing from several people during public commentary who supported the effort. A final vote to establish the program is expected at the board’s Feb. 5 meeting.

Services for the Homeless

Although there was no agenda item directly related to the county’s support for services that aid the homeless, the issue was the focus of public commentary on Jan. 22, and of subsequent response from the board.

Eight people spoke during public commentary about issues facing the homeless and those living in poverty.

One man described his 37-year-old son who suffers from bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and short-term memory loss. For the past 8 or 9 years, the son has lived at the Embassy Hotel, at the southeast corner of Huron and Fourth. Out of his son’s roughly $700 per month disability check, the hotel is charging almost $650 for a small room with furniture in disrepair, he said. There are patches on the wall that aren’t painted, a stained lampshade, and a small refrigerator that doesn’t work properly. The hotel management talks down to his son in a degrading way, and sometimes doesn’t let his son into the hotel at night if he forgets his key. “So he’s on the streets until seven o’clock in the morning,” the man said.

After other expenses, his son only has about $10 a week for food – “that’s criminal and shameful,” he said. Some people say that living there is his son’s choice, but where else would he live? “There’s no affordable housing in downtown Ann Arbor that he can afford.” This is a problem, and it’s not just his son, the man said. “You’ve got to do something about this.”

One woman spoke as a representative of people who use the Delonis Center shelter and its warming center. The warming center operates only six months out of the year, she said. But every human being has the right to be protected from the elements, and to have access to food, clothing, computers, and medical care. The Delonis Center isn’t meeting those needs, she said. The woman ticked through a list of requests, which she also provided to commissioners in writing:

• 24-hour access to shower facilities.
• Increased, flexible hours for laundry access.
• An immediate review of the trespassing policy.
• More flexible hours for storage access.
• Breakfast and snacks for people who use the warming center.
• An end to the policy that requires people to leave the center during the day. The center should be used in the daytime for reading, computer use and other inside activities.

She requested a response from commissioners within 72 hours about their intent to implement these proposals.

Tim Green introduced himself as a member of Camp Misfit and a board  member of MISSION. There aren’t adequate services for the homeless in Washtenaw County, he said. But his biggest concern now is the freezing temperatures and the lack of adequate access to the warming center. According to the Centers for Disease Control, he said, hypothermia can set in at 45 degrees. “Do you put your dog outside for 8-10 hours, like they expect these people to do?” he asked. “You’d be put in jail for animal cruelty.” But people are on the streets with nowhere to go. The community needs a daytime warming shelter and a larger shelter for the night, he said. He’s been homeless in the past, and he continues to help people when he can. A friend of his froze to death last year because he had a drinking problem and couldn’t get into the Delonis Center, Green said. Alcoholism is obviously a disease, he said, and there should be a place to help people who need it, so they won’t freeze to death. Something needs to be done, he concluded.

Jeff Plasko provided sign language interpretation at the Jan. 22 meeting of the county board. It’s a service that the county pays for upon request.

Steve Carnes told commissioners he’s lived in Ann Arbor for about 10 years, and the previous speaker had addressed most of the issues he wanted to raise. He asked people from Camp Take Notice and Camp Misfit to stand or raise their hands – about 20 people indicated they were part of those groups. He noted that there needs to be a timely appeals process when people are asked to move their tents because of trespassing. He knows of cases that have extended over three months.

Odile Huguenot Haber said she’s been a Washtenaw County resident for about 20 years. About 65 people are sleeping on the floor of the Delonis Center, she said, plus 25 people sleeping at the rotating shelter in local churches. She told commissioners that she didn’t know if they’ve slept on the floor recently, “but it’s not great.” Some people are senior citizens, or disabled, or mentally ill, she noted. It’s crowded and not comfortable. It’s better than sleeping outside, but she pointed out that not everyone has a space inside. Haber called for a countywide meeting of all the stakeholders about homelessness to offer something better than what’s available now. “We’re not in Syria,” she said. “We’re in Ann Arbor in the United States. We can do much better.”

Speaking as a member of Camp Misfit, Tracy Williams said they keep getting pushed out of their tent homes. It happened to some friends of his recently. The city has money to “throw around for all the buildings in Ann Arbor,” he said, but they can’t fix a streetlight. People who have a place set up for the winter are having to move because neighbors feel threatened since there’s not adequate lighting, he said. Where are those people going to go? Are they going to the cemetery?

Greg Pratt introduced himself by saying “I live in Andy’s district” – District 7 in Ann Arbor, represented by Democrat Andy LaBarre. There are people freezing outside, and they’re being evicted, he said. They need warm places to go that aren’t necessarily in the homeless shelter. People who were attending that night’s meeting are speaking from a place of strong emotion, Pratt said. “There’s people’s lives on the line.” The Delonis Center needs to set the “weather amnesty” at 45 degrees – and people should be allowed to stay there even if they blow over 0.1 on a breathalyzer, he said, or have behavioral problems. Pratt added that he knew there were at least a few commissioners who wanted to help out, so he urged them to do what they can.

Speaking through a sign language interpreter, Tony Galore told commissioners that they should do whatever they can, either providing funds or building another shelter. People need to be helped, he said, “and we would help you back later.” He said raised the issue of transportation, saying he was from Miami and you could get anywhere you wanted to go there. In Michigan, it’s not so easy, he said. “To me, it’s backwards here.” He urged commissioners to help people who need access to transportation.

Services for the Homeless: Board Response

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked people for coming and telling their powerful stories. Addressing the challenge of homelessness needs to be a priority in these hard economic times, he said. There’s no excuse for the county not to allocating some funds for this purpose, Smith added. It’s not about how cold it is, he said – people deserve a home if they want one.

The county needs to adopt public policy and investment strategies reflecting that housing is a right, Smith said. The community needs systemic solutions, he added, and not simply respond to a crisis. They need to address the causes of homelessness, not just the symptom. The county had a 10-year plan to end homelessness, he noted, “and then we got socked by a terrible economy and made pretty dramatic reductions in the county’s spending.” [.pdf of the 2004  Blueprint to End Homelessness] Smith said the county would be doing what it could.

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

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said the situation that was described about conditions at the Embassy Hotel sounds “appalling” and something that he hoped the county staff could look into. Thanking others who’d spoken on behalf of the homeless, Rabhi said “it’s a human issue, and one that we can’t back away from.” It’s been a priority for Washtenaw County since he’s been on the board and even before that, he said. Other communities don’t provide the same level of support for the homeless, he noted. Nobody was turned away from the Delonis Center when temperatures dropped, he said. Even so, he added, “we still need to do more.” The county needs to identify holes in the system and patch those holes with additional resources.

Rabhi described a meeting he’d had recently with Ann Arbor city councilmember Sumi Kailasapathy and county staff who are working on homeless issues. They identified the need for more collaboration between the city and county. They talked about having a joint city/county task force to have that dialogue. Responding to a suggestion from the crowd, Rabhi said that members of the homeless community should be involved in the task force, too.

In terms of the specific list of requests that were made during the public commentary, he noted that county administrator Verna McDaniel had assured him that she’d bring together staff and others in the community to respond to the requests and make recommendations to the board.

Rabhi pointed out that the cost for opening the warming center for temperatures above 10 degrees is about $180,000 annually. He agreed with Smith that the board should allocate some amount of funding to address these basic human needs.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said it’s important to understand where the county’s role stops and the shelter’s role begins. The county doesn’t run the shelter, she noted, so getting involved risks overstepping the county’s authority.

Related to that, Ping wondered if there was an update on negotiations between the county and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. She said she brought it up because the county pays the DDA for about two dozen parking spaces used by employees of the Delonis Center. By eliminating that, the county could probably use the money to help pay for more services for the homeless, she said.

McDaniel reported that there had been several meetings between her staff and the DDA, and that she had a meeting scheduled later in the week with the DDA “to hone in where we are with that.” They’re continuing to negotiate, she said. McDaniel added that she’d report back to the board as soon as she had more information.

Rabhi said he’d support passing a resolution that would direct McDaniel and her staff to address the concerns that were raised that night.

Outcome: The board voted to direct the county administrator to address issues related to services for the homeless.

Rabhi also asked Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community and economic development, if she could prepare a report for an upcoming working session. Callan agreed to do that. She noted that although about 85% of the support for the Delonis Center comes from sources other than the county and city of Ann Arbor, the county does own and maintain the center’s building. [The board's Feb. 6 working session agenda now includes a briefing on homelessness issues by Ellen Schulmeister, director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center.

Conan Smith said the board shouldn't forget its role as funders of the shelter, with a strong financial interest in that nonprofit. They have a right and obligation to articulate their concerns to the shelter's leadership, he said. "Now, if that organization chooses not to respond to our interests, that does put our relationship in a more interesting place," Smith added. "But to date, that has not been the case. They've been always very responsive to the concerns of the board of commissioners."

Appointments

Appointments to three groups – the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA); the Washtenaw County food policy council, and the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission – were on the board’s Jan. 22 agenda. The board also made its annual appointments of county commissioners to various boards, committees and commissions.

Appointments: Regional Transit Authority

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the board, nominated Alma Wheeler Smith to fill an opening in the RTA. Richard Murphy – one of two RTA board members from Washtenaw County – was not seeking reappointment.

County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie and former state legislator Alma Wheeler Smith.

The deadline to apply for this opening had been extended, but there were only two applicants. The other applicant was Jim Casha, but as a Canadian resident he was ineligible to be appointed for the seat to represent Washtenaw County. The RTA state enabling legislation (Act 387 of 2012) mandates that board members must be residents of the county or city that they represent.

Alma Wheeler Smith, a former state legislator, is the mother of county commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9). She attended a portion of the Jan. 22 meeting but did not formally address the board.

By way of background, the RTA was established by the state legislature in late 2012. It includes a four-county region – Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw and Wayne – with each county making two appointments to the board, and the city of Detroit making one.

The county board chair appoints both of Washtenaw County’s members to the RTA board. Those appointments were first made at the end of 2012 by Conan Smith, who was chair through the end of that year. Liz Gerber, a University of Michigan professor of public policy, was appointed to a three-year term. Murphy, who works for Smith at the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, was appointed to a one-year term.

Appointments: Regional Transit Authority – Public Commentary

Jim Casha introduced himself by saying commissioners might remember his previous commentary regarding the RTA, at the board’s Jan. 8, 2014 meeting. At that time, he had objected to the RTA board’s selection of John Hertel over Larry Salci as the RTA’s CEO. He had also criticized the failure of the RTA board to acquire the 157-acre Michigan state fairgrounds property, as a way of generating revenue.

Jim Casha.

Since then, the question of Hertel as CEO has become moot, Casha noted, since Hertel decided not to accept the RTA’s offer. So the RTA board has a chance to make a different decision this time, he said, and to pick someone with more transit experience. He hoped they would again consider Salci, a former director of the southeast Michigan transportation authority in the 1970s. Salci is currently a consultant for the federal government in commuter rail initiatives nationwide, Casha said.

