From left: Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2), county treasurer Catherine McClary, and commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9). The treasurer’s office is instrumental in a new approach to helping local municipalities pay off bonds backed by the county, which received initial approval on Sept. 18. (Photos by the writer.)

Even so, a wide range of resolutions were passed – mostly with no discussion. The absence of three commissioners also led to non-votes on two items originally on the agenda, out of concern that there would not be sufficient support to pass them.

During the meeting, the board postponed a final vote on a countywide micro loan program for small business. Under the county board rules, a resolution requires votes from “a majority of the members elected and serving” in order to pass – that is, five votes. Supporters of the resolution weren’t certain they could achieve that number. A resolution regarding the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law had been pulled from the agenda earlier in the day for the same reason.

Opponents of the “Stand Your Ground” resolution – which called on the state legislature to repeal the law enacted in 2006 – had been expected to appear at the meeting in force, prompting county administration to add extra security. However, after the resolution was pulled, only a handful of people attended to speak against it, as did one supporter.

In another resolution that addressed a statewide issue, commissioners voted to direct staff to explore options – including possible legal action – to help set cleanup criteria in Michigan for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane. In part, the item relates to a 1,4 dioxane plume stemming from contaminants at the former Gelman Sciences plant, west of Ann Arbor.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) stated “present” during that vote, rather than voting for or against the resolution – because board rules do not allow for abstention. After the meeting, corporation counsel Curt Hedger told The Chronicle that he’d be looking at the board rules to determine how Smith’s vote will be recorded. Hedger pointed out that the resolution needed five votes to pass, which it garnered even without Smith’s vote.

Commissioners also gave initial approval for a new approach to paying off debt incurred from bonding – typically for public works projects in local municipalities. The proposal would allow local units of government to repay bonds early via the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund (DTRF), which is administered by the county treasurer. The intent is to reduce interest rate payments and the county’s debt burden. In a related resolution, commissioners gave initial approval to restructuring debt held by Bridgewater Township, using this new approach.

Several items that received initial approval at the board’s previous meeting on Sept. 4 were passed in a final vote on Sept. 18 with minimal discussion, including: (1) strengthening the county’s affirmative action plan, as well as other nondiscrimination in employment-related policies; (2) authorizing a range of grants administered by the county’s office of community & economic development, as well as a resolution that would give blanket approval in the future to nearly 30 annual entitlement grants received by the county; (3) adding three new full-time jobs for stewardship of the county nature preserves; (4) adding a new 10-bed treatment program for female teens in the county’s youth center that will create a net increase of 5.46 jobs; and (5) budgets for the county’s public health and community support & treatment service (CSTS) departments.

And after postponing action on Sept. 4, the board voted to create a 13-member community advisory group to look at options for the county-owned Platt Road site in Ann Arbor. The Sept. 18 resolution was much more general in its direction than the one that was debated on Sept. 4, stripping out most of the details related to a previous focus on affordable housing.

Also on Sept. 18 as an item of communication, Yousef Rabhi updated the board on plans to fill a vacancy on the county road commission, which will result from the recent appointment of current road commissioner Ken Schwartz as Superior Township supervisor. Applications for the road commissioner job are being accepted until Sept. 25, with the county board likely making an appointment at its Oct. 2 meeting.

1,4 Dioxane Cleanup

A resolution on the Sept. 18 agenda gave direction to the county staff to explore options – including possible legal action – to help set cleanup criteria for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in Michigan.

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume, by Washtenaw County. Black arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park. The yellow region is the estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb. That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

In addition to its broader implications, the resolution is meant to address the 1,4 dioxane plume stemming from contaminants at the former Gelman Sciences plant in Scio Township, which is now closed. [.pdf of county resolution]

The Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution on Sept. 3, 2013 related to the 1,4-dioxane issue. However, the city council resolution makes no mention of legal action.

In contrast, the resolution passed by county commissioners includes passage that:

…directs the County Administrator, Corporation Counsel and other appropriate county staff to work in collaboration with the County Water Resources Commissioner to explore other actions available to the County, including but not limited to legal action, meeting with and petitioning the MDEQ and EPA to aid in setting appropriate cleanup criteria for 1,4-dioxane in Michigan, including the Pall-Gelman plume and without site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume and to cooperate with other local units of government to ensure protection of public health and the environment; …

The history of Gelman Sciences and its 1,4-dioxane contamination goes back 40 years. The company was based in Scio Township and later acquired by Pall Corp. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb.

The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for December 2013.

There was no board discussion on this item.

Outcome: Five commissioners voted in support of this resolution, so the resolution passed. When his name was called in the roll-call vote, Dan Smith (R-District 2) responded by saying “Present.” Three commissioners – Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – were absent.

Responding to queries from The Chronicle after the meeting, Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office – who is responsible for recording votes and keeping the board’s official minutes – indicated that he would need to consult with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger about how to record Smith’s response. Hedger told The Chronicle that he would be looking into the question.

The board rules – adopted on Jan. 2, 2013 – state, in relevant part:

O. VOTING:
Every member who shall be present, including the Chair, when a motion is last stated by the Chair, and no other, shall vote for or against the motion unless the member has a conflict of interest, in which case the member shall not vote.

Dan Smith has been an advocate for allowing board members to abstain on certain votes. He was successful in adding a new rule in February 2012 that stated: “Commissioners may abstain from voting on resolutions that express support or opposition and otherwise take no action.” The question of abstaining from votes has related primarily to resolutions on state or federal issues, over which the county board has no control.

However, the composition of the board changed in the November 2012 elections, which also reflected redistricting that decreased the number of commissioners on the board from 11 to 9. And on Jan. 2, 2013, Conan Smith proposed an amendment to delete the rule that allowed commissioners to abstain. After debating the issue, the board voted 5-4 in favor of Conan Smith’s amendment – so abstaining from a vote is no longer allowed.

New Approach to Bond Debt

A proposal for a new way to pay off debt incurred from bonding – typically for public works projects in local municipalities – was on the Sept. 18 agenda for initial approval. The proposal would allow local units of government to repay bonds early via the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund (DTRF), which is administered by the county treasurer. The intent is to reduce interest rate payments while posing no financial risk to the county, according to a staff memo.

The maximum amount of the advance would be $1 million, with a term of 10 years or less. The action would require approval by both the treasurer and the board of commissioners. Several other criteria for using a DTRF advance are proposed:

• The approval of an advance would be considered only for the county’s own indebtedness, and would result in a reduction in the County’s bonded indebtedness.
• The local unit receiving the benefit agrees to contribute at least 10% of the outstanding principal amount of the debt toward the reduction of the bonded debt and to amend its contractual agreement with the county to include a new payment schedule and new interest rate(s).
• A refunding bond analysis must be performed to examine the potential for savings by selling refunding bonds.
• The estimated cost of issuance for a refunding bond is 25% or greater than the estimated interest savings from the refunding bond sale.
• The local unit has a bond rating in the top two tiers of a standard rating service, or if the local unit is too small to warrant a rating, a review of the most recent audit of the local unit shows that they are not experiencing fiscal stress.
• The interest rate of the advance will be determined by the county treasurer and will exceed the rate of return received by the county treasurer in her/his pooled accounts.
• The amended contract with the local unit will provide a process by which the county treasurer can adjust the interest rate.

In a related resolution, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to restructuring debt held by Bridgewater Township. The township owes $585,000 on $1.095 million in bonds issued in 2004 to fund a sewer system. County treasurer Catherine McClary has agreed to lend the township money to pay off the bonds. The township will repay the treasurer’s office at a lower interest rate than it was paying for the bond debt, which was averaging 4.1%. The rate will provide a greater rate of return than the treasurer is currently getting on investments, according to a staff memo.

The amount of the advance from the treasurer’s office is $430,000, loaned to Bridgewater Township over nine years at a starting interest rate of 2%. The township will use an additional $172,000 to pay down the existing principal on its bond debt. The transaction will cost about $6,000 in legal fees, which the township will pay. [.pdf of staff memo on Bridgewater Township debt]

New Approach to Bond Debt: Board Discussion

Deliberations were brief. Regarding the broad policy resolution, Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that every year, the county’s auditor tells the board that an audit means something very specific. So Smith proposed amending out the phrase “the most recent audit” and substituting in the phrase “recent financial reports.” It was considered a friendly amendment.

Ron Smith, Bridgewater Township supervisor, received a round of applause from commissioners for his work on a new approach to paying off debt.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked everyone involved in developing this proposal. It’s a very creative way of reducing the county’s debt as well as the debt load for other local units of government.

He thanked the officials of Bridgewater Township for their leadership, as well as county treasurer Catherine McClary, public works director Dan Myers, and water resources commissioner Evan Pratt. Rabhi noted that this proposal was reviewed at length at the board of public works, on which he serves.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) also thanked staff and officials for their work. She noted that sometimes the out-county townships don’t feel that they get a lot of attention or service from the county. “This is one way that the county is able to step up and help out,” Ping said.

Outcome: Both resolutions were unanimously given initial approval, to be considered for a final vote on Oct. 2.

Platt Road Advisory Committee

After postponing action at its Sept. 4, 2013 meeting, commissioners considered a new resolution on Sept. 18 to create a 13-member advisory group to look at options for the county-owned Platt Road site in Ann Arbor, where the old juvenile center was located.

The original resolution brought forward on Sept. 4 was developed with guidance from commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who represents the district where the property is located. It called for a nine-member committee with the following composition:

• 2 county commissioners
• 1 Ann Arbor city councilmember
• 2 residents from the adjacent neighborhood
• The executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission [Jennifer L. Hall]
• The director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation [Bob Tetens]
• The director of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development [Mary Jo Callan]
• The Washtenaw County infrastructure management director [Greg Dill]

During deliberations on Sept. 4, the committee structure was amended to include four additional Washtenaw County residents, including at least one with real estate experience.

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

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) talks with Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The resolution also set a deadline of Dec. 31, 2013 for the committee to deliver its analysis and recommendations to the board. [.pdf of substitute resolution]

Platt Road Advisory Committee: Board Discussion

There was scant comment on this item. Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked LaBarre for the new resolution, saying that it reflected the concerns that had been raised on Sept. 4.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

The appointments to this committee have not yet been made. In conversation with The Chronicle after the Sept. 18 meeting, LaBarre and Rabhi indicated that they were in the process of identifying possible participants. It’s unclear whether the appointments will be made by Rabhi, as board chair, or whether he will nominate members to be confirmed by the board as a whole. The resolution indicates that the appointments will be made directly by the board chair. This differs from the typical appointment process, which entails nominations by the chair, followed by a confirmation vote of the board.

Non-Discrimination Policy

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to reaffirm and update the county’s affirmative action plan, as well as other nondiscrimination in employment-related policies. [.pdf of staff memo and policies] The primary change adds a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

During public commentary on Sept. 4 – when an initial vote was taken – community activist Jim Toy and Jason Morgan, a board member of the Jim Toy Community Center, had spoken in support of the changes. No one from the public addressed the issue during the Sept. 18 meeting.

The resolution’s three resolved clauses state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners reaffirms its intent to prohibit discrimination in Washtenaw County against any person in recruitment, certification, appointment, retention, promotion, training and discipline on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, national origin, age, handicap, veteran status, marital status, height, weight, religion and political belief.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners shall strive to promote a workforce that welcomes and honors all persons and that provides equal opportunity in employment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs the Human Resources / Labor Relations Director to update the Affirmative Action Plan, as well as policies Prohibiting Discrimination in Employment, Sexual Harassment, and the County’s Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity to reflect the Boards commitment and reaffirmation described herein.

Non-Discrimination Policy: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) made a minor amendment, which was accepted as friendly, to add in the word “sex” in the list of categories that cannot be discriminated against. He said it had been inadvertently edited out in the initial resolution.

Outcome: Changes to the non-discrimination policy were given final approval in a unanimous vote.

Change to Grant Approval Process

On the Sept. 18 was resolution that gives blanket approval in the future to nearly 30 annual entitlement grants received by the county totaling an estimated $8.8 million, beginning in 2014. Currently, each of those grants requires separate annual approval by the board. The item – one of several resolutions related to the office of community & economic development, which administers these grants – had been given initial approval on Sept. 4, 2013.

According to a staff memo, the entitlement grants are awarded on a reoccurring basis based on pre-existing state or federal allocation formulas. They require board approval as individual items, which “ends up consuming a significant portion of Board and staff time throughout a given year, as formula grants are on a variety of different fiscal years, and are awarded at several different points throughout the year. Furthermore, the piecemeal nature of the resolutions does not provide a holistic overview of the continuum of services provided to the community by OCED,” the memo states. [.pdf of staff memo regarding blanket grant approval]

There are several categories of grants that will continue to require a board vote, even with this blanket approval. Those categories include:

• competitive grants;
• grants that are not based on pre-established federal or state funding formulas or entitlement formulas;
• new grants, or ones that have not been previously awarded to or administered by OCED;
• grants that would require a county general fund appropriation in excess of the amount approved by the county board in the budget;
• grants that would require a change in OCED position control;
• grants more than $100,000 or 10% more than the anticipated amount, whichever is greater.

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to authorize blanket approval for entitlement grants.

Federal & State Grants: Office of Community & Economic Development

Several items on the Sept. 18 agenda related to funding for programs managed by the county’s office of community & economic development, totaling nearly $2 million. They had been given initial approval on Sept. 4:

• $88,263 from the federal dislocated worker training (DWT) national emergency grant [.pdf of staff memo for DWT grant]
• $16,277 in federal funding for the Michigan Works! Service Center Operations [.pdf of staff memo for Michigan Works funding]
• $50,000 in federal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) employer-based training foundation funding [.pdf of staff memo for TAA funding]
• $287,860 in federal Dept. of Energy weatherization funding [.pdf of staff memo for weatherization funds]
• $274,792 in federal Emergency Solutions Grant funding. The total program budget is $412,188, which includes $137,396 of in-kind matching contributions. The program supports the Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC) partnership between Salvation Army, the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County and the Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County. [.pdf of ESG staff memo]
• $516,156 in federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds [.pdf of CSBG staff memo]
• $21,828 in discretionary funds from the federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) to provide free income-tax preparation for low-income residents [.pdf of discretionary CSBG staff memo]
• $703,214 in federal funding for a senior nutrition program, with a total budget of $873,372. Additional funding comes from a USDA reimbursement of $100,001 and in-kind contributions of $70,157. [.pdf of senior nutrition memo]

There was no discussion on any of these items.

Outcome: All resolutions related to these grants were given final approval.

Staff for Natural Areas Stewardship

Final approval authorizing three new full-time jobs for stewardship of Washtenaw County’s nature preserves was on the Sept. 18 agenda.

Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

The positions include: (1) a park laborer with a salary range of $31,507 to $41,766; (2) a park associate/principle planner with a salary range of $40,253 to $61,195; and (3) a stewardship coordinator, with a salary range of $43,373 to $56,586.

The additional jobs reflect a change approved by the county board nearly a year ago. At their Sept. 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners voted to amend the Natural Areas Ordinance No. 128, which established the county’s natural areas preservation program in 2000. The change removed a previous restriction that only 7% of millage funds could be used for management or stewardship. The goal was to use $600,000 per year for management and stewardship. Of that, roughly $240,000 would be used for ongoing stewardship activities, and $360,000 would remain to be invested in a dedicated reserve for long-term land stewardship.

According to a staff memo, the county’s parks system manages more than 4,500 acres of land in 13 parks and 22 preserves. In addition to the 556 acres of property already “actively” managed in the nature preserves, the staff also have active stewardship responsibilities for another 372 acres of prime natural areas within the county parks system. Overall, staff has identified 1,868 acres – or roughly 42% of the system’s current total acreage – as core conservation areas.

Funding for these new positions would be paid for entirely from the countywide natural areas millage, which was initially approved by voters in 2000 and renewed in 2010. The current 0.2409 mill tax raises roughly $3.5 million in annual revenues, and runs through 2021.

There was no discussion among commissioners about this item.

Outcome: Final approval was given to create these stewardship jobs.

CSTS Budget

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to the 2013-14 budget for the community support and treatment service (CSTS) department, from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The $34.96 million budget includes $29.598 million in revenue from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), which contracts with CSTS to provide services for people who are mentally ill and developmentally disabled. Other revenue comes from the Haarer bequest ($165,192), a contract with the county sheriff’s office ($246,846), smaller contracts with other entities, and fee-for-service billing. [.pdf of CSTS budget]

The budget calls for putting six full-time positions and two part-time jobs on “hold vacant” status. Those positions are currently unfilled.

The resolution also authorized county administrator Verna McDaniel to approve a service agreement with the WCHO, which is a separate nonprofit that’s a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System.

Initial approval was given on Sept. 4, and there was no discussion about this item on Sept. 18.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the CSTS 2013-14 budget.

Public Health Budget

The Sept. 18 agenda included a resolution giving final approval to the public health department’s $10.796 million budget for 2013-14, from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The budget includes $3.553 million in an appropriation from the county’s general fund, and $243,226 from the department’s fund balance. [.pdf of staff memo regarding public health budget]

As part of the budget, the public health department is proposing a net increase of 1.5 full-time equivalent positions. That results from eliminating 4.5 FTEs and creating 6 new positions. In addition, 5 positions will be put on “hold vacant” status, effective Oct. 1.

The resolution also included a proposed fee schedule for vaccines and clinic visits. [.pdf of proposed fee schedule] The minimum fee is proposed to be raised from $30 to $40.

There was no discussion of this item. Initial approval had been given on Sept. 4.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave final approval to the public health budget and fee schedule.

Trial Court Child Care Fund

The board was asked to give final approval to 2013-2014 state child care fund expenditures of $9,425,785 for the trial court’s juvenile division and county dept. of human services. About half of that amount ($4,712,892) will be eligible for reimbursement from the state. [.pdf of budget summary]

According to a staff memo, the child care fund is a joint effort between state and county governments to fund programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth. Part of this year’s funding will support a new 10-bed treatment program that will be housed in the county’s youth center facility, opening in November of 2013. From the staff memo:

The treatment program in its initial phase will exclusively provide treatment services to females aged 12-17 using an integrated therapeutic treatment model. The program will offer a short-term 90 day option as well as a 6 to 9 month long-term treatment option. The second phase of treatment programming will expand services to males aged 12-17.

The new program is expected to generate revenue from out-of-county treatment referrals.

The expenditures will result in a net increase of 5.46 jobs. A total of 10.46 full-time equivalent positions will be created, and 5 FTEs will be eliminated.

Commissioners did not discuss this item, which had been given initial approval on Sept. 4.

Outcome: The board gave final approval to the trial court child care fund.

Stand Your Ground Repeal

A resolution urging the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s “Stand Your Ground” law was part of the Sept. 18 online agenda that had been posted on the county’s website on Friday, Sept. 13. But in a phone conversation with The Chronicle on the morning of Sept. 18, board chair Yousef Rabhi confirmed that he had decided to pull the resolution from the Sept. 18 meeting agenda.

Rabhi expected that at least two commissioners on the 9-member board – Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) – would be absent. [It turned out that Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) also did not attend the meeting.] And Rabhi expected that three other commissioners would vote against the resolution. Because of that, it would likely only garner four votes in support. Under the county board rules, a resolution requires votes from “a majority of the members elected and serving” in order to pass. With an anticipated 4-3 vote, it would fall short of achieving the 5-vote majority needed.

The resolution urged state legislators and Gov. Rick Snyder to repeal Public Act 309 of 2006 and Public Act 319 of 1990, and “to adopt common-sense gun regulations such as improved background checks, strengthened gun-free zones, and limits on the sale of high-capacity magazines.” [.pdf of proposed resolution originally on the Sept. 18 agenda]

A few opponents of a resolution to repeal the Michigan “Stand Your Ground” law attended the Washtenaw County board’s Sept. 18 meeting.