Casha, a Canadian resident, said he understood he wouldn’t be the county’s appointee to the RTA, “since not only do I not live in your county, I don’t even live in your country.” He noted that the Ann Arbor-to-Detroit commuter rail was a big priority to a lot of people in Ann Arbor, and it should be the No. 1 priority for the RTA.

Instead, the RTA is concentrating on bus rapid transit up Woodward Avenue and other corridors, Casha said. But the rails are already in place, and train cars have already been purchased, he noted. There’s a great potential location for a station at the state fairgrounds site. Commuter trains shouldn’t end at the New Center in downtown Detroit on Woodward, Casha said. It should continue to the fairgrounds, where it can tie into a multi-modal regional transportation center that can take anybody via bus anywhere in the region. “We could truly have a transportation system that we could be proud of,” he said. He urged commissioners to ask the county’s RTA board members to push for this. “It’s still not too late,” he concluded.

During the evening’s second opportunity for public commentary, Casha noted that the fairgrounds site could be used as a demonstration center for innovative projects – to showcase different types of housing, for example. He said he’s also trying to get legislative support for having a sesquicentennial Civil War celebration in 2015 to honor Michigan soldiers, General Ulysses Grant and Austin Blair, who served as the state’s governor during the war. The house that Grant lived in during 1849 is located at the fairgrounds. The celebration could be a catalyst for private funding, Casha said.

Appointments: Regional Transit Authority – Board Discussion

As board chair, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) is authorized to make the RTA appointments, without full board confirmation. However, he put forward his RTA nomination of Alma Wheeler Smith as part of a resolution with all of his other nominations. He told the board that there had been back-and-forth with a state official who had originally indicated that the appointment would be for another one-year term. He had clarified with state that the term is for three years. The term will end on Dec. 31, 2016, because Washtenaw County is making calendar-year appointments to conform with its existing process of making appointments.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he planned to abstain from the vote on his mother, citing what he called a “perceived conflict of interest – although you all know how independent she is.” He thought she was a great choice, but said he did not involve himself in the selection. “I did my best to stay out of [the selection process], passionate though I am about the RTA and my mother.”

Outcome: On a roll call vote along with other confirmations, Alma Wheeler Smith was appointed to the RTA board. Conan Smith abstained.

Appointments: Parks & Recreation Commission, Food Policy Council

In other appointments made on Jan. 22, Dan Ezekiel was nominated to fill a term that was recently vacated by long-time county parks & recreation commissioner Nelson Meade, who stepped down at the end of 2013. Ezekiel was one of the founding members of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. His most recent term ended in mid-2013. He was term limited for that position. For the county parks & recreation commission, Ezekiel’s term ends on Dec. 31, 2016. He also attended the Jan. 22 county board meeting, but did not formally address the board.

Jeremy Seaver and Sara Simmerman were nominated to the Washtenaw County food policy council, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2015.

Outcome: These nominations were confirmed unanimously by the board.

Appointments: Commissioner Appointments

Yousef Rabhi, as board chair, asked the board to confirm annual appointments of county commissioners to various boards, committees and commissions. [.xls spreadsheet of 2014 appointments] Only minor changes were made to previous appointments from 2013.

In addition to their salaries, commissioners receive stipend payments based on the number of meetings that a commissioner is likely to attend for a particular appointment. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increase based on the number of meetings. Each commissioner typically has several appointments. Commissioners who are appointed as alternates receive the same stipend as the regular appointments. Some appointments were not designated to be paid because no meetings were expected to be scheduled.

Commissioners can waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk. Otherwise, the stipend payments are made automatically.

In 2013, only Dan Smith (R-District 2) waived all of his stipends, according to the county clerk’s office, which administers the stipends. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) waived her stipend for the accommodations ordinance commission. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) was not appointed to any boards, committees or commissions and therefore did not receive any stipends.

For 2013, the following stipends were paid:

• Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8): $2,700 (11 paid appointments, including several stipulated by virtue of Rabhi’s position as board chair, plus 3 unpaid appointments)
• Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5): $2,350 (11 paid, 2 paid alternates, 1 unpaid)
• Conan Smith (D-District 9): $1,800 (6 paid, 2 paid alternates, 1 unpaid)
• Felicia Brabec (D-District 4): $1,450 (8 paid, 1 alternate with stipend waived)
• Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1): $800 (4 paid)
• Andy LaBarre (D-District 7): $550 (3 paid, 1 unpaid)
• Alicia Ping (R-District 3): $400 (2 paid, 2 unpaid)

In total, seven commissioners were paid $10,050 in stipends for 2013. There is no mechanism in place for validating attendance, other than checking the meeting minutes of these various groups. No one is designated to do that, however.

Outcome: All nominations were confirmed without discussion.

Coordinated Funding Policy

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a resolution stating that for the 2014 through 2016 fiscal years, departments and agencies of Washtenaw County government would not be eligible to apply for coordinated funding. There would be two exemptions: (1) if the funding was part of a collaboration of nonprofit agencies and/or community groups that can’t act as fiduciary on their own; and (2) if the applicant was the county’s Project Outreach Team (PORT). [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi talks with Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development.

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.

At the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, OCED director Mary Jo Callan told commissioners that the resolution brought forward that evening was in response to a request made by commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) last year. He had raised concerns about county departments competing with community groups for coordinated funding dollars. He had argued that if the county programs were worth funding, then the county should fund those programs directly. This resolution formally prohibited county programs, with some exemptions, from applying for coordinated funding.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Lefiest Galimore raised concerns about the coordinated funding approach to supporting human services. It’s blocking a certain segment of nonprofits from providing services, he said, and he urged commissioners to take a look at this problem. Essentially the same organizations are being funded from one cycle to the next, he said, and it doesn’t appear that there’s any accountability. He also criticized the argument that some groups shouldn’t be funded because they don’t have the capacity to provide services. Smaller organizations have fewer resources, he noted, so they aren’t able to do as much as larger entities – and he indicated that they shouldn’t be compared in the same way.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked Mary Jo Callan how much coordinated funding is received by the Project Outreach Team (PORT). Callan wasn’t sure, but thought it was about $100,000. Smith said he really believed that coordinated funding should be a community grant program, and that if a county program needs funding, “we should just fund that program, not tell them to go through a competitive grant program with an outside set of decision-makers.” He said he’d support the resolution, but thought a better approach would be to simply fund PORT directly. It would open up more funding for other community groups that aren’t part of the county infrastructure, he noted.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) agreed with Smith. He asked what the funding source was for the money that PORT receives through coordinated funding. Callan replied that PORT’s funding comes from the city of Ann Arbor. She noted that the city had funded PORT for many years, prior to the coordinated funding program.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) also agreed with Smith, saying it would be unfair for a county department to compete against a local nonprofit. He said he had expected to see additional issues addressed as well – issues that had been raised during the board’s discussion on Nov. 6, 2013. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that other issues would be addressed separately.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked if this resolution would result in the county excluding itself from meeting a need. “Are we leaving something on the table that we really shouldn’t?” Callan replied that she didn’t think that was the case, especially because the policy specifically allowed a county department to act as a fiduciary for a nonprofit that would otherwise be ineligible for coordinated funding. The sheriff’s office, for example, has acted as fiduciary for a program that provides a lot of services to the community, she said, even though it isn’t a 501(c)3 nonprofit.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the new policy regarding coordinated funding. A final vote is expected on Feb. 5.

Dog Licenses

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. [This ordinance would not apply to Ann Arbor residents, as the city of Ann Arbor has its own dog licensing program.]

From left: County treasurer Catherine McClary and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office to be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees. [.pdf of proposed dog license ordinance] The board held a public hearing about this proposal on Jan. 8, 2014 when one person, Thomas Partridge, spoke. The board had held a previous hearing at its meeting on Oct. 16, 2013, but it occurred after midnight and no one attended.

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

An increase in 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.

A draft resolution and staff memo had been prepared in November 2013 but the item was not brought forward to the board for a vote last year. The current proposal is similar to that initial draft. [.pdf of Jan. 22, 2014 resolution and memo]

The county treasurer’s office also 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. There would be no charge to license service dogs, with proper documentation and proof of rabies vaccination. More information about current dog licenses is available on the county website.

Deliberations at the Jan. 22 meeting included the importance of outreach to educate residents about the changes.

Dog Licenses: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) urged residents to license their dogs. The fine for a first offense is $50, he noted, which would be waived if the owner subsequently secures a license. The maximum fee for a three-year license is $30.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) thanked the treasurer’s office for developing this proposal. He wondered what kind of educational information would be available to residents. He hoped the county would invest in some kind of educational component, especially for something that had a fine attached to it.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) fully supported the idea of educational outreach, especially for rural areas. “Lots of people have lots of dogs in barns,” she said, and they aren’t necessarily aware of this ordinance. She also wondered if township offices could be allowed to sell licenses, at least during an initial period, so that it would be more convenient for residents who don’t live in Ann Arbor, where the county administrative offices are located.

County commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

County treasurer Catherine McClary came to the podium and thanked the board for acting on this ordinance. She said she sees it as a public health issue – the purpose of licensing a dog is to prove that the dog has a rabies vaccination. “I don’t see it as a punitive measure,” she said, and agreed with the need for public education.

Although the ordinance could take effect 50 days after the board’s final vote, McClary told the board that she was contemplating an effective date even later – perhaps sometime this summer – to provide enough time for a proper rollout. One thing her office is considering is to send a mailing to every property owner in the county. When they did something similar about 10 years ago, dog licensing doubled, she reported. It’s been relatively flat since then.

The treasurer’s office has been handling dog licenses for the city of Ypsilanti for about a year, McClary said. It’s also possible for township treasurers to sell the county licenses, if they choose to do that. She noted that in the past, the township treasurers were given dog tags to sell, but there was no accounting for how many licenses were sold. There also was no central database for that approach, she said. Now, the paperwork can be handled by the townships, but the county treasurer’s office keeps the central database and mails out the actual dog tags. It’s also possible for residents to apply online, by mail or by fax.

Some veterinarians also sell licenses, McClary said, and she’d like to expand that to other vets in the county. Conan Smith (D-District 9) encouraged that approach, calling it an easy point of contact for responsible pet owners.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) noted that when Conan Smith was chair of the board, “he had to deal with a very, very difficult process … in how we fund animal control in Washtenaw County.” [Rabhi was alluding to negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley over how much financial support the county would provide to HSHV.] Revenue from dog licenses was a part of that conversation, Rabhi noted. In contrast, the process of bringing forward this new ordinance happened “without too many aches and pains,” he said. Rabhi also stressed the need for educational outreach to dog owners.

Commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Rabhi noted that the licensing fee can only be used to pay for administrative costs. He wondered how the revenue from fines is distributed. McClary replied that the fine revenue is divided between the courts, the county and possibly the district libraries, which receive revenue from penal fines. She said she’d provide the board with additional information about how the revenue from fines is allocated.

Rabhi encouraged McClary to consider allowing parks staff to issue citations, because many people bring their dogs to county parks. McClary said she’d talk with parks & recreation director Bob Tetens about whether some of his staff could be deputized for that purpose.

McClary also pointed out that there’s no uniformity with the city of Ann Arbor, which issues its own licenses and has a separate fee structure. At some point, after the new county program has been running for a while, McClary said she’d like to start discussions with the city of Ann Arbor about possibly coordinating their programs.

Rabhi noted that the county funds the HSHV, which provides services in Ann Arbor too. He appreciated that Ann Arbor was starting to help pay for that, but it seemed like there was still a duplication of services in some cases – like dog licensing – and resources weren’t being aligned in order for the licensing program to be most effective.

Outcome: The board gave initial approval to the ordinance allowing the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. A final vote is expected on Feb. 5.

Health Care Coverage for Autism

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, gave a presentation on a proposal that the county administration plans to make formally to the board at a future meeting: To begin offering health care coverage to county employees for the treatment of autism. She began by introducing Colleen Allen, CEO of the Autism Alliance of Michigan, who was on hand to answer questions.

County commissioner Conan Smith. In the background is Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office.

Heidt noted that last fall, commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) had directed staff to research mental health parity, specifically focusing on autism coverage. Mental health parity refers to recognizing mental health conditions as equivalent to physical illnesses, and Washtenaw County has been a leader in providing mental health coverage, Heidt said, even before federal mandates. But one area where there isn’t parity is autism.

It hasn’t been included so far because of cost considerations, Heidt told commissioners. The county continues to recover from the economic downturn, but more recently the staff became aware of resources that are available to help provide coverage.

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.

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, Heidt explained. Rather, the county is self-funded, and so it was exempt from this state mandate.

Heidt described how ASD has become more common over the past few decades – 1 in 88 children are now diagnosed with ASD. That increase is related in part to increased awareness, she noted. Intervention can include medicine, behavioral treatment, or a combination of both.

The costs are estimated to be about $60,000 a year to cover a child with autism. The state of Michigan has made coverage a priority, Heidt said, and has started setting aside funds to reimburse organizations that provide coverage. In fiscal 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.

For Washtenaw County, Heidt 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, Heidt said. The county would be fully reimbursed by the state of Michigan for the amounts that are allowed under the autism program.

Heidt said the county administration is recommending that starting Jan. 1, 2015, the county would offer a rider for autism coverage as part of its health benefits, as long as the state’s reimbursement program remains in effect. They would re-evaluate it on an annual basis, she said.

It would be possible to offer the benefit even earlier, Heidt noted – as soon as 90 days after approval by the board.

Health Care Coverage for Autism: Public Commentary

Ryan Schuett introduced himself as a Washtenaw County employee in support of the autism coverage that the board would be considering. He said he’s the father of a three-year-old autistic child who was diagnosed last year. He and his wife were happy to get a diagnosis, and started looking at treatment options. They initially weren’t concerned because they knew that the county provided great health care coverage, he said. But they learned that autism isn’t covered, and that has created a hardship for his family and other employees. He supported the change in coverage.

Michelle Schuett, right, spoke to county commissioner Felicia Brabec, far left, and Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director.

Michelle Schuett, who is married to Ryan Schuett, also spoke in support of the health care coverage to include treatment for autism. In the past year, her family paid for private insurance so that they could afford treatment for their daughter. She described how much of an improvement it made in her daughter’s ability to communicate. But they couldn’t continue to afford that insurance, she said, so they’re excited that the county board is considering coverage of it.

Health Care Coverage for Autism: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said the county is learning more about autism and how many people are suffering from it. The county’s public policy hasn’t kept up with the needs for families. He thanked the Schuetts for putting a human face on an issue that the county can do something about. “It’s very courageous of you to stand up like that,” he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) noted that there’s a $10,000 difference between the estimated annual costs for treatment and the top amount that the state would reimburse. Who picks up that difference? she asked.

Colleen Allen of the Autism Alliance of Michigan explained that as a self-funded entity, the county could decide how much it offers as coverage – it could be more than the state reimbursement, or less. She also noted that if left untreated, costs will emerge in other ways later in life – if a child needs special education, for example, or can’t be employed.

Several commissioners expressed support for the coverage. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) felt the county should make a long-term commitment, and not rely on state reimbursement. He hoped the board could appoint a committee that would investigate the cost and sustainability of this type of coverage, and recommend a policy for funding coverage if the state reimbursement fund is exhausted.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that his wife is a special education teacher, and the parents of the children she teaches are those who deal with this firsthand. He pointed out that the hours missed from work in dealing with a child who has ASD, not to mention the emotional toll, will affect productivity. The coverage will actually pay dividends in other ways in the future, he said. He volunteered to serve on the committee that Peterson suggested.

Conan Smith said he had initially thought the county had already offered this benefit. He reported that his wife, state Sen. Rebekah Warren, had asked him about it, and he then learned that it wasn’t coverage that the county offered. In terms of costs, he noted that applying national statistics to the number of county employees, it’s likely that only about 16 children of employees would be affected with some form of ASD. If each child needed the extra $10,000 per year in coverage – beyond what the state would reimburse – that would be a total of $160,000, he noted. He advocated for adopting the highest coverage, and he’d like to track how many employees actually access it.

Smith also supported offering the coverage as early as possible, rather than waiting until 2015.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Health Care Coverage for Autism: Committee

Later in the meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) brought forward a resolution to appoint commissioners Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) to a committee related to the health care benefits for autism. 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 committee was asked to report back to the full board on Feb. 5.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to confirm the appointments to this new committee.

Health Care & Pension Benefits

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, prepared an update on the county’s overall health care and pension benefits. She provided a handout to commissioners, but did not make a formal presentation. [.pdf of health care and pension benefits presentation]

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) noted that some companies have required testing of new hires to make sure they’re nicotine-free. It wouldn’t apply to current employees, but Ping wondered if it’s something that the administration has considered for new hires. County administrator Verna McDaniel said it’s something they’d need to do more research on before bringing a recommendation to the board.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked Heidt if she could compile dollar amounts to show the county’s health care expenditures over the last decade, for both active employees and retirees.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

PACE Program

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to establish a countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program.

Andy Levin of Lean & Green Michigan.

The board had issued a notice of intent to create the program at its meeting on Jan. 8, 2014.

The goal of PACE is to help owners of commercial (not residential) properties pay for energy improvements by securing financing from commercial lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments.

The county’s proposal entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, had attended a Dec. 4, 2013 board meeting to answer questions. State Sen. Rebekah Warren also spoke briefly during public commentary on Dec. 4 to support the initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan.

The law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone would act as legal counsel. Several other counties are part of Lean & Green, according to the group’s website. Other partners listed on the site include the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which was co-founded by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith is married to Warren.

On Jan. 22, Levin again briefly addressed the board during public commentary, as did several business owners who supported the PACE initiative. The board also held a former public hearing on the proposal later in the evening, but Levin and others had left by that point and no one spoke during the formal hearing.

The county’s PACE program would differ from the one set up by the city of Ann Arbor, which created a loan loss pool to reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. Washtenaw County does not plan to set up its own loan loss reserve, and no county funds would be used for the program, according to Levin.

However, a reserve fund is mentioned in documentation that describes the program:

8. Reserve Fund

In the event Washtenaw County decides to issue bonds to provide financing for a PACE Program, Washtenaw County can determine at that time to fund a bond reserve account from any legally available funds, including funds from the proceeds of bonds.

By participating in LAGM [Lean & Green Michigan], Washtenaw County assists its constituent property owners in taking advantage of any and all appropriate loan loss reserve and gap financing programs of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (“MEDC”). Such financing mechanism can similarly be used to finance a reserve fund.

[.pdf of PACE program documentation] [.pdf of PACE cover memo] [.pdf PACE resolution]

PACE Program: Public Commentary

Six people addressed the board during public commentary about the PACE program. Kicking off the commentary was Andy Levin of Lean & Green Michigan. He told commissioners that some property owners and contractors had attended the meeting to speak about PACE and how the program affects their businesses. He thanked the board for moving the program forward.

Paul Brown introduced himself as an Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County citizen, who has spent his career working in finance. That includes some time spent working with Levin when Brown was vice president of capital markets at the Michigan Economic Development Corp. One of his tasks was to look at private capital markets, Brown said, especially those that didn’t work efficiently, and to try to “fill those gaps.” A lot of energy efficiency projects have a relatively long payout, he said, yet financing for that type of upgrade is of a relatively short duration. That results in a negative cash flow for the business. Brown described PACE as a revolutionary finance mechanism that allows a business owner to finance the project during its practical life, which makes it a cash-flow-positive scenario. When he was working for the state, Brown said, PACE was particularly attractive because it helped fill a financing gap.

From left: Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) and corporation counsel Curt Hedger.

The state’s rule of thumb is if they can put in 10% capital and get a 10-to-1 leverage in economic activity, that’s a win, Brown said. PACE creates the economic activity with contractors and installation, but it also upgrades the infrastructure of buildings, which makes Michigan more competitive as a state, he said. One of the difficult things about Michigan is that its energy costs are relatively high, compared to other states. Combine that with a relatively old infrastructure, he added, and that’s a “double whammy,” making it difficult to become a competitive environment. PACE allows businesses in the state to help correct some of those inefficiencies and make them more competitive, Brown concluded.

The next speaker was Scott Ringlein, president and CEO of The Energy Alliance Group of Michigan, a partner of Lean & Green Michigan. He described a current project that they’re working on for McDonald’s in Washtenaw County – installing a geothermal system for about $85,000. With existing programs, like Michigan Saves, the business would only get financing for a 60-month period. But with PACE, that financing could be extended to 10-20 years, he said, which would result in immediate positive cash flow. A lot of technologies that are used for energy efficiency have a life of 20-30 years, Ringlein said. Another advantage is that the financing is tied to the property, not the business, he noted.

Alexis Blizman, policy director for the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center, also supported the countywide PACE program. The economic benefits of the program and the ability for businesses to save money are really important, she said, but the program also benefits the environment. Investments in energy efficiency can significantly reduce greenhouse gases, she said, and help mitigate climate change. It’s the best way to reduce stress on the energy grid, to eliminate the need for new power generation, and to allow for time for the market to change so that the price of renewable energy decreases. She urged commissioners to support the program.

Mike Larson of Simon Property Group – developers of Briarwood Mall – also supported the PACE initiative, saying it allowed businesses to do projects that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. Briarwood Mall recently underwent a significant renovation, he noted. Upgrades included replacing all the lights with LED lighting – a costly but important change, he said. Larson concluded by urging commissioners to adopt the PACE program.

Zach Mathie of Patriot Solar Group in Albion, Michigan, expressed support for the county’s PACE program. It’s good for businesses, the community, and renewable energy, he said.