It was similar to a resolution passed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 8, 2013. Activists have been calling for the repeal in the wake of a Florida verdict in the Trayvon Martin case that was handed down in mid-July. Three people had spoken at the county board’s Sept. 4 meeting, urging commissioners to take action.

However, opponents rallied after hearing about the proposed resolution. Michigan Open Carry Inc., an advocacy group based in Lansing, encouraged people who live near Ann Arbor to attend the Sept. 18 meeting and protest the resolution. A post on the group’s Facebook page stated: “We understand the County Building does not contain a court, but we have not verified this. If it is indeed not a court, open or concealed carry would be lawful and the county building would be covered under preemption.” There is no court in the building where county commissioners hold their meetings, at 220 N. Main St. in downtown Ann Arbor.

There were reports that buses would be transporting protesters to the meeting, and the county administration ordered extra security. Two sheriff’s deputies were on hand before the start of the meeting, as was an Ann Arbor police officer, whose patrol car was parked in front of the county administration building.

Having heard about the decision to pull the resolution off the agenda – the county administration posted a notice on its website earlier in the day – only a few opponents showed up to the meeting.

Stand Your Ground Repeal: Public Commentary

A resident from Manchester told commissioners that research by John Lott and others shows that when there are more responsible gun owners, there is a decrease in crime. Just the mere presence of a weapon can be a deterrent, he said, adding that he speaks from first-hand experience in Detroit. The resolution proposed by county commissioners isn’t in the best interest of the public, he said, and he urged them to vote against it.

George Lawrence of Whitmore Lake asked when the resolution would be brought back for a vote. Alicia Ping (R-District 3), who was chairing the ways & means committee meeting, indicated that it’s unclear when that will happen. “Don’t bring it back,” Lawrence told the board.

Robert Dick disputed some of the claims made in the resolution. It states that “Stand Your Ground” laws increase murder rates, but he pointed to a substantial decrease in murders since 2006, when the Michigan law was enacted. He provided a handout to commissioners with an analysis relevant to the issue, saying that after they read it, they might not be as happy to have their names associated with the resolution.

A resident of Lodi Township disputed the resolution’s assertion that Michigan’s “Stand Your Ground” law puts an unreasonable burden on prosecutors. He said that if Michigan repeals the law, the criminal justice system will operate on the “duty to retreat” legal doctrine, which he argued violates civil and constitutional rights. “Duty to retreat” also imperils citizens, he said, because it mandates that a citizen give ground to an attacker, “elevating the criminal’s rights above the victim’s rights.” It also denies the victim’s rights to be or remain in any legal location, he said. Therefore, the “duty to retreat” doctrine violates a citizen’s 14th Amendment rights to life, liberty and equal protection under the law.

“Duty to retreat” also requires citizens to tell police, prosecutors and juries why the fear of imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault was honest and reasonable, which violates a citizen’s 5th Amendment right to remain silent, he said. It also assumes a citizen is guilty until proven innocent, which violates the 4th Amendment right to due process. He argued that “duty to retreat” endangers citizens, if they have to pause and evaluate possible escape routes rather than focusing on how to survive an attack. If the victim does survive the attack, they’ll find themselves attacked later by the prosecutor. “Duty to retreat” adds insult to injury, he said, but Michigan corrected that injustice with a “stand your ground” law. He urged commissioners not to cede the public square to violent criminals, nor to ask Michigan to violate its citizens’ rights.

Judy Bonnell-Wenzel of Ann Arbor was the only person who spoke in support of the resolution on Sept. 18. By and large, she said, it’s the color of your skin that makes people think they should be afraid of you. Unfortunately in America, “there’s something in the air” that needs to be eradicated from our collective psyche, she said, “and that is racism.”

Stand Your Ground Repeal: Commissioner Follow-Up

Every agenda includes a slot for commissioner follow-up to public commentary. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked Judy Bonnell-Wenzel for coming to the meeting and speaking out. He said she’s a constituent of his and someone he’s known for several years, who is active in a lot of causes that he believes in.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also thanked Bonnell-Wenzel as well as all the other residents who’d come to the meeting. It’s always good to hear from citizens on any issue, he said. Rabhi clarified that the “Stand Your Ground” resolution had been removed from the agenda and therefore wouldn’t be debated during the meeting.

It’s unclear when the item will be brought forward again. Initially, Rabhi had indicated that he would put the resolution on the Oct. 2 agenda. However, that night the board will be presented with a draft budget for 2014-2017, which is expected to be the focus of the meeting.

Micro Loan Program for Small Business

The Sept. 18 agenda included a resolution on a new countywide micro loan program for small businesses. The item had received initial approval on Sept. 4, 2013, and was on the agenda for a final vote on Sept. 18.

Commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

The resolution would authorize the county’s office of community & economic development to contract with the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development to manage this program. CEED already handles a smaller micro loan program focused on the eastern side of the county. [.pdf of CEED micro loan proposal]

Micro loans would range from $500 to $50,000, for businesses that can’t get conventional financing. CEED has a $5 million borrowing capacity from the U.S. Small Business Administration, and expects to make $300,000 in micro loans in the next two years in Washtenaw County. The county would provide $45,000 out of revenues from levying the Act 88 millage. Of that amount, $35,000 would be used to seed a loan loss reserve fund and $10,000 would be designated for initial operating costs.

To be eligible for a micro loan, businesses must be based in Washtenaw County and have been turned down by two financial institutions for loans over $20,000. Other requirements include: (1) a business plan for businesses that are less than 3 years old; (2) a marketing plan for businesses that are 3 years or older; (3) two years of financial statements and tax returns; and (4) a personal financial statement.

The county is allowed to levy up to 0.5 mills under Public Act 88 of 1913, but currently levies a small percentage of that – 0.06 mills, which will bring in $696,000 this year. It’s used for programs run by the county’s office of community & economic development, and to fund the county’s MSU extension office. Act 88 does not require voter approval. It was originally authorized by the county in 2009 at a rate of 0.04 mills, and was increased to 0.043 mills in 2010 and 0.05 in 2011.

Last year, Conan Smith (D-District 9) of Ann Arbor proposed increasing the rate to 0.06 mills and after a heated debate, the board approved the increase on a 6-5 vote. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates, OKs Act 88 Tax Hike."] Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a projected $3.9 million budget deficit in 2014. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options."]

The county has identified economic development as one of its main budget priorities.

Micro Loan Program for Small Business: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) made a motion to postpone the item until the board’s Oct. 2 meeting.

He did not state a reason during the meeting and there was no discussion on the item.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to postpone a final vote on the micro loan program until Oct. 2.

When queried after the meeting by The Chronicle, LaBarre indicated that with three commissioners absent – Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – it was unclear whether there were sufficient votes to pass the measure. Under the county board rules, a resolution requires votes from “a majority of the members elected and serving” in order to pass – that is, five votes. The resolution regarding the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law had been pulled from the agenda for the same reason.

When an initial vote was taken on Sept. 4, Dan Smith (R-District 2) had cast the only dissenting vote against this program. He objects to using taxpayer dollars for a program where funds are allocated without the opportunity for input at public meetings, and believes there are other avenues that small businesses can use for financing.

Hearing for Indigent Veterans Services Tax Hike

No one spoke at a public hearing held on Sept. 18 to get input on a proposed increase to the Washtenaw County tax that supports services for indigent veterans and their families.

The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. The new proposed rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues.

The county is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a nearly $4 million projected budget deficit in 2014. See Chronicle coverage: “County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options.”

The board will likely take an initial vote on this tax increase at its Oct. 2 meeting.

Appointments

There was one appointment on the Sept. 18 agenda: April Baranek, representing Washtenaw County on the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office (SEMREO) Community Alliance for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) for making the nomination. He described the alliance as a collaboration of six local units of government that work together on energy financing for local government projects and for community energy-efficiency projects. It took a long time to create the alliance, he said. The bylaws had to be reviewed by the state attorney general’s office and authorized by the governor’s office, which happened over the summer. He felt that the alliance would do great work.

Outcome: The appointment of April Baranek was approved unanimously.

By way of background, this alliance dates back to 2010. The county board voted initially to join the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office (SEMREO) – a separate entity from the SEMREO Community Alliance – at its March 17, 2010 meeting. At the time, SEMREO was a division of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, a Ferndale-based nonprofit that’s led by Conan Smith. Smith abstained from the March 17, 2010 vote, following conflict-of-interest concerns raised by other commissioners. SEMREO later split off from the Michigan Suburbs Alliance as a separate organization, but Smith serves on its board of directors.

Washtenaw County became involved in the SEMREO Community Alliance in 2011. On Aug. 3, 2011, the county board voted to join the SEMREO Community Alliance and approved the original interlocal agreement. The alliance was created in order to pursue certain grant funding that’s not available to municipalities directly. It includes six partners: Washtenaw County, and the cities of Lathrup Village (in Oakland County); Sterling Heights and Roseville (in Macomb County); and Lincoln Park and Southgate (in Wayne County). [.pdf of original interlocal agreement] Smith was absent from the Aug. 3, 2011 meeting when the Washtenaw County board voted to join the alliance.

At the county board’s Feb. 6, 2013 meeting, Smith was also absent for the vote to amend the SEMREO Community Alliance interlocal agreement, arriving at the meeting after the vote had been taken. However, he asked the board if he could record affirmative votes for all items that he had missed – which included the SEMREO Community Alliance item. None of the other commissioners objected.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Road Commission

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) for an update on the Washtenaw County road commission.

Rabhi reported that Ken Schwartz, a former county commissioner who currently serves as one of the three county road commissioners, has been appointed by the Superior Township’s board of trustees to replace former supervisor Bill McFarlane, who resigned recently because of health issues. The appointment was made at the township board’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting.

According to a post on the township’s website, Schwartz’s term as supervisor begins Oct. 1 and ends at noon on Nov. 20, 2014. The elected office will be on the ballot for the August 2014 primary and the November 2014 general election.

Although the township notice indicates that trustees had interviewed three candidates – Schwartz, current trustee Alexander Williams, and Evert Van Raden – the decision to appoint Schwartz had been anticipated. In an email sent to county commissioners on Sept. 6, Rabhi wrote that he had directed staff to prepare a notice for the potentially vacant seat on the road commission, if Schwartz were appointed supervisor. [.pdf of Rabhi's email] That notice was posted on the county’s website on Sept. 17.

Applications for the road commissioner job are being accepted until Sept. 25, 2013, with the county board likely making an appointment at its Oct. 2 meeting. The position would be for the remainder of a six-year term, through Dec. 31, 2018. Applications – including a letter of interest and resume, with a home address – should be sent to Peter Simms of the county clerk’s office, P.O. Box 8645, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107. Applications can also be submitted via email to simmsp@ewashtenaw.org, or via fax to 734-222-6528.

In his Sept. 6 email, Rabhi indicated that several members of the community had already expressed interest in the road commissioner job, and that he had received one formal letter of interest. He wrote: “I urge you to keep an open mind and give each qualified candidate that applies full consideration.”

Other current road commissioners are Doug Fuller and Fred Veigel, who also is a member of the county’s parks & recreation commission. The salary for road commissioners, which is set by the county board, is $10,500 annually.

At the Sept. 18 county board meeting, Rabhi said he hoped to bring forward a nomination at the board’s Oct. 2 meeting.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked whether the board was definitely going to fill the vacancy. Rabhi said he’d like to replace Schwartz, and didn’t think that would preclude the board from discussing whether to expand the number of road commissioners or absorb the road commission into the county operations. “But I’d like to view that as a separate process,” Rabhi said.

Dan Smith suggested talking about this more at length when the vacancy is actually in effect – after Oct. 1. However, he said, he’d be a little concerned about confirming someone to fill a partial term that’s more than three years, without more clarity about the board’s future direction regarding the road commission.

Conan Smith wondered what the process would be for commissioners to ask questions of the candidates. Rabhi suggested contacting the candidates directly.

Communications & Commentary: Hiring Freeze

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Doug Smith reminded commissioners that at their Sept. 5, 2013 working session, he had urged the county to implement a hiring freeze until Jan. 1, 2014. He said he’d also asked commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) to put an item on the Sept. 18 agenda about that issue for discussion, “but she apparently has decided not to do that.” [Brabec was absent from the Sept. 18 meeting.]

From left: Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) and Doug Smith.

Vacancies don’t need to be filled before Jan. 1, he said – it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do. He has a friend who works for the county, who told him that her supervisor wants to fill all the vacancies in the department before Jan. 1 “because it would be unfair to the new employees to miss out on the pension plan.” Those supervisors should be looking out for the taxpayers well-being, Smith said.

By way of background, current employees participate in a defined benefit pension plan, which will be closed to new employees at the end of 2013. Employees hired starting Jan. 1, 2014 will be part of a defined contribution plan instead. The long-term liabilities of the county’s pension plan and retiree healthcare costs are a concern, and prompted efforts earlier this year to push for a major bond proposal that was ultimately dropped.

During his Sept. 18 public commentary, Smith also asked for an appeal to his most recent request under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. The response given to him by the county’s FOIA coordinator is illegible, he contended. “They need to stop playing games in giving me things that are illegible, that they know are illegible.”

Communications & Commentary: Budget Update

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who as chair of the board’s ways & means committee also serves on the county’s budget task force, was absent from the Sept. 18 meeting. Vice chair Alicia Ping (R-District 3) gave a budget update on Brabec’s behalf. The draft budget is in the final stages of preparation, and will be presented to the board on Oct. 2.

The board’s priority committee meetings are completed, with draft outcome statements related to five areas: heath and human services, economic opportunity, mobility and civic infrastructure, environmental impact, and internal labor force. [The work of those committees was reviewed at a board working session on Sept. 19, which will be covered in a separate Chronicle report.]

The administration will also a 2013 third-quarter budget update to the board in November.

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

Absent: Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Charles Beatty Jr. attended the Sept. 4 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting to accept a resolution in honor of his father, Charles Beatty Sr. The board supports naming the Head Start building at 1661 LeForge in Ypsilanti – owned by the county – in honor of the late Charles Beatty Sr., who was influential in early childhood education. (Photos by the writer.)

For the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road – the former juvenile center – staff have proposed a process that focuses on possibly using the site for affordable housing. A $100,000 planning grant is available to explore that option. However, several commissioners – while expressing support for affordable housing in general – wanted to look at a broader range of alternatives, including the possibility of selling the site, which some believe could be worth $2 million. After more than an hour of debate, the board voted to postpone action until its Sept. 18 meeting, directing staff to prepare an alternative resolution to consider.

Another lengthy debate focused on the funding mechanism for new trial court software, estimated to cost $2.3 million. The vendor of the current system went out of business several years ago, and replacement is critical. Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, told commissioners: “If this [software] system goes down, our judicial system in the county simply stops operating.”

Some commissioners wanted a more formal mechanism to repay the county’s investment in the system, which includes nearly $1.3 million from capital reserves. The board eventually passed a resolution stating that revenues from the court’s electronic filing fees will be used to reimburse the capital reserves. E-filing fees – likely to be $6 per filing – are expected initially to generate only about $45,000 in revenues. The e-filing will start with civil cases, with phased roll-out to other cases, including criminal and probate. At some point, e-filing might become mandatory.

A range of other significant action items yielded far less discussion. The board gave initial approval to a new micro loan program for small businesses, to be managed by the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development. Also getting initial approval was a range of grants administered by the county’s office of community & economic development, as well as a resolution that would give blanket approval in the future to nearly 30 annual entitlement grants received by the county totaling an estimated $8.8 million, beginning in 2014. Currently, each of those grants requires separate annual approval by the board.

Commissioners also gave initial approval to strengthen the county’s affirmative action plan, as well as other nondiscrimination in employment-related policies. The primary change adds a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. Community activist Jim Toy and Jason Morgan, who serves on the board of the Jim Toy Community Center, spoke during public commentary to support the changes.

Other items receiving an initial vote from the board include: (1) adding three new full-time jobs for stewardship of the county nature preserves; (2) adding a new 10-bed treatment program for female teens in the county’s youth center that will create a net increase of 5.46 jobs; and (3) budgets for the county’s public health and community support & treatment service (CSTS) departments.

During the meeting, the board also honored the nonprofit Dawn Farm on its 40th anniversary, and recognized Bill McFarlane, the long-time Superior Township supervisor who recently announced his resignation due to health issues. Commissioners also supported renaming the county-owned Head Start building in Ypsilanti in honor of the late Charles Beatty Sr., a pioneer in early childhood education.

Topics that emerged during public commentary included a plea to urge state legislators to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law. Board chair Yousef Rabhi indicated his intent to bring forward such a resolution on Sept. 18 – similar to one passed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 8, 2013. Rabhi also plans to introduce a resolution on Sept. 18 advocating for stronger cleanup standards of 1,4 dioxane – the contaminant in an underground plume caused by Pall-Gelman’s Scio Township operations. The Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution on Sept. 3, 2013 related to this issue.

Also on Sept. 18, a public hearing will be held to get input on a proposed increase to the Washtenaw County tax that supports services for indigent veterans and their families. The current rate is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. The new proposed rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The public hearing was scheduled by commissioners at their Sept. 4 meeting.

Platt Road Property

The Sept. 4 agenda included a resolution to create an advisory group to look at options for the county-owned Platt Road site in Ann Arbor, where the old juvenile center was located. [.pdf of Platt Road staff memo]

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

Those details were brought forward on Sept. 4. The original Sept. 4 resolution called for a nine-member committee with the following composition:

• 2 county commissioners
• 1 Ann Arbor city councilmember
• 2 residents from the adjacent neighborhood
• The executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission [Jennifer L. Hall]
• The director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation [Bob Tetens]
• The director of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development [Mary Jo Callan]
• The Washtenaw County infrastructure management director [Greg Dill]

The timeline called for at least three committee meetings with a consultant later this year to develop the community design process, followed by public workshops in January of 2014. A final plan with recommendations would be completed and presented to the county board by May of 2014.

The proposal was heavily oriented toward the option of putting affordable housing on that site, which raised concerns for several commissioners. A staff memo listed several elements that would be explored, including: (1) affordable rental housing by the Ann Arbor housing commission; (2) an affordable housing green demonstration pilot project; (3) connection to the adjacent County Farm Park; (4) ReImagine Washtenaw Avenue design principles; and (5) other identified community priorities, such as geothermal, solar panels or community gardens.

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

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the resolution didn’t include the option of selling the land. Perhaps it makes sense to include a real estate agent among the list of advisory committee members, he said. He hadn’t heard commissioners reach consensus about ruling out the option of selling the land – either in part or in its entirety.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) expressed surprise about the resolution, implying that there must have been other meetings about this topic that he didn’t know about. He said he had supported the concept of looking at options for the property, which he believed could be valued at $2 million or more. He supported involvement of neighbors in giving input into the property’s future.

However, the resolution before them was more far-reaching than he had expected, Peterson said. He felt it was earmarking money for an initiative – affordable housing – that the board hadn’t discussed or approved. He expressed concern for the county’s overall budget, noting that there will be cuts made in the coming year.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) replied to Petersen, noting that the resolution passed by the board on July 10 had included an amendment to the language, in order to address concerns that Peterson had raised at that meeting – including an explicit statement that the board had ultimate control over what happens to the Platt Road site.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) had been integral in putting together this resolution, Rabhi noted, because the property is in LaBarre’s district. Rabhi assured Peterson that he hadn’t missed any meetings, and that this resolution was an evolution from the July 10 discussion.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) told Peterson he was excited by this community process. Smith wanted to understand Peterson’s concern: Was it that there aren’t sufficient options cited in the resolution? Peterson replied that the planning process is tapping into funding that hadn’t been approved by the board. He wondered where the money had come from, and whether it could be used for other projects.

Brett Lenart, OCED’s housing and infrastructure manager, reiterated information from the staff memo – that the funding came from a HUD sustainable communities regional planning grant. The overall grant is funding the Washtenaw Avenue corridor project and a range of other efforts, he said. The Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) committed $100,000 in matching funds. One component of those matching funds is furthering sustainable solutions for at-risk populations, he said.

Lenart told commissioners that the Platt Road site seemed like a good opportunity to marry a county asset with the affordable housing goals supported by the grant. It’s near the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, near public transportation and job opportunities.

2270 Platt Road – on the west side of Platt, south of County Farm Park.

Conan Smith clarified with Lenart that the funds must be used for planning. Smith then said he agreed with Peterson in that the resolution didn’t direct the advisory committee to explore a broad range of options. “We’re pre-determining the outcome for this site, with this resolution,” Smith said. “We’re going to angle it toward affordable housing in some way.”

Lenart replied that the staff is suggesting that the primary discussion for the site should focus on affordable housing. If these grant funds are used for planning, then there needs to be a good faith effort to advance the cause of affordable housing, he said.

Conan Smith noted that the board hasn’t discussed whether affordable housing is its priority for the Platt Road property. He said he shared Peterson’s concern in that regard.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he hadn’t known about this proposal, even though he’s a member of the county’s space committee. He also objected to having four directors on the advisory committee, suggesting that they could delegate that responsibility.

Sizemore asked what the $100,000 would be used for. Lenart replied that it would be used for a community design process, including fees for architects and consultants to run the public meetings and develop recommendations. Sizemore expressed skepticism about using that amount simply for planning. “I just don’t like the way this looks,” he said, to spend that much money just to tell the board what they should do with 13-14 acres of land. “If you’ve got that kind of money to throw around, then I think we’ve got a big problem.”

Lenart noted that if the planning funds aren’t spent at the Platt Road site, then the funds will be used for planning at other locations that might be suitable for affordable housing.

LaBarre reported that he’s talked to residents in these neighborhoods, and no one ever brought up the option of selling that site. This process is inclusive, he said, and he supported it. Commissioners won’t be obligated to act on the recommendations that will be delivered as the result of this process, he noted.

Brett Lenart, housing and community infrastructure manager for the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED). Seated next to him is Mary Jo Callan, OCED director.

Dan Smith stated his priorities for the property. He’d like to sell the portion along Platt Road, and reserve a portion adjacent to County Farm Park to make a greenway or park. He noted that 5 out of the 9 committee members, as proposed, are either commissioners or staff. If the board really wants diverse input, then they should get rid of some of the county representatives and include more residents.

Dan Smith also cautioned against asking citizens to do a lot of work on this committee, only to have it possibly ignored by the board. He felt commissioners should have a better idea of its priorities for the site, before asking an advisory committee to make recommendations.

Peterson said he didn’t mind exploring options or including citizen input. But it’s important that the board make sure the community receives the full value from that property, regardless of what is done with it. But the proposed resolution leads the county into the housing business, he said, and that concerns him. Peterson added that he doesn’t know what other affordable housing options are in the works, or what other planning efforts might benefit from this $100,000.

Rabhi read from the original July 10 resolution – specifically, LaBarre’s amendment that had been added to create the advisory committee. Rabhi also noted the additional language that had been included as a friendly amendment to address Peterson’s concerns at the time [italics include friendly amendment language]:

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

Peterson said he’d given his trust when he voted for that resolution on July 10. He had assumed that names of people to serve on the committee would be brought forward. He didn’t know any other plans were in the works.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) indicated that she thought the committee would bring forward pros and cons for each option for the site, not just one recommendation. It seemed like the committee was being directed to lean toward one option, without exploring the full spectrum. Lenart replied that the intent is to present a concept for affordable housing at that site, that’s rooted in information and community input. He said if there’s no interest on the board in pursuing affordable housing there, then OCED would find another project that could use the planning funds.

Conan Smith floated the idea of amending the resolution to call for the advisory committee to deliver an initial high-level alternatives analysis, with a recommendation. Then the board could direct the committee and staff to implement the planning process for whatever alternative is chosen.

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion – Amendment

Dan Smith proposed amending the resolution to create more diversity on the committee – adding an Ann Arbor city council designee and three county residents, including one with real estate experience. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) objected to singling out Ann Arbor for additional representation. Although the land is located in Ann Arbor, it’s owned by the county – paid for by all county taxpayers, she noted. Yousef Rabhi proposed alternative wording, considered as a friendly amendment to Smith’s version, to add four slots to the committee for Washtenaw County residents, including at least one with experience in real estate.

Outcome on amendment: It passed on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion – Final Debate

Alicia Ping asked additional questions about the planning grant. Brett Lenart explained that it couldn’t be used to plan exclusively for a park or commercial development – and that affordable housing had to be at least considered in good faith in order for the planning grant to be used.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Ping thought Ronnie Peterson had raised some good points, and she felt more comfortable doing a high-level alternatives analysis, as Conan Smith had proposed.

Andy LaBarre noted that the resolution passed by eight commissioners on July 10 – Rolland Sizemore Jr. had been absent – called for a nine-member advisory committee to review and develop a recommendation for the disposition of the Platt Road site. He sensed that there wasn’t support for the current resolution, but he hoped it wouldn’t cause them to “piddle away time on this unnecessarily.” If the board wants to do something with the site, they should make that decision relatively quickly, he said. Whatever they do, LaBarre said, he would advocate for involving residents near the site.

Yousef Rabhi asked how other funds from the $3 million grant were being spent. Lenart replied that the grant was funding planning efforts for the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, working to strengthen neighborhood groups and associations, helping new tenants at the Hamilton Crossing complex in Ypsilanti with literacy, budgeting and other life skills, and improving pedestrian crossings on the south side of Ypsilanti. The grant also had funded some of the work for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project, he said, and is paying for the Arts Alliance to incorporate public art into some infrastructure projects.

Rabhi clarified with Lenart that affordable housing must be considered in order for the planning to be eligible for this grant funding, but affordable housing doesn’t have to be part of the final recommendation. The key is that affordable housing will be part of the discussion, Rabhi said, along with other options. He added that no commissioner is opposed to affordable housing.

Peterson agreed, saying that the issue is the proper use of this grant funding. He noted that the eastern part of the county, which he represents, is the reason why this kind of funding is available to the county – because of the low income residents there. He hoped the board could establish a committee with no budget. He didn’t think this grant was the appropriate funding mechanism, and he didn’t think OCED was the appropriate department to handle this project. The facilities staff should be in charge, he said, noting that the county has policies and procedures for the disposal of property.

Rabhi then suggested tabling the item until the board’s Sept. 18 meeting. He asked Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to work with commissioners and staff to bring forward an alternative resolution on Sept. 18.

Dan Smith moved to postpone the resolution.

Outcome: The motion to postpone passed unanimously.

Trial Court Software

At their Sept. 4 meeting, commissioners acted on two items related to a new case management software system for the Washtenaw County trial court.

Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County trial court.

The board was asked to give final approval to the selection of a new record-keeping software system for the court that’s estimated to cost $2.3 million. The Tyler Odyssey Case Records Management System will replace an outdated software system that hasn’t been supported by the previous vendor since 2005, when the vendor went out of business.

The original resolution, put forward at the board’s Aug. 7, 2013 meeting, had identified the following funding sources for this project: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $700,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $899,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

However, some commissioners weren’t comfortable with the funding sources that were identified, so an alternative resolution was brought forward during the Aug. 7 meeting that did not include references to funding sources. An amendment to that alternative resolution – made after considerable discussion and procedural maneuverings – stated that the board approved the selection of this software system, and directed the county administrator to develop a maintenance and implementation plan, and to identify funding sources by the time of the board’s Sept. 4 meeting.

The funding sources were identified in a separate Sept. 4 resolution: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $300,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $1,299,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

A staff memo accompanying the funding resolution also notes that an annual software maintenance and support fee – starting at $188,933 – will be offset by revenue from fees associated with all Washtenaw County trial court electronic filing.

Commissioners discussed the approach to funding for about an hour on Sept. 4 with Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked to pull out the funding resolution for a separate vote.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about the maintenance funding. Beyond the fees from e-filing, how will the rest of the annual maintenance costs be paid for? Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management, replied that costs would be covered from the county’s IT maintenance fund.

In response to another query from Ping, chief judge Donald Shelton said that the e-filing fee is in addition to the regular filing fee. It’s estimated to be $6 per filing, with an initial annual projection of $45,000 in revenues. The e-filing will start with civil cases, with phased roll-out to other cases, including criminal and probate. Eventually, he added, it will likely be mandatory to file documents electronically. So those initial annual revenue estimates, which Shelton characterized as conservative, are expected to increase. All revenues from e-filing will be used to offset the annual maintenance costs. Revenues will increase as more documents get filed electronically, and savings from not using paper documents will also increase, he said.

What happens when the e-filing revenues exceed the maintenance costs: Who gets the extra revenue? Ping wondered. Shelton recalled that when he was mayor of Saline, someone pointed out that action being taken might create a parking problem. “I said, ‘Oh, I pray for a parking problem downtown every day,’” Shelton joked. He said it’s not the court’s intention to profit from e-filing, other than to cover costs to support the system.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) explains that her husband – attorney David Shand – showed her how he could access documents electronically from other county courts on his phone.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) pointed out that the previous resolution had indicated that e-filing revenues would be used to pay back the county’s capital reserves. Now, it’s flipped, he said – the e-filing is going to cover operating (maintenance) costs, and are not repaying the county’s capitalization of the system.

Dill said the funding model is very much the same as the original proposal. The county administration has talked to the trial court about reducing its operating budget by $200,000 annually, Dill said. Those reductions can be applied to repay the county’s capital reserves, which are helping to fund the initial cost of the new system.

Shelton added that this new system will enable the trial court to meet its targets for structural budget reductions. He pointed out that for eight years, the court’s software wasn’t supported by the vendor because that company went out of business. So during that time, the county didn’t pay annual maintenance costs. That’s almost $700,000 that wasn’t spent, he said, because the court has been “limping along in our Studebaker.” The court was able to do that because one of its employees was able to keep the system running. However, that employee is no longer working for the county. “If this system goes down, our judicial system in the county simply stops operating,” Shelton said.

Shelton noted that an estimated 40% of the county residents will come into contact with the judicial system at some point in their lives – for things like a divorce, or a child who’s in trouble, or a crime. Having a new system to help run the operation is a need, not a want, he said. It’s an investment.

Conan Smith said he understood the need. But his concern is about how that system is funded, given the myriad countywide needs. He’d prefer to see a fee schedule developed to cover the capitalization and operations costs of this new system. Smith suggested perhaps a $30 increase to the current $150 regular filing fees, beyond any charges for e-filing.

Shelton replied that the court is constrained by the state in terms of how much it can charge for filing fees. The state legislature sets those fees – for example, it costs $100 to file a lawsuit. There’s more flexibility in electronic filing fees, which are subject to negotiation between the state and the court, he said.

Shelton noted that he has pledged to reduce the court’s operating budget, which will be made possible by this new system.

Smith described Shelton’s pledge as “rock solid.” However, Smith added, the court’s leadership will change soon. [Shelton can not run for re-election because he'll be over 70 years old when his current term ends. The state constitution requires that judicial candidates at the time of election must be younger than 70 years old.] “Then we’re in a situation with folks who didn’t cut that deal,” Smith said. The priorities of a new court leadership might shift, so Smith wanted a formal agreement that lays out how the project will be capitalized from court funds.

Shelton replied that he can’t bind future judges any more than Smith can bind future commissioners. However, he added that he could speak for the bench in that when they make a commitment, they keep it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) voiced concern that additional software upgrades will be needed in other county departments and in the county-funded district courts. He cited expenses associated with moving the dispatch operations from downtown Ann Arbor to the county’s Zeeb Road facility. Dill reported that staff is working on a 10-year technology plan, which would address Sizemore’s concerns.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) agreed with Conan Smith about paying back the county’s capitalization costs. Rabhi reminded Dill that they’d talked about using the e-filing revenues to pay back the county’s capital reserves – not to offset maintenance costs. Shelton clarified that the e-filing revenues won’t be coming directly to the court. Rather, Tyler Technologies will be deducting those fees from its maintenance bill to the courts – that’s why it made sense for the e-filing revenues to offset maintenance, he said.

Rabhi said the point is to build in a way that the court can reimburse the capital reserves, to offset the county’s $1.3 million investment. The resolution needs to include language that spells out how that will happen.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) introduced some new issues. He said he’s heard anecdotally that the new system isn’t needed, but Dill and IT manager Andy Brush have spent a lot of time looking into it, and he’d go with their recommendation. He also noted that the courts had chosen to set themselves up in a different way from other county departments, getting their budget as a lump sum that’s governed by a memorandum of understanding. Given that, he has difficulty approving $1.3 million from the county’s capital reserves to a unit over which the board has essentially no financial oversight.

Dan Smith said he appreciated Shelton’s commitment, but the board has experienced recent situations where there were misunderstandings about promises that were made “that got us into a whole lot of hot water.” What really counts isn’t what’s talked about at the board table, Smith said, “but what we actually vote on. We need these types of things in writing.”

Conan Smith pointed out that from a budgetary standpoint, there’s no cash available to allocate to the capital reserves. The court will receive an annual maintenance bill, minus the amount of e-filing revenues. “I’d rather see a much more solid, structured revenue solution,” he said.

Shelton clarified that the maintenance bill is covered by the county’s IT fund, and isn’t part of the court’s lump sum budget. So any reductions in that maintenance bill will be money that the IT fund doesn’t have to expend. Responding to a query from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Shelton noted that the annual maintenance cost includes future upgrades.

Shelton again reiterated that with the new system in place, the court will be able to meet its $200,000 budget reduction target. Over six years, that $200,000 annual reduction will cover the county’s $1.3 million capital investment in the system, he said.

Shelton noted that all county boards in the state chafe at the independence of courts as a separate unit of government. The courts are not a county department, he said. However, he felt the relationship between the board and the courts in Washtenaw County was better than any of Michigan’s other 82 counties. And although the board doesn’t have absolute control over the court’s budget, he said, the court gives a detailed report about how its money is spent, so that the administration knows exactly what’s happening with the court’s budget, and why.

Shelton also highlighted a “performance dashboard” that’s posted on the court’s website, so anyone can view the fluctuations in filings and dispensations.

Conan Smith replied that his concern is to find a predictable funding source that doesn’t compromise the county’s other investment priorities. He noted that he’s been talking with Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, about the possibility of “social impact” bonds, as an example.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Amendment

Rabhi proposed an amendment to add a resolved clause to the resolution:

Be it further resolved that the offsets to the annual software maintenance and support costs created by the e-filing revenue will be used to reimburse the $1,299,463 of capital investment from the capital reserve fund.

After some additional discussion, Ping proposed an amendment to Rabhi’s amendment, adding this sentence: “Once the capital fund is reimbursed, additional offset funds will be allocated to the tech plan fund balance.”

Outcome on Ping’s amendment to Rabhi’s amendment: It was unanimously approved on a voice vote.

So the final version of the Rabhi’s amendment to the main resolution stated:

Be it further resolved that the offsets to the annual software maintenance and support costs created by the e-filing revenue will be used to reimburse the $1,299,463 of capital investment from the capital reserve fund. Once the capital fund is reimbursed, additional offset funds will be allocated to the tech plan fund balance.

Outcome on Rabhi’s amended amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved the amendment on a voice vote.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Final Vote

Rabhi then called the question, a procedural move intended to force a vote. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, noted that six votes are required in order to pass a motion to call the question.

Outcome on motion to call the question: It passed unanimously.

The board then voted on the main resolution, as amended, on funding of the Tyler software system.

Outcome: The resolution passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Trial Court Software: Final Approval

Both resolutions – the funding resolution, and the general resolution for the Tyler system that was given initial approval on Aug. 7 – were on the board agenda for a final vote later in the meeting.

From left: Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management, and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

There was additional discussion, generally repeating themes and information that had been covered earlier in the meeting. Conan Smith highlighted the fact that the county would be taking on an additional expense for maintenance that will be absorbed by the IT fund. He wanted to know what cuts would be made to the IT budget in order to accommodate that additional maintenance expense.

Greg Dill replied that as his staff looked at the mix of all IT needs throughout the county, they felt confident they could absorb the trial court maintenance costs. The overall IT funding, even with additional maintenance costs, is sufficient to take care of the needs of the entire organization, he said. Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, explained that part of the IT budget includes revenues from what’s called the “1/8th mill” fund, which pays for infrastructure needs. Not all of the IT funding comes from the county’s general fund.

Outcome on final approval for the funding resolution: It passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Outcome on final approval for the general Tyler software resolution: It passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent by Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1). He did not indicate why he voted against the resolution. He had voted in favor of it on Aug. 7.

Trial Court Child Care Fund

In another item related to the trial court, the board was asked to give initial approval to 2013-2014 state child care fund expenditures of $9,425,785 for the trial court’s juvenile division and county dept. of human services. About half of that amount ($4,712,892) will be eligible for reimbursement from the state. [.pdf of budget summary]

According to a staff memo, the child care fund is a joint effort between state and county governments to fund programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth. Part of this year’s funding will support a new 10-bed treatment program that will be housed in the county’s youth center facility, opening in November of 2013. From the staff memo:

The treatment program in its initial phase will exclusively provide treatment services to females aged 12-17 using an integrated therapeutic treatment model. The program will offer a short-term 90 day option as well as a 6 to 9 month long-term treatment option. The second phase of treatment programming will expand services to males aged 12-17.

The new program is expected to generate revenue from out-of-county treatment referrals.

The expenditures will result in a net increase of 5.46 jobs. A total of 10.46 full-time equivalent positions will be created, and 5 FTEs will be eliminated.

Trial Court Child Care Fund: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) clarified with county administrator Verna McDaniel that the county’s cost for this program is about $4.7 million. McDaniel stated that the funds are subject to the county’s memorandum of understanding with the trial court. Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, clarified that only about a third of the funds are subject to the MOU. The MOU does not cover funding to the county’s department of human services or the youth center.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) wondered how the new treatment program fits into the county’s continuum of care. She also wanted to make sure that adolescents in Washtenaw County have access to the program.

Lisa Greco, director of children’s services for the county, explained that the new program would expand therapy treatment services that the county currently purchases from other providers. The program would involve the child and entire family, she said – it would be part of the entire continuum of care that the county provides.

Linda Edwards-Brown, the trial court’s juvenile and probate court administrator, noted that the program will initially serve only females, but the plan is to eventually expand to include males.

Brabec wondered how this program would be different from detention. Greco explained that there are parts of the juvenile facility that are secured, and other areas that are not secured. Activities in the new treatment program would take place in the unsecured areas, she said. There will also be a team approach to treatment and intervention.

Directing her comments to commissioner Dan Smith, Greco noted that all positions in the county’s youth center are 50% funded from the state child care fund. [Earlier in the meeting, Smith had objected to the resolutions on the agenda that added jobs to the county's payroll.]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) pointed out that this program is built first and foremost for Washtenaw County residents. The county wants to create partnerships with neighboring counties and courts, but that’s not the program’s primary focus, he said. Secondarily, those services could be made available to residents outside the county.

Edwards-Brown noted that the trial court’s first response is to try to keep kids at home, and there are several in-home programs that are available. It’s the court’s last resort to place adolescents in a treatment facility.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) highlighted this project as an example of different county departments – including the infrastructure management group – working together.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the child care fund expenditures, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2). A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Micro Loan Program for Small Business

A countywide micro loan program for small businesses was on the Sept. 4 agenda for initial approval. The resolution would authorize the county’s office of community & economic development to contract with the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development to manage this program. CEED already handles a smaller micro loan program focused on the eastern side of the county. [.pdf of CEED micro loan proposal]

From left: Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Micro loans would range from $500 to $50,000, for businesses that can’t get conventional financing. CEED has a $5 million borrowing capacity from the U.S. Small Business Administration, and expects to make $300,000 in micro loans in the next two years in Washtenaw County. The county would provide $45,000 out of revenues from levying the Act 88 millage. Of that amount, $35,000 would be used to seed a loan loss reserve fund and $10,000 would be designated for initial operating costs.