County treasurer Catherine McClary, speaking later in the meeting about the dog licensing agenda item, also addressed the board about the PACE program, saying there are compelling reasons to support it. From the perspective of the treasurer’s office, if a PACE project is delinquent, it would be no different than anyone else who might have a delinquent tax or special assessment, she said. Her office would initially advance money to the county to cover it, but if she couldn’t recover the delinquent taxes or assessment in a foreclosure or auction, then the county would have a charge-back and repay those funds.

The charge-back is one of two risks that McClary identified. The second risk is if an entity that’s exempt from special assessments – like a local government – purchases the property at a foreclosure auction. In that case, the stream of revenue from the special assessment would no longer be available. That risk can be mitigated if it’s clear that the financing entity, such as a bank, accepts the risk rather than the county. She said she’d be glad to work with whoever administers the program to ensure that the county taxpayers are protected.

The board also held a formal public hearing on the PACE program later in the evening. No one spoke during at that time.

PACE Program: Public Commentary – Board Response

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked the speakers who had supported PACE, noting that many of them had come from long distances. The county has supported this kind of environmental initiative and has enjoyed being on the forefront of innovation, he said. He hoped that by mid-February, there would be a PACE program that businesses could take advantage of in Washtenaw County.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also said he appreciated hearing from supporters of the PACE program, and he looked forward to acting on that.

There was no other discussion of this item before the board vote.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to establish a countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. A final vote to establish the program is expected at the board’s Feb. 5 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

During the 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: Staff to Support Board’s Budget Priorities

Toward the end of the meeting, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked about an item that was on the Jan. 22 agenda, but not discussed. The item was listed as part of the county administrator’s report, and referred to direction that the board had given to county administrator Verna McDaniel at the board’s Nov. 20, 2013 meeting: To research and recommend staffing options that would support the board’s community investment priorities.

County commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Peterson said he assumed that this directive emerged from a meeting of the board’s leadership. Addressing board chair Yousef Rabhi, Peterson said: “Give me some history … regarding this position, and where you’re going with it.”

Rabhi reminded Peterson that the board had discussed the need to continue the budget process beyond just a vote to approve it, which was taken at the end of 2013. McDaniel reported that she’s still gathering information in order to develop a recommendation. She planned to bring something to the board at a future meeting, and said she’s been working with Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and other commissioners on a proposal. [Brabec is chair of the board's ways & means committee, on which all commissioners serve. She also led the board's budget process.]

Brabec added that with a four-year budget, the board also set up a new strategic model to help them determine where the county’s resources should go. To do that, the board needs some staff support, she said. The board set goals as well as outcomes that are intended to measure how those goals are being achieved. If the board doesn’t continue to move forward on these things, “there was really no point in doing that process,” she said.

Peterson said it sounded really vague to him. Brabec replied that they need to do a needs assessment and gap analysis – that’s the first step. Peterson contended that “somewhere, some major strategy is being laid” – he had read all of the budget documents, he said, and it wasn’t clear to him what was being proposed. He asked whether the proposal is simply a series of reports. He criticized commissioners for not paying attention to the agenda item that had mentioned the staffing recommendation.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said his expectation was that the recommendation wouldn’t call for reports, but would be for staffing. He had hoped that McDaniel would hire a senior-level position, but she’d heard from other commissioners that such a position wasn’t broadly supported. “I think the reason you don’t have something in front of you today is that there’s tension about how we effectively staff the function that we’re describing,” Smith said. He expected McDaniel will now bring forward a job description or scope of work for a contracted position. He hoped the person would attend board meetings or working sessions to provide regular updates, and to work with the county’s senior staff and department heads as this process moves forward.

Peterson wondered how they arrived at this decision. It was important to discuss this as a board, he said. He criticized the board leadership, saying that part of their role is to communicate with other commissioners.

By way of background, the board – including Peterson – discussed this issue at length at its Nov. 20, 2013 meeting. From The Chronicle’s report of that session:

Regarding the “community outcomes” document and the revised budget document that now included a section on “community impact investing,” Peterson wondered if there was any indication about the amount of staff time and resources that would be required to implement this approach. He said he didn’t have a problem with the budget priorities themselves, but it wasn’t clear how those priorities would be carried out, or what line item in the budget was designated for this purpose. He said he’d like to see a timeframe for how the board could start addressing these priorities during the remainder of their term, which runs through 2014. Was any of this information in the budget document? he asked.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) replied, saying that the revisions added to the budget document on community impact investing had stemmed from the community outcomes resolution that was also on the Nov. 20 agenda. Other commissioners have raised similar questions about how these outcomes will be implemented, she said. The county administrator, Verna McDaniel, will be taking the lead on that. Brabec pointed to text in the revised budget document that outlined this approach: “The County Administrator will bring a planned recommendation to implement the Community Impacts process with appropriate staffing and budget at the first business meeting in 2014, January 22, for BOC approval.”

Where will the funding come from to implement this process? Peterson asked again. The county already has a lot of obligations, he noted.

Rabhi responded to Petersen, saying that in the previous two-year budget approach, the first year would be spent developing the budget, but the second year would be focused on other things. The intention of the proposed four-year budget and community outcomes approach is to help keep the board involved in the budget as a “living document,” Rabhi said, and to have an active role in managing the budget as circumstances change.

The Feb. 5 agenda now includes an item that would authorize the “creation of a contractual, qualified professional position to assist the BOC to develop strategies and provide oversight for the integration of the Board-defined community impacts and outcomes into organizational and departmental programs, policies and budget priorities.”

According to a staff memo, the position would report to the county administrator, and compensation would not exceed the scope of the administrator’s authority. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution on Feb. 5 agenda]

Communications & Commentary: Road Funding

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) reported that a subcommittee that’s exploring the future of the Washtenaw County road commission had met prior to the county board meeting that night. The subcommittee, which Ping chairs, had voted to ask the county board to pass a resolution urging Gov. Rick Snyder to allocate the state’s budget surplus for road repair, distributed to local entities using the current state formula for road allocations. [A resolution on this issue is now on the board's Feb. 5 agenda.]

Communications & Commentary: Mayoral Race

At the end of the Jan. 22 meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reiterated his statements from earlier in the month that he would not be running for the mayor of Ann Arbor this year. He restated his commitment to the county board.

The Chronicle queried another Ann Arbor commissioner, Democrat Conan Smith (D-District 9), about the possibility of a mayoral candidacy or a decision to run for re-election to the county board. Smith’s reply, via email on Jan. 23: “I haven’t made any decisions about 2014 at all at this point.”

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

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

The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees. [.pdf of proposed dog license ordinance] The board held a public hearing about this proposal on Jan. 8, 2014 when one person, Thomas Partridge, spoke. The board had held a previous hearing at its meeting on Oct. 16, 2013, but it occurred after midnight and no one attended.

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

An increase in 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.

A draft resolution and staff memo had been prepared in November 2013 but the item was not brought forward to the board for a vote last year. The current proposal is similar to that initial draft. [.pdf of Jan. 22, 2014 resolution and memo]

The county treasurer’s office also 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. There would be no charge to license service dogs, with proper documentation and proof of rabies vaccination. More information about current dog licenses is available on the county website.

Deliberations at the Jan. 22 meeting included the importance of outreach to educate residents about the changes.

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

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

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

Also on Nov. 6, the board scheduled a second public hearing to be held on Jan. 8, 2014 for 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. [.pdf of dog license ordinance] [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

The first public hearing on this proposal, also held on Oct. 16 after midnight, did not draw any speakers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

From left: Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county/city of Ann Arbor office of community & economic development. Both women attended the Oct. 17 meeting of the county board of commissioners to address agenda items. (Photos by the writer.)

But they spent much of their discussion on a topic not on the agenda and not requiring a vote: public transit. It emerged that the county administrator now will be sending out additional notification letters to local jurisdictions about a new transit authority, called The Washtenaw Ride. The AATA had initially sent letters notifying jurisdictions of a 30-day window ending Nov. 2.

The new letters, which will likely be sent in early November and alert municipalities to a second 30-day window for opting out of the new authority, were originally expected to be sent by The Washtenaw Ride. But there’s been a delay in forming the new board, so the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority has asked that the county handle the notification process. The county had filed the articles of incorporation for the new entity in early October, at the AATA’s request.

Some commissioners were concerned about the cost –  because the agreement that lays out the process for forming the Washtenaw Ride indicated the county would not be financially responsible for any expenses. The following day, AATA CEO Michael Ford stated at the AATA board meeting that the county would be reimbursed for its expenses.

Part of the county board’s discussion on public transit also centered on proposed state legislation to set up a regional transit authority (RTA) for Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. Some commissioners wanted more information about Washtenaw County’s involvement, and asked for a working session on the topic.

Added to the agenda during the Oct. 17 meeting was a countywide civil infractions ordinance. It was given initial approval by commissioners – with a final vote and public hearing  scheduled for their Nov. 7 meeting. Currently, criminal misdemeanors are the only penalty that the county can apply for an ordinance violation – for infractions like not having a dog license. The intent of the proposed ordinance is to give the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. The proposed fines would be $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense.

The board also passed a policy to reduce barriers to breastfeeding in Washtenaw County facilities, and gave final approval to an ordinance change that shifts responsibility for the county’s accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director.  The accommodation tax is collected from hotels and motels.

Also approved was a one-year extension for the coordinated funding model that’s been piloted for two years as a way to more effectively fund local human services nonprofits. An evaluation of the program – a partnership between the county, city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation – is expected early next year.

The board received a preliminary apportionment report for Washtenaw County, giving details of the 2012 taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. And commissioner Rob Turner reported that a new actuary has been selected to conduct reports on the status of the county’s employee pension and retirement health care funds. Turner is concerned that the fund balances are too low, leaving the county with unfunded liabilities that need to be addressed.

Speaking during public commentary, John Wagner – a volunteer for Camp Take Notice – urged commissioners to consider providing a county facility for the homeless, as winter approaches. The meeting also included recognitions of work done by SafeHouse Center, a domestic violence shelter, and local cooperatives like the Inter-Cooperative Council (ICC) of the University of Michigan. Gaia Kile, vice president of the board for the People’s Food Co-op, told commissioners that the hope is to turn these types of “highly democratic economic institutions” into the fastest-growing segment of the economy.

Civil Infractions Ordinance

A countywide civil infractions ordinance was placed on the agenda for initial approval at the Oct. 17 meeting. The board has previously discussed the idea of creating such an ordinance, but the item was not on the original published agenda. It was added as a supplemental agenda item during the meeting. [.pdf of proposed ordinance]

Currently, criminal misdemeanors are the only penalty that the county can impose for an ordinance violation. If the proposed ordinance is passed, it would  give the county more flexibility to designate ordinance violations as civil infractions, rather than criminal misdemeanors, which hold the threat of much higher fines and jail. The proposed civil infraction fines would be $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense.

Kirk Tabbey, chief judge of the 14-A District Court.

The issue of a civil infractions ordinance was raised most recently in the context of developing a policy for animal control services. Currently, not having a dog license is a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine. Because the penalty is relatively harsh, enforcement is low. County treasurer Catherine McClary had told the board at a February 2011 meeting that she was interested in developing a civil infractions ordinance for dog licensing, with the goal of increasing licensing compliance as a matter of public safety.

McClary and Kirk Tabbey, chief judge of the 14-A District Court, were on hand at the Oct. 17 meeting and answered questions from commissioners about the effort. The 14-A District Court has developed a collections system that the county hopes to use as a model. The ordinance was researched and written by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, with input from McClary, Tabbey and others.

Other departments – such as the building department, health department and office of the water resources commissioner – are also interested in applying civil infractions. So the ordinance is written in a general way, and not limited to a specific type of violation.

Civil Infractions Ordinance: Board Discussion

Conan Smith asked Kirk Tabbey to talk about the 14-A District Court’s “robust” system built around collections for civil infractions. Tabbey described the various steps that are taken if someone doesn’t pay the fine. The goal is to get the person into the collections cycle, and keep them out of court, if possible. About 1,000 people are currently on payment plans, he said. The easier it is for people to pay – by allowing them to make payments online, for example – the better it is for collecting the fine. He noted that the system more than pays for the staff needed to administer the collections.

Dan Smith asked about the judicial philosophy behind the system. Smith said he understood that the point was to not to tie up the courtroom, but the fact is that punishment as a misdemeanor is a strong deterrent. However, that’s only true if it’s enforced, he noted. Smith also expressed concern that some people might factor in a fine as a cost of doing business.

Tabbey agreed that these are real concerns. No matter how the system is structured, some people will find a way to abuse it, he said.  The intent is to get more compliance upfront, and avoid going to court. The approach meets multiple goals, and gives people a way to solve the problem without involving the court at the start, he said. The only reason for the court to get involved is if someone doesn’t pay.

Dan Smith pointed out that there’s still the threat of incarceration, if fines aren’t paid. But in the current system, the court would immediately be involved.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the civil infraction ordinance. A final vote is expected at the board’s Nov. 7 meeting. The board also set a public hearing on the proposed ordinance for that same meeting.

Public Transit Update

It appears that Washtenaw County will now be the entity sending out an official letter to local municipalities in early November, informing them that the official 30-day “opt out” period for leaving the new Washtenaw Ride transit authority will start at that time. Curtis Hedger – the attorney for Washtenaw County – informed county commissioners of that news at their Oct. 17 meeting, in response to a query from commissioner Wes Prater.

Curt Hedger, right, is the county’s corporation counsel. He was talking with Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office prior to the start of the Oct. 17 meeting. Among other duties, Simms is responsible for taking minutes at the meeting.

Many commissioners expressed surprise at the county’s involvement in this way. Previously, the expectation was that the county would not be involved in the process after filing articles of incorporation – which occurred on Oct. 3 at the request of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The Washtenaw Ride is an Act 196 authority, and is intended to create a much broader transit system than the current AATA. The process of creating a larger transit system has been in the works for more than two years.

There’s been some confusion and differing legal views regarding the process of forming the new transit authority. Letters of notification sent by the AATA in late September to all jurisdictions in the county referred to a statutory 30-day window starting with the filing of the articles of incorporation. But Act 196 also requires that the new transit authority itself notify jurisdictions, which also triggers a 30-day window for opting out. The statute makes clear that it’s the later of the two windows that is relevant. Because the new transit authority does not yet have a seated board, it has not yet acted to notify jurisdictions countywide. For a more detailed report on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “Positions Open: New Transit Authority Board.”

At the county board’s Oct. 17 meeting, Hedger told commissioners that AATA had approached the county, as the incorporator of the new transit authority, and asked the county to send official letters instead of waiting for the new transit board to be formed. The county would do so as soon as the articles of incorporation become operational in early November, he said. That means letters would go out likely by Nov. 8, he said, which would create a 30-day “opt out” window that would close in early December. Jurisdictions are automatically a part of the new authority until their governing bodies take formal action. Since early October several township boards have already voted to opt out. From reports in assorted news outlets, those include the townships of Northfield, Salem, Manchester, Sharon, Superior, York, Dexter, Bridgewater and Augusta.

Hedger said he expects the letter, which hasn’t yet been drafted, will indicate that the new authority will honor the opt-out decisions that have already been made. But it also will inform municipalities that they could change their minds and rejoin the authority until the 30-day window closes in early December, he said.

Commissioners Dan Smith and Rob Turner, who have previously expressed reservations about the process, both noted that the county was not supposed to incur any costs in setting up the new authority – saying its only role was to officially file the articles of incorporation. They noted that this had been laid out in the four-party agreement between the county, AATA, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Now, it appears that staff time and postage costs will be paid by the county, they noted.

This is the relevant section in the four-party agreement:

6. Indemnification. AATA and its successor-in-interest The New TA shall indemnify and hold Washtenaw County, the Cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, their elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against all actions, liabilities, demands, costs and expenses, including court costs and attorney fees, which may arise due to their respective negligent, grossly negligent and/or intentional acts or omissions under this Agreement, and transfer or assumption required under this Agreement once the New TA is operational.

Hedger indicated that he doesn’t expect to spend a significant amount of time on drafting the letter, and will use the previous one sent out by AATA as a template. Commissioner Conan Smith noted that the county had pledged to ensure that municipalities would be notified, and if that simply means sending out 28 letters, then “I think we can foot the bill.”

There was some discussion about the need to notify each elected official individually, rather than just sending a notice to each of the township, village or city clerks in the 28 jurisdictions within Washtenaw County. That would significantly increase the number of letters that would be sent.

Hedger also noted that if the Washtenaw Ride board is appointed by early November, then that entity could take over the notification process. “But it doesn’t look like that will happen at this point,” he said.

Before any AATA assets would be transferred to The Washtenaw Ride, voters would need to approve a funding source – likely a millage that could come as early as May 2013. The requirement of voter approval is part of a four-party agreement – between Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and the AATA – that governs the possible transition to The Washtenaw Ride.

Prater expressed frustration, questioning why the four-party agreement wasn’t being followed. ”Why don’t we just pitch it out? It’s absolutely ridiculous that we do these agreements, then they’re not followed.”

The day following the county board’s Oct. 17 meeting, the AATA board held its regular monthly meeting. Michael Ford, the AATA’s CEO, informed board members that the AATA would be reimbursing the county for any cost incurred from the mailing.

Public Transit Update: Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

Before the discussion about The Washtenaw Ride, Wes Prater had asked for an update about state legislation regarding a proposed regional transit authority (RTA) for southeast Michigan – the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. Prater said he’d heard that board chair Conan Smith was involved, and he felt the board should get an update.

From left: Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director, and county commissioner Wes Prater.

Smith replied that he didn’t have detailed information at hand. The legislature has held several hearings, he said, and there’s strong support for an RTA across the region. But the legislation hasn’t gotten much traction, Smith added. [In late September, Smith had testified at a Michigan House Transportation Committee in support of the RTA. The legislation will likely be picked up again after the Nov. 6 election, in lame duck session.]

Prater felt like he hadn’t received sufficient information about the effort. Since Washtenaw County would be included in the RTA, if it’s formed, he thought the board should be more involved, rather than just one of its members.

Smith said he could send other commissioners information and analysis that he has received about the issue, noting that there have been multiple iterations of the RTA legislation over the past year. He also told Prater that Barbara Bergman and Yousef Rabhi had been appointed to an advocacy group about a year ago. When Prater asked when that had happened, Rabhi said that it had occurred at a board meeting.

By way of background, at its Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, the board unanimously passed a resolution of support for the RTA, but no appointments were made at that time. [.pdf of RTA resolution] From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

The context for the resolution is a Sept. 30 southeast Michigan regional summit that Washtenaw County has been invited to participate in for the first time. In past years, the summit included Detroit and the counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. This year, Washtenaw and St. Clair counties will be included, and the topics will focus on regional cooperation and transportation. Smith and [former District 7 commissioner] Kristin Judge have been participating in the planning stages on Washtenaw County’s behalf.

The resolution cites the benefits and goals of regional transportation, including transit options along the Ann Arbor to Detroit corridor, and connections to Detroit Metro and Willow Run airports. It notes that state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor) – who is married to Conan Smith – has introduced legislation as part of a bipartisan package to create a regional transportation authority.

The main resolved clause of the Washtenaw County resolution states: “Be It Therefore Resolved that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners supports the creation of a new Regional Transportation Authority to enhance interconnectivity among the communities of the southeast Michigan region and urges the participants in the 2011 Southeast Michigan Regional Summit to aggressively pursue work that meets the above outlined goals.”

Responding to an email query from The Chronicle following the Oct. 17 meeting, Smith clarified that he was referring to an advocacy group called R-PATH (Regional Partners Advocating Transit Here). It’s unclear when Rabhi and Bergman were appointed, but they both filed R-PATH meetings – in January and February of 2012 – as part of their “flex account” statements. Each commissioner has $3,500 per year in their account to cover reimbursements for travel, per diem and other approved expenses. [Update: The resolution appointing Rabhi and Bergman was approved as part of the board's overall appointments process in January 2012.]

From left: Commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Yousef Rabhi.

At the end of the discussion at the Oct. 17 meeting, Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he’d like to have a working session on this issue. Smith suggested asking Kirk Profit, a lobbyist for the county, to attend the board’s Nov. 7 meeting and give an update.

Prater reiterated that the board should be informed, and that he didn’t want them to be taken by surprise. If the RTA is established, it’s important to know how it will be funded. The transit authority can’t be created without revenue, he said. “I think we all know that.” He wanted to know what it would cost.

Rabhi said he’d attended a meeting of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) earlier in the day. There, a liaison to SEMCOG – the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments – had given an update on the RTA status. A lot of people are unclear about what’s happening, he said, because it appears that much of the work is occurring behind the scenes. The initial plan put forward by Gov. Rick Snyder had called for vehicle registration fees to fund the RTA, he noted, but it’s not clear what the funding would be at this point.

Outcome: There was no vote – this was not an item on the agenda, and did not require action on the part of the board.

Accommodations Ordinance Change

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to an ordinance change that shifts responsibility for the county’s accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director. A public hearing was also held at the Oct. 17 meeting. Initial approval had been given on Oct. 3, 2012.

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

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

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

On Oct. 3, two people – both members of the local hotel association – spoke in support of the proposed change. No one spoke at the Oct. 17 public hearing.

Outcome: With no discussion, commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the accommodation ordinance change.

Coordinated Funding Program

A resolution to extend a two-year pilot program using a “coordinated funding” model to support local human services  for a third year was on the Oct. 17 agenda.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach, which aims to leverage the money better that public and private entities allocate to local nonprofits. Other partners are the city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The county board originally approved the two-year pilot at its November 2010 meeting – see Chronicle coverage: “Despite Concerns, Coordinated Funding OK’d.”