To be eligible for a micro loan, businesses must be based in Washtenaw County and have been turned down by two financial institutions for loans over $20,000. Other requirements include: (1) a business plan for businesses that are less than 3 years old; (2) a marketing plan for businesses that are 3 years or older; (3) two years of financial statements and tax returns; and (4) a personal financial statement.

The county is allowed to levy up to 0.5 mills under Public Act 88 of 1913, but currently levies a small percentage of that – 0.06 mills, which will bring in $696,000 this year. It’s used for programs run by the county’s office of community & economic development, and to fund the county’s MSU extension office. Act 88 does not require voter approval. It was originally authorized by the county in 2009 at a rate of 0.04 mills, and was increased to 0.043 mills in 2010 and 0.05 in 2011.

Last year, Conan Smith (D-District 9) of Ann Arbor proposed increasing the rate to 0.06 mills and after a heated debate, the board approved the increase on a 6-5 vote. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates, OKs Act 88 Tax Hike."] Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a projected $3.9 million budget deficit in 2014. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options."]

The county has identified economic development as one of its main budget priorities.

Micro Loan Program for Small Business: Board Discussion

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked for examples of how this type of loan has been used successfully. Todd Van Appledorn with CEED responded that these loans are intended for entrepreneurs who have trouble getting loans through traditional sources, like banks or credit units. Types of businesses range from small manufacturers to retail shops or even consultants. Since CEED started its micro loan program in 1993, they’ve made over $5 million in loans, he said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Generally, banks require two years of credit history before lending, Van Appledorn said, and new businesses don’t have that track record. Or some entrepreneurs have credit issues that don’t relate to their business – if they’ve had medical expenses, for example. The average micro loan made by CEED is $10,000.

Ping recalled that when she served on the Saline city council, a micro loan program was operated through the city’s economic development council. All the loans got paid back, she said, although not all the businesses were successful. A restaurant that’s been in downtown Saline for 20 years had received a micro loan. She thought it would be a great county program.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked how this program fits into the county’s overall economic development strategy. Tony VanDerworp with the county’s office of community & economic development explained that existing programs cover the high tech and life sciences sectors, as well as larger businesses. Now, OCED is working to find ways to support locally owned small businesses, he said. Efforts include this proposed micro loan program, changes to procurement policies, and support for the local food sector, among other things.

Responding to another question from Rabhi, Van Appledorn described CEED as an intermediate lender. The county’s program and seed funding will allow CEED to borrow through the U.S. Small Business Administration for the micro loans.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered what entity will decide who gets the loans. That’s CEED’s job, Van Appledorn said. What’s the success rate? Sizemore asked. For a smaller eastern Washtenaw County micro loan program, from July 2009 through April 2013, 14 loans were approved totaling $270,000, VanDerworp reported. No loans have defaulted.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) praised CEED, noting that it has received national attention for its work. He hoped to see the program expand even further.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he supported the activities, but was concerned about using taxpayer dollars to fund businesses that can’t get conventional financing. People start businesses in other ways, he noted, such as using their home equity, personal credit, or loans from friends and family.

Smith also pointed out that the loan committee meets virtually, and that’s a concern. The public should have an opportunity to see how their money is being spent, and he wondered whether these meetings have to comply with the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Van Appledorn said that CEED follows the SBA’s guidelines for this program, and has never had a problem in the past 30 years handling it this way.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the micro loan program, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Increase in Parks Stewardship Staff

A resolution to create three new full-time jobs for stewardship of Washtenaw County’s nature preserves was on the Sept. 4 agenda for initial approval.

The positions include: (1) a park laborer with a salary range of $31,507 to $41,766; (2) a park associate/principle planner with a salary range of $40,253 to $61,195; and (3) a stewardship coordinator, with a salary range of $43,373 to $56,586.

The additional jobs reflect a change approved by the county board nearly a year ago. At their Sept. 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners voted to amend the Natural Areas Ordinance No. 128, which established the county’s natural areas preservation program in 2000.

Bob Tetens, parks & recreation director, and Meghan Bonfiglio, superintendent of park planning.

The change removed a previous restriction that only 7% of millage funds could be used for management or stewardship. The goal was to use $600,000 per year for management and stewardship. Of that, roughly $240,000 would be used for ongoing stewardship activities, and $360,000 would remain to be invested in a dedicated reserve for long-term land stewardship.

According to a staff memo, the county’s parks system manages more than 4,500 acres of land in 13 parks and 22 preserves. In addition to the 556 acres of property already “actively” managed in the nature preserves, the staff also have active stewardship responsibilities for another 372 acres of prime natural areas within the county parks system. Overall, staff has identified 1,868 acres – or roughly 42% of the system’s current total acreage – as core conservation areas.

Funding for these new positions would be paid for entirely from the countywide natural areas millage, which was initially approved by voters in 2000 and renewed in 2010. The current 0.2409 mill tax raises roughly $3.5 million in annual revenues, and runs through 2021.

Increase in Parks Stewardship Staff: Board Discussion

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) described it as the right move to make, reflecting the county’s value of protecting its ecosystem. He noted that the city’s of Ann Arbor’s natural areas preservation program has a budget of about $700,000 to staff a system about half the size of the county’s natural areas, so “there’s always more that we can do.” It’s a step in the right direction, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2), who serves on the county parks & recreation commission, pointed out that during this meeting the board would be increasing the county’s overall headcount by nearly 10 FTEs, including the increase to the parks staff. It helps that some of the positions will be paid for out of a dedicated millage – as is the case with the parks staff – but it’s still an increase in positions, he said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), who also is a member of the parks & rec commission, praised Tetens and the parks staff. He noted that the intent is to slow down the amount of acquisitions and shift to a maintenance mode. However, he also shared concerns in general about increasing staff size.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the staff increase. A final vote by the board is expected on Sept. 18.

Non-Discrimination Policy

At its Sept. 4 meeting, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to reaffirm and update the county’s affirmative action plan, as well as other nondiscrimination in employment-related policies. [.pdf of staff memo and policies]

The primary change adds a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

The resolution’s three resolved clauses state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners reaffirms its intent to prohibit discrimination in Washtenaw County against any person in recruitment, certification, appointment, retention, promotion, training and discipline on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, national origin, age, handicap, veteran status, marital status, height, weight, religion and political belief.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners shall strive to promote a workforce that welcomes and honors all persons and that provides equal opportunity in employment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs the Human Resources / Labor Relations Director to update the Affirmative Action Plan, as well as policies Prohibiting Discrimination in Employment, Sexual Harassment, and the County’s Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity to reflect the Boards commitment and reaffirmation described herein.

Non-Discrimination Policy: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, community activist Jim Toy directed his first comments to commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9).

From left: Jim Toy, Yousef Rabhi and Jason Morgan.

Toy recalled when he’d spoken to the Ann Arbor city council decades ago in front of then-mayor Al Wheeler, who was Smith’s grandfather. “I looked at the mayor and said, ‘Mayor Wheeler, I am totally intimidated because you look exactly like my grandfather,’” Toy said. He added: “I feel no such intimidation tonight.”

Toy thanked the board for its continued support of human and civil rights, and supported expansion of the county’s affirmative action plan and related policies. It has symbolic, political, psycho-social and personal weight, he said. The diverse components of human sexuality – sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation – “must receive stated protection,” Toy said. “Otherwise, we all are at risk of discrimination and harassment and assault, up to and including murder.” He ended his remarks by telling commissioners: “Namaste – walk in sunshine.”

Jason Morgan, a board member of the Jim Toy Community Center and director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College, also spoke in support of the changes. He appreciated the county’s support of LGBT protections and human rights protections. The county has been known for a long time as a leader in this regard. He noted that other supporters – including Katie Oppenheim of the Michigan Nurses Association – were there to urge commissioners to support the changes.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to give initial approval to the non-discrimination changes. A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Funding for Office of Community & Economic Development

In addition to the micro loan program reported in this article (see above), several other items were on the agenda related to funding for programs managed by the county’s office of community & economic development, totaling nearly $2 million:

• $88,263 from the federal dislocated worker training (DWT) national emergency grant [.pdf of staff memo for DWT grant]
• $16,277 in federal funding for the Michigan Works! Service Center Operations [.pdf of staff memo for Michigan Works funding]
• $50,000 in federal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) employer-based training foundation funding [.pdf of staff memo for TAA funding]
• $287,860 in federal Dept. of Energy weatherization funding [.pdf of staff memo for weatherization funds]
• $274,792 in federal Emergency Solutions Grant funding. The total program budget is $412,188, which includes $137,396 of in-kind matching contributions. The program supports the Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC) partnership between Salvation Army, the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County and the Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County. [.pdf of ESG staff memo]
• $516,156 in federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds [.pdf of CSBG staff memo]
• $21,828 in discretionary funds from the federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) to provide free income-tax preparation for low-income residents [.pdf of discretionary CSBG staff memo]
• $703,214 in federal funding for a senior nutrition program, with a total budget of $873,372. Additional funding comes from a USDA reimbursement of $100,001 and in-kind contributions of $70,157. [.pdf of senior nutrition memo]

The board also was asked to give initial approval to a blanket resolution covering nearly 30 annual entitlement grants received by the county totaling an estimated $8.8 million, beginning in 2014. According to a staff memo, these grants are awarded on a reoccurring basis based on pre-existing state or federal allocation formulas. They require board approval as individual items, which “ends up consuming a significant portion of Board and staff time throughout a given year, as formula grants are on a variety of different fiscal years, and are awarded at several different points throughout the year. Furthermore, the piecemeal nature of the resolutions does not provide a holistic overview of the continuum of services provided to the community by OCED,” the memo states. [.pdf of staff memo regarding blanket grant approval]

There are several categories of grants that will continue to require a board vote, even if this blanket approval is passed. Those categories include:

• competitive grants;
• grants that are not based on pre-established federal or state funding formulas or entitlement formulas;
• new grants, or ones that have not been previously awarded to or administered by OCED;
• grants that would require a county general fund appropriation in excess of the amount approved by the county board in the budget;
• grants that would require a change in OCED position control;
• grants more than $100,000 or 10% more than the anticipated amount, whichever is greater.

Funding for OCED: Board Discussion

In response to a question from Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) about the weatherization grant, program coordinator Aaron Kraft clarified that the grant would fund 40 weatherization jobs in 2013.

Brabec also asked about changes to the senior nutrition program. Andrea Plevek of the OCED explained that because of sequestration and other funding constraints, OCED is working with partner organizations to streamline delivery of meals to senior citizens. Those changes include providing shared meal service at senior centers wherever possible, and reallocating financial resources to local programs based on both demand for service and need. Partners that provide both shared-meal service and home delivery are the Ann Arbor housing commission (Baker Commons); Chelsea Senior Center; Dexter Senior Center; and Northfield Senior Center.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who serves as the board’s representative to the Area Agency on Aging 1-B, asked if there was anything beyond sequestration happening at the federal level, that the county should be aware of. Plevek replied that the state agencies, which pass through federal funding to the county, have prioritized homebound meal delivery. She wasn’t aware of any other action at the federal level.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked for a report on the overall impact of federal sequestration. The county receives a lot of federal dollars, he noted, and he’s very concerned about the impact. It’s crucial to know as the administration develops its next budget, Peterson said, because the board will need to decide whether departments that are losing federal funding will get more support from the county to make up the shortfall.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d work with department heads to pull that information together. LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said he’d be willing to dedicate an upcoming session to that topic.

Outcome: All OCED items were given initial approval, with final votes expected at the board’s Sept. 18 meeting.

Hearing for Indigent Veterans Services Tax Hike

Commissioners were asked to set a public hearing for Sept. 18 to get input on a proposed increase to the Washtenaw County tax that supports services for indigent veterans and their families.

Michael Smith, director of the county’s department of veterans affairs, talks with commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. The new proposed rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues.

The county is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a nearly $4 million projected budget deficit in 2014. See Chronicle coverage: “County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options.”

There was no discussion on this item. In addition to the public hearing, the board is expected to vote on the tax hike on Sept. 18.

Outcome: Commissioners set the Sept. 18 public hearing on an increase in the millage to pay for indigent veterans services.

CSTS Budget

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to the 2013-14 budget for the community support and treatment service (CSTS) department, from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The $34.96 million budget includes $29.598 million in revenue from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), which contracts with CSTS to provide services for people who are mentally ill and developmentally disabled. Other revenue comes from the Haarer bequest ($165,192), a contract with the county sheriff’s office ($246,846), smaller contracts with other entities, and fee-for-service billing. [.pdf of CSTS budget]

The budget calls for putting six full-time positions and two part-time jobs on “hold vacant” status. Those positions are currently unfilled.

The resolution also authorized county administrator Verna McDaniel to approve a service agreement with the WCHO, which is a separate nonprofit that’s a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System.

CSTS Budget: Board Discussion

Discussion was brief. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked for an explanation about the changes that CSTS is undergoing.

Trish Cortes, WCHO director, reported that over the past fiscal year, the delivery of all direct services has been shifted from WCHO to CSTS. Now, CSTS provides all direct services, under contract with the WCHO. [Further explanation of these changes, and additional discussion among commissioners, took place at the board's April 3, 2013 meeting.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the CSTS budget. A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Public Health Budget

The Sept. 4 agenda included a resolution approving the public health department’s $10.796 million budget for 2013-14, from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The budget includes $3.553 million in an appropriation from the county’s general fund, and $243,226 from the department’s fund balance. [.pdf of staff memo regarding public health budget]

As part of the budget, the public health department is proposing a net increase of 1.5 full-time equivalent positions. That results from eliminating 4.5 FTEs and creating 6 new positions. In addition, 5 positions will be put on “hold vacant” status, effective Oct. 1.

The resolution also included a proposed fee schedule for vaccines and clinic visits. [.pdf of proposed fee schedule] The minimum fee is proposed to be raised from $30 to $40.

Public Health Budget: Board Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) noted that public health director Dick Fleece is retiring, and that provides a good time to look at possibly restructuring the department. He also expressed concern over the listing of salary ranges for new positions, rather than giving each position a set salary.

From left: Lefiest Galimore and Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he agreed with Sizemore. If changes are going to be made, this is the chance to do it with minimal impact.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) pointed out that the staff memo refers to the impact of federal sequestration on the budget, and she wondered when more information would be available on that.

Fleece responded, saying the department had received more information since the staff memo for this resolution was written. The areas that he’d been concerned about were emergency preparedness, HIV/AIDS services, and the Women Infants and Children (WIC) program. The department has subsequently learned that the state of Michigan will absorb the cuts and maintain funding at the current levels, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thought commissioners should at some point talk about recreating the public health board. Right now, the county board plays that role, he noted, but they lack specific expertise in that area “and we frankly don’t do our due diligence on things that [staff] could probably use a professional board for in public health.” There’s a wide array of resources in this community, he noted, including hospitals and the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) both agreed. Fleece said he’d welcome a public health board, though he noted the department does have an advisory committee that also serves as the health code board of appeals.

Fleece also pointed out that when he was appointed health director, he retained his position as environmental health coordinator, which saved the county the cost of filling that position. He thanked his management team, many of whom attended the meeting, as well as the county’s medical examiner, Jeff Jentzen, who Fleece said attended to show support.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the public health budget and fee schedule.

2013 Budget Adjustments

A budget adjustment resulting in a $654,670 increase in 2013 general fund revenues and expenses, bringing the total general fund budget to 103,218,903, was on the Sept. 4 agenda for final approval. [.pdf of 2013 budget adjustment chart]

An initial vote had been taken on Aug. 7, 2013, following significant debate and some failed amendments proposed by Conan Smith (D-District 9). His amendments would have restored over $1 million in funding to programs and departments that had been cut in previous budget cycles. During the Aug. 7 meeting, other commissioners expressed general support for his sentiments, but cautioned against acting quickly and not giving sufficient strategic thought to these allocations, which they had seen for the first time that night.

Conan Smith, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) had dissented on the vote giving initial approval to the budget adjustments. Board approval is required for budget changes greater than $100,000 or a variance of more than 10%, whichever is less.

The county’s finance staff cited several factors related to the adjustments, including the fact that property tax revenues are $2.3 million higher than anticipated when the budget was approved in December 2012. The county is also receiving $205,344 more in state funding than was originally budgeted, from state liquor tax revenues.

On the expense side, $551,998 will be used to help pay for the trial court’s new records management software system. Those funds come from a refund to the court by the state of Michigan. There will also be an increase of $102,672 in expenses due to a higher substance abuse allocation mandated by Public Act 2 of 1986, and related to the higher liquor tax revenues that the county received. Those funds will go to the county’s designated substance abuse coordinating agency.

The 2013 general fund budget also is not expected to need a previously planned use of $2.8 million from the fund balance.

There was no discussion on this item at the Sept. 4 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to 2013 general fund budget adjustments, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Naming of Head Start Building

The Sept. 4 agenda included an item to support naming the county’s Head Start building at 1661 LeForge in Ypsilanti in honor of the late Charles Beatty Sr. [.pdf of resolution honoring Charles Beatty Sr.]

Beatty was recognized for his work in education – he was the first African American school principal in Michigan. He served as principal of Ypsilanti’s Harriet Street School – which was renamed Perry School – until 1967, and was instrumental in setting up the Perry Preschool Program and the HighScope Foundation’s Perry Preschool Study. The study was influential in validating the importance of early childhood programs like Head Start.

From left: Former Washtenaw Head Start director Patricia Horne McGee and Maude Forbes, a retired principal of Fletcher and Adams elementary schools in Ypsilanti.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi, who read the resolution aloud, called it a “great day for Washtenaw County.”

By way of background, at its Aug. 7, 2013 meeting, the board approved a 10-year lease of the county-owned Head Start building to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. [.pdf of lease agreement] The WISD is taking over management of the Head Start program from the county, which has administered it for over four decades. After considerable debate, the board made the decision in late 2011 to relinquish the Head Start program.

The county took out bonds to pay for the construction of the $2.29 million Head Start facility in 2002. Ten years remain on the bond repayment for a total of $1.66 million.

WISD will begin making payments in 2014. Annual payments vary, beginning with $166,862 by Oct. 1, 2014. [.pdf of rent payment schedule] After the final payment, the county would deed the Head Start building and surrounding 11-acre property to the WISD. During the term of the lease, WISD will pay for utilities and basic maintenance, but the county will be liable for structural issues with the building, including roof repairs, broken windows, and other repairs – unless the repairs are caused by WISD action.

WISD superintendent Scott Menzel attended the Sept. 4 meeting, but did not address the board.

Naming of Head Start Building: Public Commentary

Several family members and friends were on hand, and the resolution was presented to Charles Beatty Jr., who told commissioners that this father – also known as “Chief” – would be very proud that the Head Start building was being named after him, because the program had been very near and dear to his heart.

Michael Kinloch, an officer of Kappa Alpha Psi, spoke on behalf of that organization, noting that Charles Beatty Sr. had been a member of the fraternity and had helped on many community service projects. He thanked commissioners for honoring Beatty.

Maude Forbes said she was probably the oldest person in the room to have known Charles Beatty. She’d first met him as a third-grade student at Harriet Street School, where he was principal. In 1953 she graduated from Ypsilanti High School, thanks to his help. In 1957 she was looking for her first teaching job, and he asked her: “Where else would you teach, except with me?” She thanked the commissioners, HighScope, and Pat Horne-McGee, who had worked to make sure that Beatty was recognized. Forbes joked that if Beatty could get someone like commissioner Ronnie Peterson through school, “and have him end up being a recognized citizen and not end up in court, then you know [Beatty had] a lot of talent.”