The 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.

The total process puts $4.935 million into local human services nonprofits. The extension of the coordinated funding approach for a third year means that nonprofits receiving funding currently would not need to reapply for support. The extension by one year would allow for the evaluation process for the pilot period to finish, likely by early 2013. That evaluation is being funded with $70,000 from a private donor. The extension would also allow a better opportunity to provide the outcome data on the program so far, according to staff.

The Ann Arbor city council approved the one-year extension at its Oct. 15 meeting. A staff memo accompanying the county board’s resolution stated that the United Way of Washtenaw County and Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation have already approved the extension, and the Urban County executive committee is expected to vote on it at its Oct. 23 meeting.

Coordinated Funding Program: Public Commentary

Lily Au told commissioners that she hadn’t seen them in a long time, but she reminded them that she had previously attended their meetings and has been working on the issue of coordinated funding for years – she does not support it. She warned them to pay attention to the reallocation or redirection of funds. Usually, it’s related to someone’s personal benefit, she contended. From the beginning, she hasn’t agreed with the coordinated funding approach. She described it as immoral to take public funds and redirect them to private entities like the United Way. She pointed to what she sees as conflicts of interest – when former county commissioner Mark Ouimet served as president of the United Way board, and when the former president of AnnArbor.com did the same. It’s important to uphold integrity in the community, she concluded.

Coordinated Funding Program: Board Discussion

Dan Smith said he wasn’t thrilled with the one-year extension, but he would support it. He was really looking forward to the report that will be ready early next year.

From left: Commissioners Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson and Rob Turner.

Wes Prater and Ronnie Peterson asked several questions about the process. County administrator Verna McDaniel clarified that the extension runs through June 30 of 2014. The board has already approved funding for 2013 – that happened in late 2011, as part of a two-year budget planning cycle. At that time, the board approved a line item of $1.015 million annually for coordinated funding. However, commissioners must take another vote to affirm the 2013 budget, with any modifications they choose to make. That vote will likely occur at their Nov. 7 meeting.

McDaniel told commissioners that at some point in 2013, they’ll be asked to approve additional funding for the coordinated approach for the period of January through June of 2014. The county’s budget is tied to the calendar year, but the city of Ann Arbor’s budget year runs from June 30 through July 1.

Peterson wanted to know how much funding was being committed by other partners. He felt that information should be part of the board’s deliberations. He said that while the county’s funding was set firmly, he believed support from other partners tended to “move.” [Sitting in the audience, Mary Jo Callan – director of the office of community and economic development, which oversees this process – shook her head no, indicating that this wasn't the case.]

Peterson said he wanted to be clear about what the partnership truly  means. He was comfortable voting for the extension, but said that when the evaluation report is finished, he’ll bring forward some of his other concerns.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave initial approval to a one-year extension of the coordinated funding program for human services. A final vote is expected at the board’s Nov. 7 meeting.

Breastfeeding Policy

A policy to reduce barriers to breastfeeding in Washtenaw County facilities was on the agenda for approval at the Oct. 17 meeting. [.pdf of breastfeeding policy] The board had been briefed on the issue at a Sept. 20 working session.

The policy states: “In all County leased and owned buildings and property, and at all County-sponsored meetings, regardless of location, a mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother and her child are otherwise authorized to be.” There will be ”Breastfeeding Friendly” signs installed to promote the policy.

The goal is to promote “health, nutritional, immunologic, developmental, social and economic benefits for infants, mothers, families and communities” that are associated with breastfeeding, according to a staff memo.

Breastfeeding Policy: Public Commentary

Keleigh Lee of Superior Township introduced herself as a board-certified lactation consultant, and she thanked the board for supporting this breastfeeding policy. She has worked with hundreds of women, and many of them face an uphill battle – it’s hard to get started with breastfeeding, she said. So it’s sad to see many women quit doing it. The percentage of women breastfeeding drops from 80% to 15% within six months. She’s happy to see barriers removed, so that women can feel more comfortable breastfeeding.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved the county’s breastfeeding policy.

Apportionment Report

A preliminary apportionment report for Washtenaw County – giving details of the 2012 taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality – was presented to county commissioners at their Oct. 17 meeting. 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.

Raman Patel, Washtenaw County’s equalization director.

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: "Report: Better-Than-Expected '12 Tax Revenue"]

Later in the year – in October or November – the equalization and property description department presents an apportionment report. [.pdf file of 2012 preliminary apportionment report] Like the equalization report, the board is required by state law to vote on adoption of the apportionment report.

This year, all the taxing entities in Washtenaw County will be levying in total about $621.687 million in property taxes – a slight drop from $622 million in 2011 and $639 million in 2010. The county alone will levy about $80.578 million this year, compared to roughly $81 million in 2011 and $83 million in 2010.

The amount of money generated for the city of Ann Arbor through its millages will be increasing, due to the slightly increased valuation in Ann Arbor property values – from a total of 4,634,891,157 in 2011 to  $4,683,218,542 in 2012.

Typically, Raman Patel – the county’s long-time equalization director – makes a presentation to commissioners with highlights from the report. He attended the meeting, but was not asked to address the board.

Apportionment Report: Board Discussion

Dan Smith was the only commissioner to comment on the report. He highlighted the graphic on the report’s back cover – which was included in the paper version that was distributed to commissioners, but not in the electronic version. It showed that of the total amount of taxes levied in 2012 countywide, 52.05% was levied for public education. Smith said he just wanted to point out that fact.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to approve the preliminary 2012 apportionment report.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Camp Take Notice

John Wagner of Ann Arbor spoke during public commentary about Camp Take Notice, reporting that he’s been a volunteer for the homeless community for about two years. He reminded commissioners that the camp had been closed this summer. [The camp had been set up on property owned by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, off of Wagner Road near M-14. This summer, MDOT told residents that they couldn't remain on the land, and the group disbanded from the location in June.]

Wagner said that when the group left the site, there were about 70 members. Of those, about 35 have found housing, and that’s great, he said. But homelessness remains a significant problem, both statewide and in this community. As individuals, people who are homeless feel isolated. There are also safety issues, he noted. The alienation that people feel contributes to chronic homelessness, and doesn’t help an individual get reintegrated into the community. Winter is approaching, Wagner noted, and times are tough. He hoped the county would consider helping find a site – perhaps a county-owned facility – that Camp Take Notice could use to help people through this troublesome time.

Commissioner Rob Turner responded to Wagner’s comments, referencing a recent meeting that he had attended with camp residents at the University of Michigan. [Turner had described this meeting in more detail at the board's Sept. 5, 2012 meeting.] He reported that some commissioners – including Leah Gunn, Yousef Rabhi and himself – had met with camp members and volunteers, county staff and nonprofits that are involved in addressing homelessness, including the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. There was not uniform agreement about an approach, he noted, because the camp’s philosophy differs in some ways from other groups. But there are some areas of agreement, he added, and they’ll be meeting again in November. He described the county board as strong advocates to help the homeless.

Communications & Commentary: Retirement Funds

Rob Turner reported news related to the county’s two retirement benefits boards – for the Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System (WCERS) and the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA), which handles retiree health benefits. The WCERS and VEBA boards had a joint meeting recently to review responses to a request for proposals (RFP) for actuarial services. The two finalists were the current actuary – Gabriel Roeder Smith & Co. (GRS) – and Buck Consultants. Turner said that the Buck proposal was far superior, promising to be more pro-active and aggressive in reporting out the conditions of the funds. It was a unanimous decision, he said.

Commissioners Dan Smith and Alicia Ping.

Turner expressed concern about the fund balances, and looked forward to the county getting into a healthier position.

Wes Prater asked whether the county had received actuarial reports on WCERS and VEBA. County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that GRS had completed a report for WCERS, but the report for VEBA wasn’t yet finished – though it had been due “quite some time ago,” she said. [During a first-quarter budget update to the board in May 2012, Tina Gavalier – the county’s finance analyst – told commissioners that the reports would be completed by summer.] WCERS was 65% funded at the end of 2011.

Turner said the boards were concerned about the unfunded liabilities. He noted that if this were a plan in the private sector, they’d be required to address it. But because it’s a government plan, he said, the rules are different. It’s a big concern, he concluded, and the county needs to get its unfunded liabilities back in line.

Alicia Ping, who was chairing the Oct. 17 meeting, said that Yousef Rabhi would plan a working session on the topic in early 2013 – assuming that he would be re-elected as chair of the working session, she noted. The board elects its officers at its first meeting of 2013.

Communications & Commentary: Sylvan Recount

Rob Turner reported that he had attended the court-ordered recount of a ballot proposal vote for Sylvan Township earlier in the week. The vote ballot question – which was on the Aug. 7 primary ballot – was a proposal for a 20-year, 4.4 mill tax to repay debt on water and sewer bonds. [For more background, see Chronicle coverage: "County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract."]

A recount had been requested following the narrow passage of the millage – 480 yes votes (50.37%) compared to 473 (49.63%) no votes. But during the recount on Sept. 4, the county board of canvassers determined that the ballot seal had not been appropriate and the recount didn’t proceed. That decision was appealed, and on Oct. 3 judge Archie Brown of the 22nd circuit court ruled that a recount could move forward within 21 days. The recount took place on the morning of Oct. 16.

Turner described it as a very interesting process, with no change in the outcome. He said he fully supported the recount, because the issue was festering. Several of his constituents have told him they feel relieved, Turner said, and it looks like the millage will be levied starting with the December 2012 tax bills.

Communications & Commentary:  WATS

Yousef Rabhi gave an update as the board’s liaison to the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS). The board had previously been briefed – at a Sept. 20, 2012 working session – about a WATS policy committee that was looking at the possibility of WATS becoming its own metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Currently, it is part of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) MPO. The committee had decided not to move forward with separation from SEMCOG, he said, so that issue is off the table. He felt it had been productive to discuss, because it had led to progress in capturing SEMCOG’s attention regarding problems that need to be addressed. The county’s concerns will be better represented on a regional scale, he believed.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary. He introduced himself as a write-in candidate for state representative in District 53, which covers Ann Arbor. [Partridge had lost the Aug. 7 Democratic primary to incumbent Jeff Irwin, pulling in 11.53% of the vote.] Partridge advocated for support of affordable and accessible housing, transportation, health care and education, especially for the move vulnerable residents.

Recognitions

There were several formal recognitions made at the Oct. 17 meeting. Here are some highlights.

Barbara Niess May, executive director of the SafeHouse Center.

Recognitions: Domestic Violence Awareness

Felicia Brabec read a resolution that declared October as domestic violence awareness month and recognized SafeHouse Center for its work to help survivors of domestic violence. [.pdf of resolution] The nonprofit’s executive director, Barbara Niess May, was on hand and gave some brief remarks, thanking the board and others who have supported SafeHouse over the years. She told them that the work saves lives, but there are more people that they aren’t yet reaching. She reported that local law enforcement leaders would be convening to unveil a new effort that would improve the response to domestic violence countywide.