Larry Schweinhart, president of the HighScope Educational Research Foundation in Ypsilanti, told commissioners that none of the organization’s achievements would have been possible without the generous partnership of Charles Beatty Sr. It’s fitting to name the Head Start building after him, because he’s one of the pioneers who made Head Start possible, Schweinhart said.

Naming of Head Start Building: Commissioner Response

Many commissioners praised Beatty and his lifetime achievements, and thanked his family and friends for attending. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) spoke at length about his personal experiences with Charles Beatty Sr., who had been principal at Perry Elementary when Peterson attended there. Peterson described Beatty as a great man who didn’t get the recognition he deserved when he was alive. He thanked Beatty’s family and Pat Horne-McGee for working to make this happen.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) noted that she attended Perry Elementary for kindergarten, not long after Beatty retired. She’d like to think that he was instrumental in creating the atmosphere in that building, even after he had gone.

Dawn Farm 40th Anniversary

The county board passed a resolution honoring the nonprofit Dawn Farm, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. [.pdf of Dawn Farm resolution] The Ann Arbor city council had passed a similar resolution at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting.

Dawn Farm president Jim Balmer and Janis Bobrin, who serves on the nonprofit’s board.

Dawn Farm offers both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. The organization was founded in 1973 by Gary Archie and Jack Scholtus in a rented old farmhouse on Stony Creek Road in Ypsilanti. It has grown to include facilities in downtown Ann Arbor.

Dawn Farm’s president, Jim Balmer was on hand to accept the resolution, along with board members Janis Bobrin and Maggie Ladd. Bobrin is the former county water resources commissioner. Ladd is executive director of the South University Area Association. Also attending the Sept. 4 meeting was Charles Coleman, the nonprofit’s Chapin Street project coordinator.

Balmer told commissioners that he didn’t think this kind of program could have survived anyplace other than Washtenaw County. The community’s generosity accounts for the survival of Dawn Farm, he said.

Balmer invited commissioners to the Sept. 8 40th annual jamboree and fundraiser, noting that both founders will be attending. “There will be cake!”

Several commissioners praised Balmer and Dawn Farm for their work.

Honoring Bill McFarlane

Commissioners passed a resolution in honor of Bill McFarlane, the long-time Superior Township supervisor who recently announced his resignation due to health issues. [.pdf of resolution honoring McFarlane]

In introducing the resolution, board chair Yousef Rabhi described McFarlane as a friend to all the commissioners. McFarlane was unable to attend the Sept. 4 meeting, but Rabhi said it would be presented to him at his going-away celebration later this month.

Several commissioners praised McFarlane for his service over the decades, both in Superior Township and in countywide efforts like the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) and the county’s police services committee.

Township Sewer Contract Amendment

The amendment of a contract between Washtenaw County, Lyndon Township and Sylvan Township was on the agenda for final approval. [.pdf of original contract]

In February 2013, county commissioners voted to refinance debt for a sewer system in Lyndon and Sylvan townships, on the county’s west side. The resolution authorized the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help the townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.225 million remained to be repaid, prior to the refunding. The project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

In March 2013, the county received bids for the refunding, with the lowest bid from Hastings City Bank at an interest rate of 1.749838%. As a result of this refunding, only $695,000 in debt remains on this bond issue. Lyndon Township was able to cash reserves and redeemed all of their outstanding debt for this project.

The contract amendments given initial approval by county commissioners on Aug. 7 remove Lyndon Township from any responsibility for debt retirement and reduce the amount of debt for Sylvan Township. All other provisions of the contract remain in place until the bonds are paid off in 2022. Both township boards have previously approved these changes, according to a staff memo.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave final approval to the contract amendment.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Budget Update

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading the budget process for the board, gave an update on activities related to developing the 2014-2017 general fund budget. All departments have been given letters stating the targets for budget reductions. The administration will be bringing forward a draft budget proposal to the Oct. 2 board meeting.

Budget task force meetings on priority areas are continuing. Brabec plans to bring the outcomes of those meetings to the board at a Sept. 19 working session.

The board will receive a third-quarter 2013 budget update from county administrator Verna McDaniel in November.

Communications & Commentary: Repeal “Stand Your Ground” Law

Three people spoke during public commentary urging the board to pass a resolution asking for the repeal of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. Lefiest Galimore told commissioners that he had addressed the Aug. 8, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor city council with the same message. He called it a “vigilante law.” The city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti have both approved this kind of resolution, he noted. Galimore hoped the county board would do the same, to put pressure on Michigan legislators.

Blaine Coleman, wearing a sign that stated “Black Life Matters,” expressed some surprise that it was so easy to speak to commissioners. [Unlike the Ann Arbor city council, which requires people to sign up for the public commentary at the start of its meetings, there is no sign-up required at the county board session.] He said the law has become a “hunting license” against black men and black boys. “I think it’s perceived that way and I think it’s used that way.” The deeper problem for the past 400 years is that black life is not taken seriously or valued, he said. Rather than spending trillions of dollars on overseas wars, the U.S. government should invest in rebuilding inner cities like Detroit.

Lucia Heinold also urged commissioners to pass a resolution asking Michigan legislators to repeal this state’s version of the “stand your ground” law. She’s talked with a lot of black parents about the fears they have for their children. She hoped commissioners would join the movement to repeal the law. Heinold said she’s worked with the prisoner re-entry program and has come to admire sheriff Jerry Clayton and his work with the neighborhoods.

Later in the meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) indicated that he would be bringing forward such a resolution at the board’s Sept. 18 meeting. He said he felt that more discussion needed to happen, which he hoped would happen on the 18th.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) spoke in support of a resolution, but hoped that it would go further than simply calling on legislators to repeal the law – because that won’t likely happen, given the current composition of the legislature.

Communications & Commentary: Human Services

Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, thanked commissioners for their support for human services, for coordinated funding, and specifically for the Delonis Center, a homeless shelter in downtown Ann Arbor that’s operated by the shelter association. She read a short statement about a man named Peter who used the services of the center and was able to become independent and live on his own again. Last winter, the shelter moved 31 people from its warming center or rotating shelter into housing. Another 51 people were moved into the residential program, she said, where nearly half of them were then moved into housing.

Communications & Commentary: Pall-Gelman 1,4 Dioxane Plume

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

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’s been communicating with Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere and Chuck Warpehoski, who co-sponsored a city council resolution on Sept. 3 related to this issue. Rabhi would like to bring a similar resolution to the county board at its Sept. 18 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Miss America

Alicia Ping (R-District 3), whose district includes the city of Saline, reported that the Miss America pageant will be held on Sept. 15 in Atlantic City. Miss Michigan, Haley Williams, is from Saline, Ping noted, and she urged commissioners and the public to support Williams. The competition will be broadcast on ABC affiliates starting at 9 p.m.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge called on commissioners to seek out additional resources, including private foundation support and an override of the Headlee Amendment, to provide services to county residents.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

From left: Raman Patel, Washtenaw County’s equalization director, greets Leila Bauer, chief deputy treasurer who is retiring after 41 years with the county. (Photos by the writer.)

After several years of reporting declining tax revenues, Raman Patel – the county’s equalization director – gave commissioners a report showing stronger signs of economic recovery, reflected in a 1.68% increase in taxable value. That translates into an estimated $2.327 million more in property tax revenues for county government than had been budgeted for 2013. [.pdf of Patel's presentation]

Also related to the budget, commissioners gave initial approval to a four-year budget planning cycle, a change from the current two-year cycle that’s been in place since 1994. Voting against the item was Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). He and other commissioners expressed a range of concerns, including the fact that commissioners are elected every two years and therefore might not be able to contribute adequately to setting budget priorities. Although Peterson remained unconvinced, several commissioners observed that the annual budget affirmation process acted as a fail-safe, allowing the board to make adjustments based on changing priorities.

Another item that could have a dramatic impact on the county’s budget was only briefly mentioned: A proposal to issue up to $350 million in bonds to fully fund the county’s pension and retiree healthcare plans. It would be by far the largest bond issuance in the county’s history. County administrator Verna McDaniel plans to make a formal presentation about the proposal at the board’s May 2 working session. She distributed materials on April 17 to help commissioners prep for that meeting. [.pdf of bond proposal handout]

Commissioners also took a final vote officially to dissolve a countywide public transit authority known as the Washtenaw Ride. There was no discussion, but Conan Smith (D-District 9) – a vocal advocate for public transit – cast the sole vote against the resolution.

Other action handled by the board included a federal weatherization grant, a public hearing for the Urban County strategic plan, and resolutions honoring county employees and residents. Among them was Leila Bauer, the county’s chief deputy treasurer who is retiring after 41 years with the county. She received a standing ovation from the board.

County Bonding Proposal

County administrator Verna McDaniel passed out information to commissioners on April 17 regarding a major bonding proposal. She plans to make a formal presentation at the board’s May 2 working session. [.pdf of bond proposal handout]

The proposal is for a 25-year bond issue of up to $350 million to fully fund the county’s pension and retiree healthcare plans – the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA).

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Although commissioners were alerted to the possibility of this bonding proposal earlier in the year, the communication from McDaniel was the first time it had been formally raised at a public board meeting. She told commissioners that the material she was providing outlined six key points, including the purpose and objectives of bonding, and cost comparisons between estimated payments of debt service compared to the county’s annual required contribution to its pension and retiree healthcare funds.

She also provided a summary of relevant provisions in Public Act 329 of 2012, which the Michigan legislature passed in October of 2012. [.pdf of Public Act 329] The law enables municipalities to issue bonds to cover unfunded accrued pension and retiree healthcare liabilities, but has a sunset of Dec. 31, 2014.

The material distributed by McDaniel also lists benefits and risks of bonding, and a comparison of budgets based on bonding or not bonding.

Benefits cited by McDaniel include:

• Easier long-term budgeting provided by having predictable bond payments, rather than fluctuating amounts each year to cover pension (WCERS) and retiree healthcare (VEBA) costs. For example, the current combined WCERS and VEBA contributions in 2014 are estimated at $23.5 million. A bond payment is estimated at $18.6 million. [These annual lower payments don't take into account the higher amounts paid in interest over the life of the bonds, however. Details on the interest payments were not provided.]
• The complete elimination of the WCERS and VEBA obligations after 25 years.
• Proceeds from the bond, held in an intermediate trust, could be used to call the bonds after nine years, if some future event eliminates the WCERS and VEBA liabilities.
• Current rates for issuing bonds are at an historic low. Average debt service is estimated at 4%.

McDaniel also listed a few risks of bonding, including the size of the debt load, the uncertainty of market conditions, and the impact of defaulting, which would have consequences for the county’s credit rating and ability to issue bonds for other purposes.

The timetable proposes an initial board vote to approve the bond issuance on May 15 at its ways & means committee meeting, with a final vote on June 5. The board would vote on July 10 to approve the final bonding amount. During the summer months of June through August, the board typically holds only one regular board meeting each month.

McDaniel is also recommending that the county set up an intermediate trust to receive net proceeds from the sale of the bonds, and to invest and distribute the assets.

“This is an important and critical issue,” she said, “and we wanted to make sure you had as much information as possible in advance.”

Based on the county’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), Washtenaw County’s total outstanding debt at the end of 2012 was $60.877 million, up from $35.67 million in 2003. In 2012, the county paid $8.77 million in principal on its debt, $2.69 million in interest and other charges, and $166,892 related to bond issuance costs. [.pdf of debt data from 2012 CAFR]

County Bonding Proposal: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) confirmed with McDaniel that the county’s legal counsel and bond counsel, John Axe, would attend the May 2 working session. [Axe has been advising the county on this proposal, and likely would be paid based on a percentage of the bonded amount.]

Peterson wondered if this proposal would impact the county’s current bonding capacity and ability to borrow for other needs.

McDaniel replied that this amount would be “well within our capacity.” The rating agencies allow the county to bond up to 10% of the county’s taxable value. According to the equalization report that was presented earlier in the meeting, the county’s taxable value is $14.416 billion.

Peterson asked McDaniel to provide more information at the May 2 working session about the county’s current bonding ability, as well as the impact that a $350 million bond issuance would have on the county’s ability to bond beyond that.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) review materials prior to the start of the county board’s April 17 meeting.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he was very interested in the impact that this bond would have on other communities in Washtenaw County. Rating agencies look at the total debt throughout the county, he noted. Communities have different levels of debt and taxable values, and he wanted to know how that would be affected regarding the “debt overhang.” [Debt overhang refers to the point at which debt is so great that an entity is unable to take on additional debt.]

The bond issuance that’s being proposed would add a substantial amount of debt on a per-capita basis, D. Smith said. Based on the data from the current equalization report and on the county’s current debt as provided in the most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), the county’s total debt – for all municipalities – is 9.2% of the county’s total taxable value.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) confirmed with McDaniel that the assumptions built in to her calculations factor in the new labor contracts, which eliminated defined benefit plans for new employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. [See Chronicle coverage: "New Labor Contracts Key to County Budget"] He also highlighted a chart that showed “savings” that the county would see from this bond issuance, and indicated that he’d like more information about how those amounts are calculated. [.pdf of budget projection charts]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) encouraged commissioners to email their questions to the administration prior to May 2, so that the financial staff would have adequate time to prepare responses. “It’s a big decision,” he said, “and we want to make sure we’re walking into this with a body of supporting information, both from professionals and from others in the community, to make sure we’re making the right decision on this.”

Rabhi said he had asked the administration to provide this material prior to the May 2 working session, so that commissioners would have time to review it and ask questions.

Equalization Report

Raman Patel, the county’s equalization director, made his annual presentation to the board on April 17. He began by noting that he has worked on 42 of the 55 equalization reports that the county has produced over the past few decades. [.pdf of Patel's presentation] [.pdf of equalization report]

Equalized (assessed) value is used to calculate taxable value, which determines tax revenues for the county as well as its various municipalities and other entities that rely on taxpayer dollars, including schools, libraries and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, among others.

After several years of reporting declining tax revenues, this year’s report showed stronger signs of economic recovery, reflected in a 1.68% increase in taxable value.

For 2013, taxable value in the county increased 1.68% to $14.2 billion. That’s an improvement over declines seen in recent years, when equalized value fell 0.76% in 2012, 2.85% in 2011 and 5.33% in 2010. It’s also an improvement over projections made when the county administration prepared its 2013 budget. The general fund budget was approved with a projection of $60.9 million in tax revenues. But actual revenues, based on 2013 taxable value, are now estimated at $63.236 million – for an excess in 2013 general fund revenues of $2.327 million. Patel stressed that at this point, the taxable value is a recommendation and must be approved at the state level.

Patel also presented tentative taxable values for specific jurisdictions. The city of Ann Arbor shows a 3.34% increase in taxable value, while the city of Saline’s taxable value is a 3.97% increase over 2012. All but six municipalities showed an increase in taxable value. Those municipalities with decreases include the city of Ypsilanti (-0.38%) and Ypsilanti Township (-2.53%).

Properties in the Ann Arbor Public Schools district – which includes the city of Ann Arbor and parts of surrounding townships – will see a 2.32% increase in taxable value. Properties taxed by the Ann Arbor District Library, covering a geographic area that in large part mirrors the AAPS district, increased in value by 2.11%. [.pdf of taxable value list by jurisdiction]

Taxable value is determined by a state-mandated formula, and is the lower of two figures: (1) a parcel’s equalized (assessed) value; or (2) a capped value calculated by taking last year’s taxable value minus any losses (such as a building being torn down), multiplied by 5% or the rate of inflation (whichever is lower), plus the value of any additions or new construction. This year inflation is 2.4%.

Patel reported that the county’s millage rate will not be rolled back this year. The state’s Headlee Amendment rolls back millage rates to prevent property tax revenues from increasing faster than the rate of inflation. That won’t happen this year, because the inflation rate of 2.4% is higher than the increase in taxable value.

In 2013, several categories of property saw increases in equalized value for the first time in years, according to the report. Commercial property showed a 2.2% gain in equalized value, compared to a 3.84% decline last year. It was the first increase in commercial property values since 2009. Residential property value – the largest classification of property in the county – showed an increase of 2.37%, gaining in value for the first time since 2007. Last year, the equalized value for residential property had dropped 0.57%, and had registered a 2.74% drop in 2011. The average residential sales price in February 2013 was $216,220 – up from a low of $154,015 in 2009.

Personal property values also increased, growing 3.15% compared to 2012.

Last year, agricultural property had been the only category that showed an increase. Growth continues in 2013, but at a slower pace. Agricultural property registered an 0.67% increase in equalized value this year, compared to an increase of 3.54% in 2012.

Industrial and developmental property values continue to struggle. Those were the only categories to register a decline in 2013. Industrial property showed a drop in equalized value of 4.78%. That compares to a 3.99% drop in value last year. Over the past few years that category has lost significant value, falling from an equalized value of nearly $1 billion in 2007 to this year’s value of $421.72 million. Developmental property – a relatively small category that covers properties not yet developed – had a 7.12% drop in equalized value.

Patel also highlighted the value of new construction in the county – $368.1 million, a 30% jump over the value of new construction in 2012. But most of the new construction is happening in DDA districts, he reported, so the full increase in tax revenue isn’t going directly to the taxing jurisdictions.

From right: County commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 6), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Patel noted that countywide, about $418 million is captured by local downtown development authorities (DDAs), local district finance authorities (LDFAs), brownfield tax increment financing, and other entities that are allowed to capture funds from taxing jurisdictions. For Washtenaw County government alone, $2.405 million goes to these other tax-capturing entities that would otherwise be revenues for the county’s general fund. He noted that although the official taxable value for Washtenaw County increased by 1.68%, the net increase is just 1.35% – after subtracting the amounts captured by DDAs and other tax-capturing entities.

Another factor is the impact that the Headlee amendment has had since the state’s voters approved that measure in 1978. The county was originally authorized to levy 5.5 mills, but since 1978 that rate has been rolled back to 4.5493 mills, Patel noted. In order to levy its full rate of 5.5 mills, the county would need to ask voters for a Headlee override.

Compared to surrounding counties, Washtenaw is faring well, Patel reported. Taxable values were flat in Oakland and Lapeer counties, and Livingston County showed a modest increase of 1.18%. But values in other counties continue to decline, including Wayne (-1.20%), Macomb (-0.55%) and Genesee (-2.43%).

Though the news for Washtenaw was generally positive, Patel cautioned that the loss of the state personal property tax – which Michigan legislators repealed last year – could ultimately result in a loss of more than $5 million in annual revenues for the county government alone, and more than $40 million for all taxing jurisdictions in Washtenaw County. The tax will be phased out starting in 2014 through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources. It’s unclear what will happen if voters reject that proposal.

The county also hasn’t recovered from a loss in property value over the past few years. Although the $14.21 billion in total taxable value this year is higher than 2012, it’s 9.2% lower than the taxable value of $15.65 billion in 2008. “Even with the improved market, it will take a number of years to regain the valuation status,” Patel said.

Equalization Report: Board Discussion

Several commissioners praised the work, thanked Patel and his staff, and generally applauded the news. There were also several questions.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked how Patel got the comparative data with other counties. Patel replied that there are 83 counties in Michigan with 83 equalization directors. “We get together every month,” he said. “This is my job, because I want to make sure that my county is going to equalize property just like every other county.” Every assessment should reflect uniformity and equity – that’s his responsibility, Patel said, adding that the state Constitution is very clear about this equalization process.

D. Smith also asked about tax tribunal cases, and wondered what the impact might be on appeals made regarding this year’s assessments. Patel reported that the county has about $800 million in taxable value that’s in contention. That doesn’t mean that the county will have to refund $800 million worth of tax revenue, he explained. Often the original assessments aren’t changed, even if they are challenged.

Responding to another query from D. Smith, Patel explained that the “developmental” category is used to classify property that would eventually be developed. At the point when it’s developed, the property will be reclassified – as commercial or residential, for example, depending on its use. So the developmental category fluctuates considerably from year to year. It’s a category “parking spot,” he said.

D. Smith also clarified with Patel that the total amount of tax dollars levied countywide – including all municipalities, school systems, libraries, etc. – was $632.299 million, based on 2012 millage rates. Yes, Patel said. The amount will likely change only slightly for 2013.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Patel and called the report wonderful news. After years in recession and making budget cuts “down to the bone,” Rabhi said, it’s good to hear that the county will be taking in more revenues than it budgeted for. But he noted that the federal government is cutting back on its funding, and budget cuts at the state level are expected to continue. He wanted to highlight the fact that the county now has a potential opportunity to help sustain some of the ongoing community investments that would otherwise be damaged or cut back due to federal and state funding cuts.

Rabhi noted that Washtenaw County is doing well compared to other areas in Michigan, and a lot of that is due to government investments, he said – through the county, the universities, and other local entities. “We’re putting money back in our community for economic development,” he said, “and we’re building the economy here in Washtenaw County. I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that we’re seeing a return in property values.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) noted that the county is still seeing fairly significant losses in industrial property values. He wondered if it was due to properties being taken out of that classification, or because those industrial properties continue to decline in value. Patel replied that these properties continue to decline in value. As an example, he noted that General Motors had removed personal property from its closed Willow Run plant in Ypsilanti Township, which contributed to the property’s loss in value.

C. Smith said it might be something to talk about with Ann Arbor SPARK, this region’s economic development agency. Even though several classifications are seeing a turnaround, he noted, that hasn’t yet happened for industrial properties. In order for that to occur, the properties need to become competitive in the marketplace, he said. SPARK is really the county’s “go-to partner” in terms of recruiting tenants for those buildings, he added, so perhaps that effort should be given more weight in SPARK’s strategic plan.

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that Paul Krutko, SPARK’s CEO, is very active in working on GM’s Willow Run plant as well as other industrial facilities in the county. “I think he knows that that’s a huge concern,” she said. [Both McDaniel and Conan Smith serve on the executive committee of SPARK's board of directors. The county allocated $200,000 to SPARK in the 2013 budget.]

C. Smith asked Patel to provide a list of the top 10 industrial parcels in the county, based on valuation, as well as the 10 parcels that are experiencing the greatest loss in value. This information would help in targeting any marketing that might be done, he noted.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) thanked Patel, noting that this was the first good news the equalization staff has delivered since she was elected in 2010. “I’m surprised you aren’t all out there doing the happy dance,” she joked.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the 2013 equalization report.

Four-Year Budget Process

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a four-year budget planning cycle, a change from the current two-year cycle that’s been in place since 1994.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioner Felicia Brabec (District 4) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

The board had been briefed on the issue at a Feb. 21, 2013 working session. County administrator Verna McDaniel has cited several benefits to a longer budget planning cycle, saying it would provide more stability and allow the county to intervene earlier in potential deficit situations. [.pdf of McDaniel's Feb. 21 presentation] State law requires that the board approve the county’s budget annually, but a quadrennial budget would allow the administration to work from a longer-term plan.

With a two-year approach, larger cuts must be made within a shorter timeframe to address anticipated deficits. A four-year plan would allow the administration to identify potential deficits at an earlier date, and target savings that would compound over the longer period, making the overall budget more manageable.

The county is currently working on a new budget starting in 2014. Earlier this year, the county administration projected a $24.64 million general fund deficit over the four-year period from 2014 through 2017. A much smaller general fund deficit of $3.93 million is projected for 2014, but McDaniel hopes to identify $6.88 million in structural changes for that year – a combination of new revenues and cuts in expenditures – in order to eliminate the cumulative deficit going forward. These numbers will be revised in light of the county’s equalization report, which estimates that the county will receive $2.327 million more in 2013 tax revenues than had originally been budgeted.

Four-Year Budget Process: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he thought it was a step in the right direction, though he still had some concerns. He’s talked with county administrator Verna McDaniel about this process, and sees more positive than negative things coming from the change.

His basic concern is that commissioners are elected on a two-year cycle, which is in “direct conflict with a four-year budget,” he said. Although McDaniel has plans to accommodate that, he said, there’s no getting around the basic fact. However, he noted that countywide elected officials are on a four-year election cycle, which would synch well with a four-year budget. [Countywide elected positions are the sheriff, treasurer, county prosecuting attorney, clerk/register of deeds, and water resources commissioner.]

D. Smith said he’d like a more intense budget discussion with the county departments. The board is rather removed from that department-level discussion, he noted. One way to intensify that discussion would be to institute zero-based budgeting, he said. On a four-year cycle, each department would wipe its slate clean and be required to justify each item in its budget. Doing this every four years might not be as onerous as doing it every one or two years, he said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5).

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) clarified with McDaniel that the four-year budget process would begin with the budget that’s being developed, from 2014-2017.

Peterson then said that although his politics often differ greatly from Republican Dan Smith’s, he respected Smith as an individual and in this case he shared some of Smith’s concerns. Peterson stressed that this was the first time he had participated in a discussion about a four-year budget. [Peterson did not attend the Feb. 21 working session when McDaniel and the county's financial staff briefed commissioners on this approach.]

The responsibility for the county’s budget rests with the elected board of commissioners, he noted. Sometimes they just come to meetings “because we somewhat enjoy each other’s company,” he joked. But often there are pressing items related to appropriations, he added, citing the allocation of funds in the wake of last spring’s tornado touchdown in the Dexter area.

This responsibility is entrusted to the board, he said. In recent years, because of the economy, the board has made difficult decisions that sometimes resulted in residents not getting the services they need, he said, like the decision to stop administering the HeadStart program. [The responsibility for the Washtenaw HeadStart, which the county has administered since the 1960s, is in the process of being handed over to another to-be-determined entity.]

It’s not the board’s role to micromanage, Peterson noted, and the county would run quite well even if the board met only once every six months. Commissioners set the millage rate, accept the equalization report, make key hires – and set the budget, he said.

Earlier this year, the board approved new labor contracts that will determine the wages and benefits of employees for the next 10 years. As part of that, the board has the obligation to “right the ship,” Peterson said, and he didn’t know if commissioners could do that with a four-year budget cycle. They haven’t yet assessed some of the programs and structures that have been in place for years – programs and structures that need to be re-evaluated, he said.

Peterson told commissioners that they hadn’t really started the process for the next budget year, let alone for four years. He said he wouldn’t be supporting a four-year budget. The board needed to have a retreat to discuss it, he said, adding that perhaps others have already met and made that decision. The public should have input too, he said.

Peterson concluded by saying that even for a two-year budget, things can change – either because of the economy, or because of changing priorities among commissioners. “If you can count to a majority, you can change the budget,” he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) spoke next, indicating that he shared concerns about the impact of elections on the budget process. But he said he’d support a four-year budget. Everything the board and administration has done so far this year has been with the goal of providing more stability and predictability, he said. A four-year budget process would add to that. “And I feel secure in that we have a fail-safe in the [budget] reaffirmation each year,” he noted. “To me, if that wasn’t there, this wouldn’t be in any way, shape or form a prudent or responsible thing to do.”

In some ways, LaBarre added, a four-year approach moves the county away from a crisis-to-crisis mentality and more toward a strategic and tactical approach.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) emphasized that the board’s responsibility is to pass an annual budget, and the four-year budget cycle won’t change that. In two years after the next board is seated, commissioners could decide that they didn’t want to do a four-year budget cycle, he said. So he didn’t feel that he was forcing anything on future boards.

There’s value in having a budget process and in allowing commissioners to delve into the details, Rabhi said. So there should be some sort of budget process every two years, with the understanding that the budget extends beyond a two-year time period.

In terms of the budget process so far, Rabhi reminded commissioners that they’ve had one budget retreat so far. Also, there was a working session in February specifically about the four-year budget proposal. “It wasn’t as well-attended as it could have been,” he added, but materials from that working session were provided to all commissioners, weighing the advantages and disadvantages. [.pdf of McDaniel's Feb. 21 presentation]

Rabhi said he’s scheduled a second retreat for the board on May 16 at the county’s Learning Resource Center. [The LCR is located near the county jail, at 4135 Washtenaw Ave.] The meeting is open to the public, and will be held at the same time as the board’s working sessions, which begin at 6 p.m.

If approved, Washtenaw County will be one of the only counties in Michigan if not the country to do a four-year budget, Rabhi said. “It’s a wonderful way to lead the nation in fiscal stability and fiscal responsibility.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) also shared concerns that had been raised about process considerations. From the standpoint of staff and administration, he said, a four-year budget makes a lot of sense because of the long-term planning process. But from the board’s perspective, he still was concerned about the two-year election cycle.

The resolution in front of the board simply gave direction to the staff, C. Smith said. It’s a good model, because it leads to longer-term decisions with more predictability. But it doesn’t obviate any of the concerns that had been raised by other commissioners, he said, so the board needs to develop a budget policy for this four-year approach. If they were operating on a two-year cycle, commissioners would approve the two-year budget for 2014-2015 at the end of 2013, but in 2014 they’d likely just rubber stamp it, he said. Commissioners know that they’ll be around for two years, so that second year budget is one they’ve already worked on.

It would be different on a four-year cycle, C. Smith said. There’s no guarantee that a commissioner would be around for four years. So it’s important to differentiate what happens in each of the four years. In the third year, perhaps there should be a substantive review of the budget – have the priorities changed, or are the original objectives being met? Then in the fourth year, commissioners would begin the budget process again with a “fulsome” assessment of the previous four years, he said.

In concept, the four-year process is a good approach, C. Smith said. But the board hasn’t yet articulated clearly the role that commissioners should be playing inside that process. He supported the resolution, saying that it simply gave direction to plan for four years. In September, if commissioners decide they want to adopt only a two-year budget, “we still have that right.” He said he’d be happy to be a leader in thinking through how the board can engage in the next four-year budget process.

From left: Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the county board of commissioners.

Peterson spoke again at length, saying it was amazing to him that the board had only held two short retreats, but had already made decisions about budget priorities. [In fact, there has been just one budget retreat so far – on March 7, 2013 – although budget issues have come up during discussions at several regular meetings.]

The budget isn’t the responsibility of administration, Peterson said, and he hoped the board assumed responsibility for it soon. He praised the county’s employees and talked about their sacrifices over the past few years. He urged the board to assess the county’s programs and services, to make sure the county never gets into this same kind of position again. He questioned how anyone could see the needs of the county four years from now, when things have changed so dramatically just over the past nine months. National healthcare reform is one example of changes that could impact the budget in the future, he said.

Rabhi responded, thanking Peterson for raising these concerns. Rabhi said he wanted to have a robust budget process, whether it’s a two-year or four-year budget. He expressed willingness to address Peterson’s concerns over the current budget process, and noted that another retreat is scheduled for mid-May. There will also be more budget-related working sessions, he said. “I don’t know of any private discussions that have been had around the budget,” Rabhi added.

A budget task force has been working under the direction of the administration, Rabhi said, noting that Felicia Brabec – chair of the board’s ways & means committee – has been very active in those. In addition to retreats, working sessions and regular meetings, Rabhi said he was open to other suggestions from commissioners in the budget process.

Brabec agreed that the board needs to be thinking more strategically, and said the next retreat will focus on that approach, looking at things like community impact. Rabhi added that the budget can’t just be about dollars and cents – it’s also about community impact, and developing a framework for assessing impact.

Dan Smith stressed that the board would be voting on something very specific that night, and he read from the resolution’s only resolved clause: “… that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners approve the development of a Quadrennial County Budget.” It doesn’t say that the board will adopt a quadrennial budget, he noted – it’s just the beginning of the process. At any point, commissioners could change this approach. The actual voting on the budget itself is a long way off, he said, and this is just the first step in the process. He said he’d continue evaluating it over the next few months.

Conan Smith reported that he had communicated to Brabec and LaBarre – but not to Rabhi, the board chair – his concerns that the board hasn’t allocated sufficient time so far for a robust budget conversation. Waiting until late May for the next board retreat means that administration will already be deep into the budget process, he said, and it gets harder to change direction if you want to keep the process on schedule. He expressed concerns that presentations at the working sessions had been on topics with lower priority than the budget.

C. Smith said he knew there’s keen interest in bonding for pension and healthcare liabilities, but going down that path before the board has a conversation about budget priorities is not the right sequence. He thought there should also be more conversations on the budget at the board’s ways & means committee meetings.

In the last budget cycle in 2011, C. Smith said, the board had held three retreats “all before March.” [He had been board chair at the time. Retreats – including sessions on Jan. 29, 2011 and Feb. 9, 2011 – culminated in the board adopting a set of budget priorities and principles at its March 16, 2011 meeting.]

The board had “a more engaged conversation by this point in the last budget process,” C. Smith said, “so I think that might be part of what the tension is – it feels like we’re getting late, in all honesty.” He urged the board leadership – Rabhi, Brabec and LaBarre – to examine their budget schedule and possibly call additional meetings to focus on the budget.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 7-1 to approve the resolution directing the administration to develop a four-year budget. Dissenting was Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 6) was not in the room when the vote was taken. A final vote is expected on May 1.

Weatherization Grant

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to accept $185,654 in funds for the county’s weatherization assistance program.

The funding roughly equals the amount of federal weatherization dollars that the county received in 2012, which was a decrease of about 65% compared to 2011 federal funding levels. The current funding is allocated through the 2013 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The county last received LIHEAP funding in 2010, but has received weatherization grants from other federal funding sources in the intervening years.

For the period from April 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, the program is expected to weatherize 27 homes. According to a staff memo, the work includes an energy audit inspection and follow-up inspection of the completed weatherization work, which might include attic and wall insulation, caulking, window repairs, furnace tune-ups, furnace replacements, and refrigerator installations. To qualify for the program, residents must have an income at or below 150% of federal poverty, which is about $35,325 for a family of four.

Weatherization Grant: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked whether the county would use outside subcontractors for this work, or if staff would do it. Mary Jo Callan – director of the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED) – replied that licensed contractors are hired to do the weatherization work, while staff members act as project managers and oversee the work.

Washtenaw County commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

D. Smith also noted that it’s been a few years since the county has received this type of grant. As he had read through the contract, there seemed to be some rather onerous requirements – such as making sure contractors meet the federal requirements needed to do the work. He wondered whether the county had sufficient resources to make sure all of those contract requirements are met. [.pdf of LIHEAP agreement]

Callan noted that although the county hasn’t received LIHEAP funding since 2010, there were large amounts of federal recovery (stimulus) dollars available in the interim. The requirements for all of this funding are similar, she said. Getting federal funds isn’t simply being given a blank check, she noted. It’s sometimes onerous, she acknowledged, but the county has a robust structure in place to manage dozens of federal grants.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked for Callan’s opinion on the proposed 30% reduction in LIHEAP funding that’s part of President Barack Obama’s budget. Callan replied that this is part of the analysis that her staff is doing related to the impact of federal sequestration. “A cut to this program is actually not new,” she said. It’s been a recurring recommendation in the federal budget for at least three years – either LIHEAP specifically, or weatherization in general.

Callan noted that the president’s budget also proposes a 50% cut in the Community Development Block Grant, which would have a tremendous impact on local programs. County staff is following this closely, she said. If the cut materializes, it would absolutely mean a decrease in the number of weatherization projects done each year. “And at some point, if you receive such a low allocation, you can’t have a program,” she said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) wondered how the county establishes criteria for delivering services. He said he’s very concerned about the elderly getting the services they need. In the past, he said, the program has served a lot of rental properties, while there are elderly homeowners who haven’t received the weatherization services. He wanted to see if senior citizens could get some kind of preference.

Brett Lenart, OCED’s housing and infrastructure manager, replied that the elderly are given a priority. The scoring system goes beyond a first-come-first-served approach, he said, and includes criteria like whether there are senior citizens or young children in the home, among other things. In response to additional queries from Peterson, Lenart noted that more information is available on the county’s weatherization website.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) reported that the Better Buildings for Michigan program has an version that’s available for non-low income families. A lot of people don’t qualify for weatherization program based on their income level, he noted, but could still use some support. He said he could help OCED connect with that program. [The Better Buildings for Michigan program is run by the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, where Smith serves as executive director.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to accept the weatherization grant. A final vote is expected on May 1.

Employees, Residents Honored

At its April 17 meeting, the board presented resolutions of appreciation honoring Rabbi Robert Dobrusin and several residents from the city of Saline, as well as to Leila Bauer, the county’s chief deputy treasurer who is retiring after 41 years of service.

In addition, the board declared the week of April 14-20 2013 as National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week in Washtenaw County. Several members of the county’s dispatch operations were on hand and received recognition from the board. [.pdf of telecommunicator resolution] Marc Breckenridge, Washtenaw County director of emergency services, said dispatch operators have gone through a lot over the last couple of years, citing new technology and changes related to combining county dispatch operations with the city of Ann Arbor. “They’ve really come through for us, and we’re really proud of them,” he said.

Marc Breckenridge, Washtenaw County director of emergency services, was among those on hand to accept a resolution regarding national telecommunicator week.

Dobrusin was recognized for 25 years of “providing spiritual and pastoral support” for the Beth Israel congregation in Ann Arbor, the city’s “oldest Jewish Institution.” [.pdf of Dobrusin resolution] Also cited was his work as a founding member of the Interfaith Round Table of Washtenaw County and with the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice. The resolution noted his human rights efforts, including his current position as national co-chair with T’Ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights.

Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman attended the meeting to accept the resolution on behalf of Dobrusin. She highlighted his work in supporting the rights of indentured workers, then indicated that this would be a surprise for him. “If you know Rabbi Dobrusin, don’t talk!”

The board also passed a resolution of appreciation for Leila Bauer, the county’s chief deputy treasurer. Her work over the years has included serving on the Washtenaw County Health Organization, Washtenaw County Community Mental Health board, Washtenaw County Human Services board, and the Washtenaw County Health Authority. She received a standing ovation from the board. [.pdf of Bauer resolution]

Several Saline residents were also recognized by the county board. Helen Martin was honored for her work with the Saline Downtown Merchants Association and Saline Main Street. Jeff Dowling was recognized for receiving the “Saline Salutes” 2013 Citizen of the Year Award, as well as for work with the American Cancer Society and various Saline community events. Joy Ely, owner of The Pineapple House, was recognized for receiving the “Saline Salutes” 2013 Lifetime Achievement Award, and for her support of downtown Saline. Also honored by the board was Sarah Chu, who received the city of Saline’s 2013 Youth of the Year Award. [.pdf of Martin resolution] [.pdf of Dowling resolution] [.pdf of Ely resolution] [.pdf of Chu resolution]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed all resolutions of appreciation.

Washtenaw Ride Dissolved

On the agenda for a final vote was a resolution to officially dissolve a countywide public transit authority known as the Washtenaw Ride. Initial approval had been given on April 3, 2013.

The Act 196 authority, created in mid-2012 and spearheaded by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, was for all practical purposes ended late last year when the Ann Arbor city council voted to opt out of the transit authority at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting. Of the 28 municipalities in Washtenaw County, the city of Ypsilanti is the only one that hasn’t opted out.

Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith (District 9).