Recognitions: Cooperatives

Yousef Rabhi presented a resolution recognizing 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives. The resolution noted that there are several cooperative businesses in the county, including the Inter-Cooperative Council (ICC) of the University of Michigan; Forest Hills Cooperative Housing; Arrowwood Hills Cooperative Housing; Colonial Square Cooperative; Pinelake Village Cooperative; Ann Arbor Cooperative Preschool; Stone School Cooperative Nursery; First United Methodist Cooperative Nursery; University of Michigan Credit Union; Ypsilanti Food Co-op; and the People’s Food Co-op in Ann Arbor.

Gaia Kile, vice president of the board for the People’s Food Co-op, spoke to the board briefly. Cooperatives have been recognized by the United Nations for playing an important role in economic development and in meeting human needs, he said. Because this type of business is values-based and focused on meeting the needs of its members, he said, they are “highly democratic economic institutions.” The hope is to turn cooperatives into the fastest-growing segment of the economy, Kile added, and he thanked the board for the recognition.

Rabhi noted that he used to live in cooperative housing. It changed his life, he said, and because it led him to run for office, he joked that it had changed the lives of other commissioners, too.

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

Absent: Barbara Bergman.

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

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

Currently, criminal misdemeanors are the only penalty that the county can apply for an ordinance violation. The intent of the proposed ordinance is to give the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. The proposed fines would be $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense.

The issue of a civil infractions ordinance was raised most recently in the context of developing a policy for animal control services. Currently, not having a dog license is a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine. Because the penalty is relatively harsh, enforcement is low. County treasurer Catherine McClary had told the board at a February 2011 meeting that she was interested in developing a civil infractions ordinance for dog licensing, with the goal of increasing licensing compliance as a matter of public safety.

McClary and Kirk Tabbey, chief judge of the 14-A District Court, were on hand at the Oct. 17 meeting and answered questions from commissioners about the effort. The 14-A District Court has developed a collections system that the county hopes to use as a model. The ordinance was researched and written by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

Other departments – such as the building department, health department and office of the water resources commissioner – are also interested in applying civil infractions. So the ordinance is written in a general way, and not limited to a specific type of violation.

A final vote is expected at the board’s Nov. 7 meeting. The board set a public hearing on the proposed ordinance for that same meeting.

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]

Leading up to the city administrator’s proposed budget in April, the city council is also holding a series of work sessions on the budget. Their typical scheduling pattern is for the weeks between council meetings. But the work session on the 15th District Court was held just before the council’s Feb. 7, 2011 meeting.

Former city councilmember Chris Easthope was elected in 2008 to serve as a judge on Ann Arbor's 15th District Court. In this photo, Easthope was pointing out other judges, the magistrate and staff of the court, who attended the Feb. 7 work session along with Easthope. (Photo by the writer.)

An hour before the city council’s regular meeting on Feb. 7, 2011, scheduled to start at 7 p.m., councilmembers received a presentation from Chris Easthope on the financial picture for the 15th District Court. The court is funded primarily, but not completely, by the city. Last year, the city’s approved FY 2011 budget for the 15th District Court was $3,776,080, or around 4.5%, of the city’s $81,449,966 general fund budget.

Salaries for the three judges on the court – Easthope, Julie Creal and Elizabeth Hines – are set and paid by the state of Michigan. The judges, along with other key court staff, also attended the work session.

Easthope stressed to councilmembers that he understood the difficult position the council is in, having served on the city council himself. [First elected in 2000 to a Ward 5 seat on the city council, Easthope won a narrow victory in the 2008 race for the 15th District Court judgeship.]

The basic picture Easthope sketched out for the council was of a court that had already reduced its budget – from $4.1 million in FY 2008 to $3.8 million in FY 2011, the current fiscal year. Easthope estimated the needed budget for the court in the next two years at around $3.7 million.

Measures already implemented include optimization of staffing that has allowed a reduction in full-time employees from 40 FTEs four years ago to 32 FTEs today. Easthope also stressed that the court’s probation program, even though it is not mandated by the state, actually saves citizens money, because it offers an alternative to fines (which many defendants aren’t in a financial position to pay anyway) and jail (which may not be the best solution for mentally ill defendants).

Background: What Is the 15th District Court?

Before diving into the budget picture for the court, it’s worth considering: (1) where the 15th District Court fits in the state of Michigan’s court system; (2) what specific kinds of cases the court handles; and (3) the volume of tasks the court handles, including those that are not reflected in its caseload statistics.

Background: State Court System

Michigan uses what it calls a “One Court of Justice” system – there’s one court with various divisions. The main divisions of the One Court:

• Supreme Court [last resort, all decisions final]; number of judges statewide = 7.
• Court of Appeals [handles cases when a party wants a review of a decision that has been made by another court]; the Court of Appeals divides the state into four districts with four sets of seven judges; number of judges statewide = 28.
• Circuit Court [trial court of general jurisdiction, including criminal cases like felonies and certain serious misdemeanors, as well as civil cases involving amounts greater than $25,000];  the individual circuits follow county boundaries, with the number of judges per county set  based on caseload; number of judges statewide = 221.
• Probate Court [handles cases involving wills, trusts, and treatment of mentally ill people]; the geographic parceling out of different individual probate courts mostly follows county boundaries, with some exceptions in northern Michigan, where consolidation has taken place; number of judges statewide = 103.
• District Court [handles all civil claims up to $25,000, including small claims, landlord-tenant disputes, land contract disputes, and civil infractions]; geographically, the number of individual district courts varies by the workload; Washtenaw County, for example has three district courts – 15th District Court for the city of Ann Arbor, 14B District Court for Ypsilanti Township, and the 14A District Court (with four physical venues) for the rest of Washtenaw County; number of judges statewide = 258.

The One Court, across all its divisions, includes more than 600 judges. All three judges from the 15th District Court attended the city council’s budget work session: Chris Easthope, Julie Creal and Elizabeth (Libby) Hines.

Background: Specific Kinds of Cases

The 15th District Court’s docket, which is available online via the Judicial Information System (JIS), gives a more concrete idea of the kind and volume of cases that a district court judge handles. Here’s Easthope’s schedule for three upcoming days, as retrieved from JIS last week and annotated by The Chronicle:

MONDAY 2/14/11
AT 9:00 a.m.
MARIJUANA AA [possession of marijuana; city charter Chapter 16]
UNLICENSED [driving without a license]
DWLS [driving with suspended license]
FLS INFO PO  [giving false information to a police officer]
DWLS [driving with suspended license]
NOISE [noise ordinance violation]
DISORDERLY C [disorderly conduct]
MIP MISD [minor in possession of alcohol]
DISORDERLY C [disorderly conduct]
DWLS [driving with suspended license]
EQUIP VIOL [defective equipment]
NOISE [noise ordinance violation]
DISORDERLY C [disorderly conduct]
EXPIRED LIC [driving with expired license]
MIP MISD [minor in possession of alcohol]
DWLS [driving with suspended license]
NOISE [noise ordinance violation]
NOISE [noise ordinance violation]
OPEN INTOX [opened intoxicants]
NOISE [noise ordinance violation]  

AT 1:30 p.m.
ASSAULT/BATR [assault and battery]

TUESDAY  2/15/11
AT 9:00 a.m.
DISORDERLY, RESISTING [disorderly conduct, resisting arrest]
MIP MISD [minor in possession of alcohol]
OW INTOX [operating while intoxicated]
OPEN INTOX [opened intoxicants]
MIP MISD [minor in possession of alcohol]
DWLS [driving with suspended license]
NOISE [noise ordinance violation]  

AT  10:30 a.m.
OW INTOX [operating while intoxicated]

WEDNESDAY  2/16/11
AT 8:30 a.m.
PARKING VIOL [parking violation]
PARKING VIOL [parking violation]
TRAFFIC DEV [disobeyed traffic device ]
SPEED 1-5 [speeding 1-5 mph over limit]
PROH TURN [making prohibited turn]
FL TO YIELD  [failure to yield]
NO PROOF INS [no proof of insurance]
EXP PLT CI [expired license plate]
SCHOOL BUS [failed to stop for school bus]
IMPR LIGHTS [improper use of lights]
SPEED 1-5 [speeding 1-5 mph over limit]
TRAFFIC SGNL [failure to observe a traffic signal]
SPEED 26-30 [speeding 26-30 mph over the limit]
SPEED 16-20 [speeding 16-20 mph over the limit]
SPEED 1-5 [speeding 1-5 mph over limit]
FL SGNL/OBSV [failure to signal]
PROH TURN [making prohibited turn]
PARKING VIOL [parking violation]
ZONING CI  [zoning civil infraction]
ZONING CI  [zoning civil infraction]
ZONING CI  [zoning civil infraction]
FL STP ASSUR [failure to stop assuring a clear distance]
FL SGNL/OBSV [failure to signal]
FL TO YIELD  [failure to yield]
SPEED 11-15 [speeding 11-15 mph over the limit]
SPEED 11-15 [speeding 11-15 mph over the limit]
TRAFFIC SGNL [failure to observe a traffic signal]
TRAFFIC DEV  [disobeyed traffic device ]
SPEED 6-10 [speeding 6-10 mph over the limit]
SPEED 16-20 [speeding 16-20 mph over the limit]
SPEED 21-25 [speeding 21-25 mph over the limit]
SPEED 1-5 [speeding 1-5 mph over limit]
BASIC SPEED  [violation of basic speed law]
XWY SPD 6-10 [speeding 6-10 mph over limit on expressway]
TRAFFIC SGNL [failure to observe a traffic signal]
PROH TURN [making prohibited turn]
SPEED 1-5 [speeding 1-5 mph over limit] 

AT 9:00 a.m.
TRAFFIC SGNL [failure to observe a traffic signal]

-

Background: Volume of Work – Preliminary Exams

In his Feb. 7 presentation to the city council, Easthope stressed that there’s a category of work that’s not counted for the district court’s caseload statistics, but that is nonetheless a significant additional burden on the courts resources: preliminary examinations conducted for the circuit court.

A preliminary examination is one of the steps in criminal prosecution. A defendant accused of a felony, which will be tried in the circuit court, has the right to such a preliminary exam. But it’s not the circuit court that conducts these hearings – it’s done by the district court. They’re sometimes called “probable cause hearings” because it’s an occasion when the prosecutor must convince the judge that there is at least probable cause to believe the defendant actually committed the crime they’re charged with. So the burden of proof is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” as it would be at trial.

The range of possible decisions a district court judge can make at a preliminary exam includes: (1) sending the defendant to the circuit court to be tried on the charges that have been filed against them; (2) reducing the charges and sending the defendant to whatever court is appropriate; or (3) dismissing the charges.

Council discussion after the presentation drew out the fact that the circuit court provides the physical venue for the preliminary exams, so the cost to the district court is measured in terms of their judges’ time.