The county board’s April 17 resolution rescinds a board resolution that created the transit authority, and requests that the state legislature also take action to dissolve the Washtenaw Ride, in accordance with Attorney General Opinion #7003. That AG opinion stated that “the dissolution of a transportation authority organized under the Public Transportation Authority Act requires an act of the Legislature and may not be accomplished by the unilateral action of the city in which it was established.” [.pdf of AG opinion 7003]

The county’s role in creating the transit entity had been laid out in a four-party agreement with Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and the AATA, which commissioners approved on Aug. 1, 2012 in a 6-4 vote. Subsequent revisions involving the other entities resulted in the need for a re-vote by the county board, which occurred on Sept. 5, 2012.

There are two other transit efforts now under way. Washtenaw County is part of a southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) created by the state legislature late last year. The RTA was formed to coordinate regional transit in the city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw. Conan Smith has been a strong advocate for the RTA, and made Washtenaw County’s two appointments to the RTA board before his term as county board chair ended on Dec. 31, 2012.

Separate from the RTA effort, the AATA has been meeting with representatives of the county’s “urban core” communities to discuss possible expanded public transit within a limited area around Ann Arbor. It would be a smaller effort than the previous attempt at countywide service. The AATA hosted a meeting on March 28 to go over details about where improvements or expansion might occur, and how much it might cost. [See Chronicle coverage: "Costs, Services Floated for Urban Core Transit."]

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners passed a resolution dissolving The Washtenaw Ride. Voting against the resolution was Conan Smith (D-District 9), but he did not comment on his vote during the meeting. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

CSTS Job Creation

On the April 17 agenda for a final vote was a resolution authorizing the creation of 39 new jobs and the reclassification of 76 others for Washtenaw County’s community support and treatment service (CSTS) department. Initial approval had been given on April 3, 2013.

CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, but receives most of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. WCHO contracts for services through CSTS. Although staffing has remained fairly constant in the last five years, demand for services has increased by about 40%. These jobs are being created to provide the capacity to meet that demand.

The new jobs include client service managers, support coordinators, mental health professionals, mental health nurses, management analysts, administrators and a staff psychiatrist. All of the reclassified positions are client service managers. Of the 39 new positions, 30 of them are union jobs, represented by AFSCME.

According to a staff memo, the changes will add $14,255,535 to the CSTS 2012-2013 budget, bringing the budget total to $41,822,489. Of that, WCHO is providing $38,692,815, including revenues from grant pass-throughs. Other revenues include $165,190 from the Haarer bequest and $246,846 from a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

CSTS Job Creation: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) clarified with CSTS staff that they would be returning later in the year to secure approval for their annual budget. The CSTS budget runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. At that time, there would be a broader picture of the services that CSTS offers, he noted. The organization is shifting to more of a fee-based approach, Peterson said, and someone will need to assume responsibility for paying for these services. It would be helpful to show exactly what services are delivered by CSTS. It’s a very complex department, he said, and most people don’t know what services it provides. “You are the resources of last resort for many of our citizens,” he said. It’s important that the county provide the support that CSTS needs to deliver its services, he noted, especially as funding changes at the state and federal levels.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked the CSTS staff for their work, and said he echoed Peterson’s sentiments.

Outcome: On a final vote, commissioners unanimously approved the creation and reclassification of CSTS jobs.

Public Hearing for Urban County Plan

A public hearing to get input on the Washtenaw Urban County‘s five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan was held during the board’s April 17 meeting. [.pdf of draft strategic and annual plans]

The Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County and 18 local municipalities that receive federal funding for low-income neighborhoods. Members include the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline, and 15 townships. “Urban County” is a designation of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, entitling them to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs. The Urban County is supported by the staff of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

The plans indicate that the Urban County area is expected to receive about $2.7 million annually in federal funding, which will be used for these broad goals:

1. Increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities

2. Increasing quality, affordable rental housing

3. Improving public facilities and infrastructure

4. Supporting homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing services

5. Promoting access to public services and resources

6. Enhancing economic development activities

Only one person spoke during the April 17 public hearing. Thomas Partridge criticized the lack of affordable housing in the county, and said there was insufficient funding for adding adequate housing. He urged commissioners to hold their retreat and do their strategic planning in the boardroom, where the proceedings can be televised and accessible to residents.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary – each time speaking for the full three minutes that speakers are given. He described himself as an advocate for the most vulnerable residents, and called for ending housing discrimination in every city and township in Washtenaw County. He advocated for zoning and planning policies that ensure non-discrimination in housing. Partridge also demanded the recall of all elected officials who ran for office on the platform of advancing Michigan, but who subsequently neglected their promises and have taken the opposite attitude.

He also noted the much lower turnout during public commentary at the county board meeting compared to an Ann Arbor city council meeting earlier in the week. [The council's April 15, 2013 meeting had included two public hearings on controversial topics: 45 speakers participated in the public hearing on proposed changes to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority ordinance, and 51 people spoke on the 413 E. Huron site plan.]

Responding to Partridge’s comments about the need for more public participation, county board chair Yousef Rabhi said the board wanted to ensure that there aren’t any barriers to citizens participating in its meetings. Any time he speaks with constituents, Rabhi said, he stresses the importance of the county’s work and encourages input. But he conceded that the county board doesn’t draw the same kind of crowd that the Ann Arbor city council does. On the other hand, he noted, the county board’s meetings don’t last until 3 a.m. [The council's April 15 meeting had adjourned after 3 a.m., before the council finished its business. Most council agenda items were postponed until May 6.]

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, but receives most of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. WCHO contracts for services through CSTS. Although staffing has remained fairly constant in the last five years, demand for services has increased by about 40%. These jobs are being created to provide the capacity to meet that demand.

The new jobs include client service managers, support coordinators, mental health professionals, mental health nurses, management analysts, administrators and a staff psychiatrist. All of the reclassified positions are client service managers. Of the 39 new positions, 30 of them are union jobs, represented by AFSCME.

According to a staff memo, the changes will add $14,255,535 to the CSTS 2012-2013 budget, bringing the budget total to $41,822,489. Of that, WCHO is providing $38,692,815, including revenues from grant pass-throughs. Other revenues include $165,190 from the Haarer bequest and $246,846 from a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

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]

From left: Mark Kettner of the accounting firm Rehmann; Carla Sledge, Wayne County’s chief financial officer; Kelly Belknap, Washtenaw County’s finance director; and Pete Collinson, accounting manager for Washtenaw County. (Photos by the writer.)

The county’s finance staff, along with the auditor, Mark Kettner of Rehmann, highlighted several points, including a relatively dramatic increase in the general fund balance over the last few years – from $9.7 million in 2009 to $16.8 million at the end of 2012. Kettner also explained upcoming accounting changes that will require unfunded liabilities from the county’s pension and retirement healthcare plans – now totaling nearly $250 million – to be recorded in a different way, with more disclosure.

The new accounting changes – required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) – won’t begin until 2015, but commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) wondered whether the county could implement the changes sooner. It might be possible, Kettner replied, but “I don’t know why you’d want to do it.” He suggested that the board hold a working session to go over the upcoming changes in more detail.

Kettner also pointed out that the changes will affect government entities in different ways. For example, it’s likely that there will be more impact on the city of Ann Arbor, because of how its many “enterprise” funds might be affected and the implications that would have on outstanding bonds. At minimum, the changes will mean more work for finance staff.

Also at the April 3 meeting, commissioners voted to add 39 new jobs in the community support and treatment service (CSTS) department, which provides mental health and substance abuse services to county residents. The work is primarily funded by the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. Most of the new jobs are union positions. Dan Smith expressed concern about adding to the county’s payroll, but supported the resolution along with other commissioners in a unanimous vote.

The board also took an initial vote to dissolve The Washtenaw Ride. That Act 196 authority is a remnant of a failed attempt to create a countywide transit system last year. Efforts to expand the current reach of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority are still underway, but don’t require the structure that was put in place under Act 196.

The topic of public transportation was raised later in the meeting as well, as Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked about the county’s role in the southeast regional transit authority (RTA). The RTA was formed by the state legislature last year to coordinate regional transit in the city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw. There was not uniform support for Washtenaw County to be part of this effort, and it’s not yet clear what the impact will be on the AATA.

In other discussion, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) highlighted a proposal in front of the Ann Arbor city council regarding possible ordinance changes governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Depending on what the council decides, there might be implications for the county, he said, so he wanted to put it on the board’s radar. For background on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “DDA Tax Capture Change Gets Initial OK” and “DDA Ramps Up PR after First Council Vote.”

Also briefly mentioned was a discussion that occurred at a late March county pension commission meeting, raising questions about the new labor contracts that the board approved on March 20, 2013. At issue is whether the county complied with a state law requiring supplemental actuarial analysis before pension benefit changes are adopted. The county administration subsequently conferred with outside legal counsel, and confirmed their view that no new actuarial analysis was necessary.

And although it wasn’t discussed at the April 3 board meeting, the recent labor contracts resulted in another issue related to compliance with state law: Elimination of the county’s healthcare benefits for domestic partners.

When the county’s previous labor contracts were opened for renegotiation, that triggered the need to comply with a state law passed in late 2011. PA 297 restricts public entities from offering domestic partner benefits. For the county, those benefits had been offered to “other eligible adults” who met certain criteria, like sharing the same residence. Nine county employees had been using those benefits, according to Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. The benefits were eliminated as of April 1.

Heidt noted that even if the contracts hadn’t been renegotiated in March, the benefits would have eventually been eliminated when the previous contracts expired at the end of 2013. She said the administration was very disappointed about the change, and continues to explore other options that serve the employees while complying with state law.

2012 Finance, Audit Reports

The main action of the April 3 meeting related to the county’s financials, including a report from the auditor, Mark Kettner of the accounting firm Rehmann. Chronicle readers will likely recognize his name, as Kettner oversees audits for several local government entities, including the city of Ann Arbor.

Part of the financial presentation included an award to the county. As she has for the past several years, Carla Sledge – Wayne County’s chief financial officer and past president of the Government Finance Officers Association – presented the county with a certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting for its fiscal year ending December 2011. The award is based on the county’s timely completion of its state-mandated comprehensive annual financial report, or CAFR. This is the 22nd year that Washtenaw County has received a certificate of achievement.

Pete Collinson of the county’s finance department also gave a brief presentation with highlights from the current set of reports. The financial reports presented to the board are:

• Washtenaw County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County single audit of federal awards for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Building Authority financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Department of Public Works projects financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Water Resources Commissioner financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System (WCERS) financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Money Purchase Pension Plan (MPPP) financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) financial statements for the year ended Sept. 30, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Employment Training and Community Services Fund (ETCS) financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012 (conducted by the accounting firm of Stewart, Beauvais & Whipple).
• Washtenaw County Employment Training and Community Services Fund (ETCS) single audit of federal awards for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012 (conducted by the accounting firm of Stewart, Beauvais & Whipple).

Collinson described the process of fiscal review leading up to the audit. Auditors arrive in January and stay for about five weeks, then work with county staff for an additional period to finalize the financial statements. The goal is to make a presentation to the board by the first meeting in April, he said. He joked that an audit “certainly isn’t something we’d choose to do” every year. An annual audit is mandated by the Michigan Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act (PA 2 of 1968), which requires it for local units of government with a population of 4,000 or more residents.

There are two components to the audit, Collinson explained: (1) an audit of financial statements for all of the county’s funds, including assets, liabilities, revenues and expenditures; and (2) a “single audit” of all federal grants, to see if the county complied with federal requirements attached to those grants. Last year, he noted, the county received about $28 million in federal grants, “so it’s a significant part of our operation.”

The 206-page CAFR is the main document that’s produced as a result of the audit, Collinson said. He noted that the auditor has given the county a clean opinion.

He also highlighted the different sections of the CAFR. For example, a statistical section provides a range of trend data, including employee count, expenditures, revenues and other financial information. “It’s a helpful section to look at the trends over time,” he said. [.pdf of CAFR statistical section]

Collinson said he wouldn’t spend a lot of time on the general fund report, noting that the board had received a detailed update on 2012 year-end finances at its March 20, 2013 meeting. The general fund ended 2012 with a $2.3 million surplus, and a fund balance of $16.8 million – or 16.8% of annual general fund expenditures and appropriations. He characterized that position as very good, and in line with the minimum fund balance recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). It would be good to build on that, he added, but it was impressive to finally reach the minimum. “I didn’t think we’d get there in my years here,” he said.

From left: Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Turning to the report on all of the county’s fund balances, Collinson noted that some funds are restricted and can only be spent for a limited range of purposes. All county fund balances totaled $102.275 million at the end of 2012. Of that, $31.989 million was unobligated. [.pdf of schedule of fund balances as of Dec. 31, 2012]

He also mentioned the CAFR’s schedule of long-term liabilities over the last five years. Primarily, those liabilities are debt – such as debt related to construction projects – and actuarial liabilities for the pension and retirement healthcare systems. [.pdf of long-term liabilities] The schedule of long-term liabilities shows that total liabilities have increased from $393.9 million at the end of 2008 to $446.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2012.

Collinson also highlighted the county’s state revenue-sharing reserve fund, which had a balance of $4 million at the end of 2012. That remaining amount will be spent in 2013, and the fund will “sunset,” he said. The state has reinstated revenue-sharing at a lower level, with the county getting about $2.8 million for the current year. That amount is expected to increase, he said.

New to the CAFR this year are changes that reflect the county’s implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) statements 63 and 65. Certain items that were previously classified as assets are now called “deferred inflows.” And certain liabilities are now called “deferred outflows of resources.” In addition, the balance sheet (statement of net assets) is now called the statement of “net position.” Collinson joked that if he read the definition of these terms, it wouldn’t clarify things. He noted that the terms “assets” and “liabilities” have worked well for centuries, but GASB has decided to change the terminology. He characterized these changes as minor, though he noted that “bigger changes are coming down the pike.” [The reference was to implementation of GASB 67 and 68, which was discussed later in the meeting.]

Collinson reported that despite the economy, the county has maintained its AA+ bond rating with Standard & Poor’s, and an Aa2 rating with Moody’s. It’s the second-highest rating possible, he noted. The county administration hopes to secure the triple-A bond rating in the future.

Collinson concluded by introducing Mark Kettner from the accounting firm Rehmann, who reviewed the 2012 audit and answered questions from commissioners.

Kettner noted that the current report was “unmodified” – a new term that’s being used instead of the previous “unqualified.” Both mean that the audit was clean, which is the highest level of assurance for financial statements. He cautioned that “the auditor did not say that everything is OK.” That is, it’s not an opinion on internal controls or the county’s financial position. It’s an opinion that the financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with criteria that meet GASB principles, he said.

Kettner also highlighted some terminology changes that result from GASB’s new “clarity” standards. Like Collinson, he characterized the changes as subtle, adding that it created some “nuisance work” compared to previous statements.

Bigger changes are coming, however. About a month ago, Kettner said he met with county administration and board leadership to talk about the current report as well as upcoming GASB standards 67 and 68. It would take hours to explain, he said, but he summarized it as a very big change dealing with pension plans and retirement healthcare. It will require an extra actuarial report, more disclosure, and recording of liabilities in a different way.

He pointed to the current pension fund statement – on page 115 of the CAFR – and noted that the current unfunded actuarial liability of $101 million will be recorded in 2015 as a liability on the county’s governmental-wide financial statements. That won’t have as great an impact as it would if it were required to be booked as a general fund liability, he said. [.pdf of CAFR statement regarding pension fund] “It’s going to be a big pop into the financial statements,” he said.

Two years later, in 2017, the same thing will occur for retiree healthcare – the county’s Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association (VEBA), a 501(c)9 trust established to pre‐fund retiree healthcare benefits. Kettner said the county will be booking that liability – now at about $148 million – on the governmental-wide financial statements. [.pdf of CAFR statement regarding VEBA]

There’s lots of lead time, Kettner said, but he suggested that the board hold a working session, and perhaps include the boards of VEBA and WCERS, to talk in more detail about what this transition will entail.

Kettner praised the county for completing its audit by the end of the first quarter, saying it’s as good as any publicly traded Fortune 100 or 500 company.

2012 Finance, Audit Reports: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked if there’s anything preventing the county from implementing GASB 67 and 68 standards sooner than required. There’s nothing to prevent that, Kettner replied, but “I don’t know why you’d want to do it.”

Smith said he’d like to do it in order to get a clearer understanding of the county’s financial picture, because the county will be forced to do it eventually. Kettner likened it to going to the dentist to get a root canal, and being offered the choice of doing it tomorrow or next week – you might want to put it off.

From left: Mark Kettner with the auditing firm Rehmann talks with Curt Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

The information about these liabilities is already provided in the CAFR, Kettner noted. The amount might change – either up or down – because different assumptions will be used under the new GASB reporting standards. The county will need to get a new actuarial report that uses a different set of assumptions. But he indicated that those changes likely won’t be dramatic. The main difference will be a greater amount of disclosures, and a booking of the liabilities under the governmental funds.

Kettner added that the county couldn’t implement the changes until it gets the necessary information from the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan, a statewide system. Although only a small subset of county employees are enrolled in MERS, that pension system still must be included in the county’s audit. He described it as a “triple whammy” for Washtenaw County, because the county will be required to include information for all three systems: MERS, WCERS and VEBA.

For MERS, the county will have to include information related to the entire MERS system, not just for the small piece of it that relates to county employees. So under the new standards, the county’s financial statements will need to include a listing of all MERS investments and the rate of return for those investments. Then, the county’s financial staff will have to calculate the county’s “slice” of those investments as part of their report. “So it’s going to be rather complicated, and I don’t expect that you’ll have MERS ahead of time,” Kettner said.

Kettner also questioned whether the actuaries hired by the county are prepared to handle this additional workload yet. “I hear what you’re saying,” he told Smith regarding an early implementation, “but I would really advise against doing it.”

Smith noted that if the liabilities are currently on the county’s balance sheet – what’s now called its statement of net position – then the net position would be negative. It would make the statement look significantly different, he said.

That’s true, Kettner replied, but the rating agencies – Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s – are well aware of this information, and they know that actuarial information is based on an educated guess. In addition, it won’t be as big of a hit to the county as it will to the city of Ann Arbor, Kettner said. For a city that has a higher number of enterprise funds – like water, sewer and other utilities – the pension and retirement healthcare liabilities will have to be allocated to those funds. “All of a sudden those funds are going to get significant charges, and it could push them into a fund deficit,” Kettner explained.

The minor impact could be a requirement from the state to do a deficit elimination plan. But there’s potential for greater impact: If those enterprise funds have revenue bonds that are still being paid off, there might be covenants in those bonds stating that the funds can’t operate with a deficit. If that’s the case, Kettner said, then the city would need to figure out how to address it, which might entail rate increases. “That’s not going to go over very well,” he said.

The changes will hit governmental entities differently, he said. For the county, it will hit them in the governmental funds, “and to be honest with you, some people don’t even pay attention to those. Rating agencies are more concerned about your general fund, and any significant proprietary [enterprise] funds.”

Continuing his questions, Smith then highlighted a sentence from the CAFR, included in the notes on the pension system. He read it aloud, and asked Kettner to clarify. That sentence states: “However, for purposes of calculating the annual required contribution (ARC), the System uses the aggregate cost actuarial funding method, which does not identify or separately amortize unfunded actuarial liabilities.” Kettner explained that the county is using a different approach in its calculations to determine an annual required contribution to the pension plan, compared to what’s required as a GASB disclosure.

Smith indicated that he had other questions and comments, but he understood that Kettner’s scope was limited to the report of financial statements, not to the actual financial condition of the county.

Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked Pete Collinson to elaborate on his remarks about the county’s fund balance.