Where do preliminary exams fit in the work load for the 15th District Court? Easthope told the council it’s hard to give a specific number, because those numbers are not tracked by the circuit court. He said he estimated that the 15th District Court judges conduct around 1,500 preliminary exams per year.

How does that stack up with the volume of other kinds of cases? [.pdf of caseload stats for 15th District Court 2002-2009] Number-wise, the bulk of the work handled by the court involves traffic offenses. But the estimated 1,500 preliminary examinations per year make up around 13% of the non-traffic cases handled by the court:

15th District Court Total Caseloads
            2007    2008    2009
Civil      6,701   6,683   6,624
Criminal   3,818   3,681   3,640
Traffic   29,988  25,416  20,999
Prelim     1,500   1,500   1,500

-

In Easthope’s presentation, he highlighted the drop in the number of traffic cases handled by the court over the last few years. Since 2006, that number has declined by about one-third.

Budget Reductions: “The budget is the budget”

The presentation from Easthope began on a cheerful note, with Easthope thanking the council for their support in constructing the new municipal center in which the 15th District Court is now housed. He told the council they’d been in their new quarters for two weeks and that he’d picked his first jury in the new facility that very day. Initial reviews indicate that it’s a great facility, he said.

[As a member of the city council at the time, Easthope was among the councilmembers who cast votes that led to the construction of the new municipal center. He's drawn criticism for that, some of it expressed in a comment written on The Chronicle's website last year. The comment drew a sharp emailed response from Easthope to the comment's author, David Cahill, a local attorney and husband of current city councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Easthope CC-ed his email to the city council, other judges, as well as the media. Among other issues he raised, Easthope argued that he could not possibly have known he would be elected as judge in a race that included a four-way primary. After he sent the email, Easthope declined a request from The Chronicle for an interview on the subject.

The funding plan for the municipal center's construction came up a bit later in his Feb. 7 presentation, when Easthope described how the court's current revenue stream feeds into that plan. Specifically, revenue from the $10 fee that the district court can impose on all civil infraction citations is pledged to the city's funding plan for the municipal center. The fee generates between $160,000 and $220,000 a year, Easthope said.]

When Easthope introduced the other judges and staff to the council – Judges Creal and Hines, plus the court’s magistrate Colleen Currie and court administrator, Keith Zeisloft – city administrator Roger Fraser kidded Easthope that he’d forgotten to introduce the little guy who also accompanied him – Easthope’s son. Easthope handled the humor by saying that it was his bodyguard, Aidan Easthope, who specializes in security.

After the opening pleasantries, however, Easthope was down to business, saying “the budget is the budget.” He sketched out the overall budget picture for the council by describing how the budget for the court has decreased over the last few years:

2008: $4,158,000
2009: $4,264,000
2010: $4,093,000
2011: $3,860,000
2012: $3,710,000 [estimated]
2013: $3,784,000 [estimated]

-
Easthope described how the court had implemented various measures to achieve those reductions. Not counting the judges and magistrate, the court now has 32 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, down from 40 FTEs four years ago. Currie, the full-time magistrate, is now also supervisor of the court’s civil division – that move merged what had previously been two full-time jobs and assigned the responsibilities to one person, Easthope said.

The reductions have also been achieved partly through attrition, reassigning tasks and updating technology, Easthope said. The court has reduced court case management staff, who run the court day-to-day, from 14 to 11 positions. The account clerk, senior secretary and court reporters are cross-trained to handle a variety of tasks, he said. He also described how Creal’s court reporter is also the sobriety court’s coordinator – another example of merged jobs.

The last budgeting process, Easthope said, had reduced the pay of court staff. For hourly employees, that had been accomplished by reducing their work hours to 37.5 hours per week. For salaried staff, compensation was reduced by 1.5%, but they continued to work a 40-hour week. Easthope pointed out that judges’ salaries are ultimately not paid by the city – the state reimburses the salaries for judges.

After the work session, Zeisloft followed up with The Chronicle via email with confirmation of much of the data discussed at the work session, plus additional data, including numbers for judges salaries, which are set by state statute. [.pdf of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961]. The formula for setting district judge salaries is based on the salary for Supreme Court justices. Zeisloft calculated the total salary for district judges at around $138,270.

Easthope highlighted how special programs of the 15th District Court – like its street outreach program, its domestic violence program and its sobriety court – were innovative ways to meet the needs of offenders and the larger community. He mentioned that Hines’ street outreach program had recently been featured on the front page of the Detroit Free Press. [The Free Press website currently appears to be in a state of redesign that prevents successful linking to that article, but the program has received play in other media as well, including the American Bar Association Journal: "For Those Teetering on the Edge, Street Outreach Court Offers a Push in the Right Direction"]

Easthope pointed out that one FTE and and three part-time positions at the court are funded by grants. These positions are associated with the domestic violence program, including probation officer David Oblack’s position.

Besides grants and the $10 fee imposed on civil infractions, another revenue source for the court is fines. Easthope described how the implementation of the JIS system had helped with collection  of delinquent fines and fees. Despite the decline in citations over the last decade, improved collections efficiency – including the mailing of monthly statements to offenders – had offset what would have been a more significant decline in revenue. Around $700,000 per year in collections is now attributable to the collections system implemented in 2008, Easthope said. The overall rate of collection is 96-97%, which is better than most collections agencies – not that the court thinks of itself as a collections agency, Easthope added.

Probation Program

The 15th District Court’s probation program offers an alternative for sentencing besides fines or jail – oversight by a probation officer who is assigned to their case. Easthope said that if jail and fines were the only two choices, judges would have few means to deal with defendants who can’t pay (they might be stealing, and got caught, precisely because they have no money), who are mentally ill or who are addicted to drugs.

Easthope acknowledged that the probation program is not mandated by the state. For that reason, he said, it’s often thought of as an easy program to cut. But he described it as “one of the most important things we do.” During questions from the council, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told Easthope he appreciated Easthope’s acknowledgment of the status of the probation program as non-mandated, and wondered if the probation program could be combined with the circuit court’s probation program. Easthope indicated skepticism about that.

Easthope described how the probation program had already reduced its costs by reducing the number of probation support staff. When he first started serving on the 15th District Court’s bench, there were three support staff for probation – now there is just one person, he said. When that person is on break, a clerk or supervisor fills in.

He went on to describe how the probation program’s projected budget for FY 2012 is $532,000. The probation oversight fee of $25/month – charged to those who are on probation – generates between $125,000 and $130,000 per year, which could be subtracted from the $532,000.

At any given time, he said, the three probation officers each have around 150 cases assigned. The annual caseload for the probation program is between 800-900 cases. By way of illustration, the kinds of cases that probation officers monitored in 2010 included: 106 alcohol offenders, 14 suspended license, 96 drunk driving offenders, 105 drug offenders, 255 fraud offenders, 118 property crime offenders, 24 public nuisance offenders, 160 violent crime offenders, and 1 weapons offender.

Among the tasks performed by probation officers are alcohol tests for people who’ve come through the sobriety court – 50 tests a day, said Easthope. [Before winning election to the district court judgeship, Easthope helped conduct volunteer alcohol tests in downtown Ann Arbor on University of Michigan home football games: "Badgers, Breath Tests, Badgers and Buses"]

The bottom line that Easthope suggested for the probation program was this: $7 million of tax money saved – 84,000 jail bed-days at $85 per bed-day.

Courts: Council Comments, Questions – Consolidation?

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked Easthope if the court had yet moved to electronic filing. Derezinski felt that perhaps some cost savings could be realized there. Easthope explained that Judge Donald Shelton – chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court, which includes the Circuit Court – has been working on it. A database implementation issue had slowed that down. [The trial court is funded by the county – Shelton recently briefed county commissioners about restructuring for the court that's aimed at cutting costs and improving services.]

Prompted by a query from Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Easthope described how a municipality can request, based on population, that the state establish a district court and the county would then fund it. But the 15th District Court for the city of Ann Arbor and the 14B District Court for Ypsilanti Township are self-funded by their respective municipalities, Easthope explained. Given the seven judges and six courthouses for district courts in Washtenaw County, he said, he felt there is room to consolidate and to make physical changes. The state law would, however, need to be amended, and each municipality with a court – Chelsea, Ypsilanti, Saline and Pittsfield Township– would need to sit down and agree to make a physical change.

Easthope then took a step back from Washtenaw County to look at the picture statewide for judgeships. In the next 10 years, he said, 200 judges will become ineligible to run – the Michigan Constitution prohibits candidates from running who are more than 70 years old. The Judicial Crossroads Task Force of the Michigan State Bar, said Easthope, has just issued a report suggesting that the number of judges statewide could be reduced. So Easthope felt there could be significant changes to the number of judges. It’s ultimately determined by the legislature.

In Washtenaw County, there’s the ability to talk about consolidating physical locations, security and transport, Easthope said. But the state needs to be involved, he said – it can’t be done unilaterally. Hohnke ventured that it might be a daunting effort at regional cooperation, but that it might result in savings down the line. Easthope said he felt like it was, in fact, daunting, but that he told people he thinks consolidation is going to happen. Instead of “hiding under the last rock,” he suggested, we might as well step up now with our ideas.

Easthope and Hohnke agreed that even if it was county taxes that wound up getting saved, city taxpayers would benefit, because they also pay county taxes.

Easthope sketched out a vision where some other district court physical facilities could be closed, and those courts could instead use new city of Ann Arbor space. The two new district court facilities in the county – 15th District Court and 14A-1, on the same campus as the newly expanded county jail – could accommodate all of the county’s district courts, Easthope suggested. That would significantly reduce transport, security and staffing costs, he said.

Bottom Line for Courts

Easthope wrapped up the work session by again expressing the sentiment that he understood the council’s situation in evaluating the budget. He described a recent email he’d sent to the council as perhaps a little “terse” – he’d been reacting to the results of a priority-setting exercise the council had completed in preparation for one of its budget retreats. The court had come in next-to-last on the priority list of 12 service areas, with a 1.8 average score on a three-point scale – a 3 being the highest. Just above the 15th District Court on the ranking was parks and recreation.

Easthope said that on reflecting about that ranking, he thought maybe it was a good result – the court was doing its job well enough that the council didn’t think about the court that much, so maybe it wasn’t all that bad to be ranked below cutting the grass.

Easthope stressed that the court understands the need for budget reduction targets, but said that it would be difficult for the court to meet those targets. [The base-line reduction target for all departments is 2.5%.] Easthope said he could not at this point say what specific areas they would identify in order to meet the target. He said he remembered how as a city councilmember he’d listen every year to people say, “It’s going to be difficult to make our target,” and then confirmed, “It’s going to be difficult to make our target.”

He said that the court is always looking to cut and to be better. With the new facility, there are a lot of changes they might be able to implement. There are a lot of changes countywide they might be able to implement in the long term, but he cautioned that it would require a conversation between the 15th District Court, the other district courts in the county, and the state.