Collinson noted that for many years, the fund balance was around $4 million, which would barely cover more than a couple of weeks of operating costs, he said. Former county administrator Bob Guenzel had tried to add to it every year, to build the fund balance slowly. In the last couple of years, the growth in the fund balance has been much greater, he said, from about $7 million to the current $16.8 million. [According to data provided in the CAFR, the general fund balance grew from $7.4 million in 2003 to $9.7 million in 2009, then jumped dramatically to $15.3 million in 2010.] Collinson called it a good surprise to reach that amount.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) called the CAFR interesting, but noted that “the weeds can get tall pretty quick.” He was glad the county has a staff that’s “able to wade through those weeds” and provide answers to questions that commissioners might have. The work that the staff does is very valuable, he said.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith made some additional comments on the CAFR, reflecting more on the county’s financial condition. He praised the staff, saying that even though many people were involved, the documents were unified with a consistent style that made it seem as though the same person wrote it.

Smith highlighted page 178 of the CAFR, with a chart comparing the county’s principle taxpayers in 2003 through 2012. [.pdf of Washtenaw County's top taxpayers] The county has a much broader tax base now than in 2003, he noted. Nine years ago, the top 16 taxpayers made up 9.89% of the county’s tax base. Now, that percentage is down to 6.88%. In 2003, several taxpayers represented more than 1% of the tax base. In 2012, no taxpayers are paying more than 1% of the county’s tax base. “I think that bodes well for the long-term future of the county,” Smith said.

The county’s top five taxpayers in 2003 were Pfizer, Visteon, General Motors, Detroit Edison and MichCon. By 2012, three of those – Pfizer, Visteon and General Motors – were not even in the top 16. The top five taxpayers in 2012 were Detroit Edison, McKinley Associates, Toyota, MichCon and Ford.

On pages 184-185, Smith pointed to a list showing the total debt across the entire county, including school districts, libraries, municipalities and other government entities. [.pdf of direct and overlapping debt table] The debt totals about $1.3 billion. If you divide that amount by the number of county residents, it works out to just $3,773 per person, Smith noted. If it was divided by parcels or taxpayers, that number would go significantly higher, he added. [Debt-per-capita is a factor weighed by bond rating agencies.]

Smith also highlighted page 23 of the audit for the office of the water resources commissioner. The office uses a straight-line amortization schedule of 50 years for its infrastructure. He noted that some of the county drains are well beyond that age, so there’s a building infrastructure deficit. It’s already clear that there are problems with roads, he said, and some of the county’s drains will likely start to collapse and fail as well. He pointed to a situation in Superior Township last year where a drain had not been maintained and it slowly sedimentized. The 50-year amortization schedule roughly equates to the lifespan of the county’s drainage infrastructure, Smith noted.

In wrapping up the discussion of financial reports, county administrator Verna McDaniel thanked the staff for their work. She thanked Dan Smith as well “for appreciating the CAFR to the extent that he does.” She joked that because she knew he would read the CAFR closely, “I read this darn thing front-to-cover myself.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Jobs for Mental Health Services

A resolution was on the April 3 agenda to create 39 new jobs and reclassify 76 others for Washtenaw County’s community support and treatment service (CSTS) department.

CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, but it receives most of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. WCHO contracts for services through CSTS. Although staffing has remained fairly constant in the last five years, demand for services has increased by about 40%. These jobs are being created to provide the capacity to meet that demand.

The new jobs include client service managers, support coordinators, mental health professionals, mental health nurses, management analysts, administrators and a staff psychiatrist. All of the reclassified positions are client service managers. Of the 39 new positions, 30 of them are union jobs, represented by AFSCME.

According to a staff memo, the changes will add $14,255,535 to the CSTS 2012-2013 budget, bringing the budget total to $41,822,489. Of that, WCHO is providing $38,692,815, including revenues from grant pass-throughs. Other revenues include $165,190 from the Haarer bequest and $246,846 from a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

Jobs for Mental Health Services: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he supported the move. There’s a lot of need that often goes unmet in other communities, but the county rises up to the challenge, he said. CSTS has been seeing more customers, even though its staffing level has been relatively flat, he said.

The need for more staff is crucial, Rabhi said, because it means better service for people in the community. It will also mean a net increase in union jobs, he noted, which he said he is very supportive of. He also praised the fact that some of the people who have been doing these jobs on a temporary basis will now have permanent, full-time positions. “And as a temporary employee, I can tell you that being a temporary employee is no fun.” [Rabhi works for the city of Ann Arbor's natural area preservation (NAP) program.]

From left: County commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7). Both represent districts in Ann Arbor.

Even in the face of shrinking government, Rabhi said, this proves that government is still relevant and necessary for this kind of service, because there is no private market to provide it. “We need to be there for those folks,” he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she wanted to echo Rabhi’s comments. It’s an important move for mental health stability in the community, for residents as well as workers. She asked for an explanation of where the money to fund these positions is coming from.

Tim Florence, CSTS medical director, reported that WCHO is the funder for these kinds of mental health services, and CSTS is the service provider. No county general fund dollars are being used.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wondered if the additional staff would be serving a specific geographical region. He said he’s interested in “providing services where services are needed.” Florence replied that WCHO/CSTS are responsible for providing all medically necessary services for county residents on Medicaid. Recently there has been a push to engage in more outreach, he said, especially in areas where there might be opportunities to expand services. Those areas include the 48197 and 48198 zip codes, he said. [That's a reference to the Ypsilanti area, which is part of Peterson's district.] But the services are provided to anyone in the county, he added, regardless of location.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked Florence to explain the restructuring that occurred in 2002, and wondered if there would be another restructuring locally as part of a broader statewide initiative. It was his understanding that Washtenaw County is being left untouched by a statewide restructuring, “and I think that speaks to our strength in terms of this service provision,” LaBarre said.

Florence explained that the WCHO is the community mental health service provider for this county, going back to the year 2000. The county board and University of Michigan formed this freestanding entity to provide mental health and substance abuse services to people with Medicaid, as well as to the uninsured. In 2002, there was a change made by the state Dept. of Community Health, which provides funding to WCHO. The state created PIHPs – pre-paid inpatient health plans – which basically set up a managed-care structure for these services, Florence said. The WCHO became the PIHP for Washtenaw County, as well as for other surrounding counties. The WCHO contracted with CSTS, which actually provided the services.

Now, the WCHO is trying to ensure that CSTS has the tools it needs – including administrative resources – to deliver these services, Florence said. There are some functions previously provided by WCHO that will move over to CSTS, he explained. Regarding the broader statewide restructuring, the number of PIHPs has decreased, he said, but Washtenaw County has been untouched by that change. He felt the county could help inform the state about ways to integrate mental and physical healthcare, which he called a wave of the future.

Florence noted that CSTS is serving about 40% more people today than it was 5 years ago, but staffing hasn’t increased.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) expressed concern about adding to the county’s employee base. The county isn’t close to being out of the woods financially, he said, and in the not-too-distant future there will be about $250 million impacting the county’s bottom line. [The reference was to an upcoming change in how pension and retirement healthcare liabilities will be accounted for on the county's financial statements.]

The current budget is based on continued declines in tax revenues, he noted. With the additional CSTS jobs, plus the two jobs added in information technology and water resources [on a vote taken at the same April 3 meeting], the total county headcount will reach about 1,375. That will be the highest headcount since 2008, he said. The county could be faced with the “unsavory” prospect of letting people go, he said, which no one wants. He also noted that the employees with union positions could have various bumping rights. [A “bump” is a union term referring to reassignment based on seniority.]

“I’ll be supporting this,” Smith concluded, “but I am still very, very cautious and leery about increasing the county’s headcount at this time.”

Peterson pointed out that the funding is revenue-driven, coming from dollars that are outside of the general fund. Public health services have avenues for resources that haven’t been available before, he said. These are long-term dollars from outside the general fund, Peterson added, and that’s why he’s supporting it.

However, Peterson also noted that he had in previous years raised concerns about the creation of the WCHO. He said he’s an advocate of mental health services, but he believes only one entity should be responsible for the delivery of services. The costs should be directly related to delivering services, not for administrative overhead, he said. “There are two separate entities here,” he said. “I won’t get into how much these two separate entities cost, because I don’t want to put somebody on the spot.”

Florence explained that all services provided by CSTS are those delegated to it by the WCHO. To date, there were a limited number of services that hadn’t been delegated, however, including “front door” services like intake and assessments, as well as crisis care and 24/7 phone access. Those services will now be transferred to CSTS, he said. Peterson replied that he was glad to hear it.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the creation and reclassification of CSTS jobs. Commissioners Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Conan Smith were absent. A final vote is expected on April 17.

New Jobs in IT, Water Resources

Final authorization to create two new jobs – in IT support and water resources – was on the April 3 agenda. The items had received initial approval on March 20, 2013.

The water resource specialist will work in the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. The job is authorized at a salary range between $30,515 to $40,253. According to a staff memo, the position is needed due to heavy drain construction activity and an increase in soil erosion application inspections. The job is described as a revenue-generating position, bringing in an estimated additional $41,337 in each of the first three years, and a minimum of $15,000 annually after that. The staff memo indicates that the office has identified reductions within its budget to offset the increased cost of the position.

Pratt had attended the March 20 meeting and told commissioners that the construction activity is primarily in the city of Ann Arbor, which is paying for the work. He had described the change as “budget neutral,” saying this was the most cost-effective way to proceed, by shifting some responsibilities elsewhere within his office.

The IT system support technician was authorized at a salary range between $37,464 to $52,355. According to a staff memo, the new position is needed to provide back-up for the IT help desk and other staff support. It will be funded from IT contracts and a structural reduction of $32,647 in the tech plan appropriation.

Outcome: The creation of two jobs in IT and water resources won unanimous final approval, without discussion. Three commissioners – Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Conan Smith – were absent.

Public Transit: Dissolving The Washtenaw Ride

Taking a step officially to end an effort that stalled last year, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to dissolve a countywide public transit authority known as the Washtenaw Ride.

The Act 196 authority, created in mid-2012 and spearheaded by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, never gained traction and was for all practical purposes ended late last year when the Ann Arbor city council voted to opt out of the transit authority at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting. Of the 28 municipalities in Washtenaw County, the city of Ypsilanti is the only one that hasn’t opted out.

Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

The April 3 resolution was similar to one that county commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) had considered bringing forward in November of 2012, though he decided not to pursue dissolution at that time. [See Chronicle coverage: "End of Road for County Transit Effort?"] The April 3 resolution would rescind the board resolutions that created the transit authority, and request that the state legislature also take action to dissolve the Washtenaw Ride, in accordance with Attorney General Opinion #7003. That AG opinion stated that “the dissolution of a transportation authority organized under the Public Transportation Authority Act requires an act of the Legislature and may not be accomplished by the unilateral action of the city in which it was established.” [.pdf of AG opinion 7003]

The county’s role in creating the transit entity had been laid out in a four-party agreement with Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and the AATA, which commissioners approved on Aug. 1, 2012 in a 6-4 vote. Subsequent revisions involving the other entities resulted in the need for a re-vote by the county board, which occurred on Sept. 5, 2012.

There are two other transit efforts now under way. Washtenaw County is part of a southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) created by the state legislature late last year. The RTA was formed to coordinate regional transit in the city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw.

Separate from the RTA effort, the AATA has been meeting with representatives of the county’s “urban core” communities to discuss possible expanded public transit within a limited area around Ann Arbor. It would be a smaller effort than the previous attempt at countywide service. The AATA hosted a meeting on March 28 to go over details about where improvements or expansion might occur, and how much it might cost. [See Chronicle advance coverage: "Costs, Services Floated for Urban Core Transit."]

Outcome: The initial vote to dissolve The Washtenaw Ride was approved unanimously, without discussion. Three commissioners – Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Conan Smith – were absent. A final vote is expected on April 17.

Public Transit: Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

The issue of public transit was also raised later in meeting, during one of the opportunities for communications from commissioners. Ronnie Peterson asked about the regional transit authority (RTA): When was the board going to discuss the county’s role in that effort, or in any alternative approaches to public transit?

Yousef Rabhi replied that he had attended the recent meeting of “urban core” communities, facilitated by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The group – which included representatives from Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township and other municipalities – talked about how to fund and govern expanded public transit. He noted that the Act 196 authority “did not work out the way most people had hoped, so we’re looking at new ways of funding it.”

Rabhi also hoped the RTA had a role to play, and said he was working with the county’s representatives on the RTA board – Richard Murphy and Liz Gerber – to make sure the opportunities for this county are fully explored under the new RTA structure.

Peterson asked whether the county board needed to take any action, or will there be any discussion about their involvement in the RTA or in any alternative to the RTA? Rabhi replied that the county’s involvement is governed by the state law that created the RTA. At this point, Washtenaw County is part of the RTA and the county board doesn’t need to take any action. The RTA board’s first official meeting is on April 10 in Detroit, he said, although the board met informally last month. Rabhi said he attended that meeting as well, and was the only elected official there from the four-county region and Detroit. Compared to other RTA board members, the Washtenaw County representatives have a lot of background and experience in transit, he said. “They bring a different voice to the table, which I think will be valuable.”

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). In the background is Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

The effort is being staffed by SEMCOG and other partners, Rabhi said, and has about $6 million in federal funding. The RTA board is discussing how to build sustainability within the organization and move forward.

Peterson wondered what the impact was on the AATA. It’s debatable, Rabhi replied. “I think the full implications of the legislation have yet to be determined.” He said he was working with the county’s RTA representatives and state legislators “to ensure that AATA is fully protected so that we can continue to have a robust transit system here in Washtenaw County, and potentially expand that transit system to the urban core areas.” The RTA was created to connect regions, Rabhi noted – like how to get from Ann Arbor to Detroit, and from Detroit to Mount Clemens. “But getting from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti, that’s our task,” he said.

Responding to another query from Peterson, Rabhi said the county’s only obligation to the RTA at this point is to appoint two board members, which happened in December of 2012. [The appointments were made by the county board chair at the time, Conan Smith, and did not require confirmation by the full board.] If the RTA board decides to put a tax proposal on the ballot, or to pursue a vehicle registration fee, then voters of Washtenaw County will have an opportunity to weigh in on that, Rabhi said.

Regarding a possible transit tax to support the RTA’s efforts, Dan Smith said he wanted everyone to be clear about how that would work. If the RTA board decides to put a tax proposal on the ballot, the entire RTA region votes on it as a whole. That area – covering four counties and Detroit – has a population of over 4 million, he noted, although he added that there are fewer registered voters than that. Even so, Washtenaw County is a relatively small piece of that, he said, with a population of about 348,000 residents. So Washtenaw County voters “probably won’t have a whole lot of say-so” in the outcome of a millage vote, he said.

Andy LaBarre noted that in order for the RTA board to put a tax proposal on the ballot, a super-majority of that board would need to approve it. There’s also the option for a single county veto, he said. For example, if both representatives from Washtenaw County voted against putting a tax proposal on the ballot, it wouldn’t move forward. LaBarre hoped all of this information could be clarified at a future working session.

LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, continued by telling Peterson that the topic of the RTA will be on the agenda for a working session in August or September. By that time, he hoped they would have more information about what the RTA intends to do, so that the county board can talk about more specific roles that Washtenaw County can play.

Peterson said he appreciated Rabhi’s involvement in support of regional transit, but felt it was important to have a discussion about this issue by the full board.

Public Hearing for Urban County Plan

Commissioners were asked to set a public hearing for April 17, 2013 to get input on the Washtenaw Urban County‘s five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan. The hearing will be held at the county board of commissioners meeting at 6:30 p.m., in the boardroom of the county administration building at 22o N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

The Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County and 18 local municipalities that receive federal funding for low-income neighborhoods. Members include the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline, and 15 townships. “Urban County” is a designation of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, entitling them to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs. The Urban County is supported by the staff of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

Outcome: Authorization to set a public hearing on April 17 won unanimous approval, without discussion.

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: Retirement System

During the time set aside for liaision reports, Dan Smith (D-District 2) gave a brief update on the late March meeting of the Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System (WCERS) commission. He noted that the stock market is doing very well, and that has had a positive impact on the balances in the WCERS account. The commission is starting to begin the discussion about doing some explicit inflation hedges, he said. There’s a concern that in a few years, inflation might start to inch up a bit, and at this point there are no explicit hedges against that.

Smith also reported that there had been a discussion about possible PA 728 pension change requirements in the recently approved labor contract.

Smith was alluding to an issue related to the precedent-setting agreements reached in mid-March with 15 of Washtenaw County government’s 17 bargaining units. The new contracts, approved by the board on March 20, aimed to protect unions before Michigan’s right-to-work law took effect on March 28, and cut legacy costs for the county. All but one of the new agreements run for more than 10 years, through Dec. 31, 2023.

The issue raised at the WCERS meeting was whether the process of securing new contracts violated Public Act 728 of 2002. In relevant part, PA 728 states [emphasis added]:

A system shall provide a supplemental actuarial analysis before adoption of pension benefit changes. The supplemental actuarial analysis shall be provided by the system’s actuary and shall include an analysis of the long-term costs associated with any proposed pension benefit change. The supplemental actuarial analysis shall be provided to the board of the particular system and to the decision-making body that will approve the proposed pension benefit change at least 7 days before the proposed pension benefit change is adopted. For purposes of this subsection, “proposed pension benefit change” means a proposal to change the amount of pension benefits received by persons entitled to pension benefits under a system.

The county’s new labor contracts state that employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will participate in a defined contribution retirement plan, instead of the current defined benefit plan – the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS). In defined benefit plans, retirees receive a set amount per month during their retirement. In defined contribution plans, employers pay a set amount into the retirement plan while a person is employed. The most common defined contribution plan is the 401(k). Similar changes in retiree healthcare plans will also affect new employees.

Although current employees will keep their defined benefit plan, anyone hired before Jan. 1, 2014 – including current employees – will be offered a one-time opportunity to transfer their WCERS employee account to the newly created defined contribution system. That decision must be made within a window between Jan. 1, 2014 and Feb. 28, 2014.

The county did not conduct a supplemental actuarial analysis related to these new contracts. Dan Smith, who cast the lone vote against the contracts, had cited a lack of information about the impact of the changes as one reason why he didn’t feel comfortable supporting the agreements. From The Chronicle’s report of the March 20, 2013 meeting:

A 10-year contract “severely binds future boards and dramatically eliminates the flexibility that they have to respond to situations that may face them seven or eight years down the road.” There are some benefits to that as well, [Dan] Smith noted, but he’s not able to find enough data or information that would make him comfortable with that length of time. It would be different with a two-year contract, which gives the county the chance to respond to changing conditions, he noted. With a 10-years contract and the unknowns surrounding the costs and benefits of the various provisions, “I’m just not comfortable moving forward with that at this time.”

D. Smith also cited concerns about legal questions “that continue to nip away at this.” He wished the legislature would just leave this issue alone, but instead they continue to pick at it “week after week after week.” He didn’t know how it will play out, but “I do know that if we did this contract in the traditional way … we wouldn’thave a bull’s-eye on our back for that.”

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, county administrator Verna McDaniel stated via email that the county had sought outside legal counsel on the issue. She indicated that the county’s position is: There was no need for an actuarial analysis because no changes were made to the existing pension benefits, and the law does not require an analysis for the new defined contribution system that will be offered to employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014.

Communications & Commentary: Retreat Follow-up

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked about the follow-up to a board retreat held on March 7. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Priorities Emerge at Board Retreat."] He noted that the board has set a course for the next 10 years on one of the budget’s largest components – labor costs. The 10-year contracts are rare in the state, he noted, but now the other budget components must be put in place for the county’s long-term stability. [For background on those labor agreements, see: "New Labor Contracts Key to County Budget"]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he has received a report from the retreat’s facilitator, Mary O’Hare, but he hasn’t had a chance to review it yet so he hasn’t sent it to other commissioners. He plans send it out and possibly schedule a presentation on it. Rabhi added that it’s essential to have another retreat and a more focused discussion. That will likely happen in May, he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), chair of the board’s working sessions, reported that he would send out a revised schedule of upcoming sessions, and asked commissioners to let him know if there were topics they’d like to discuss.

Peterson said he hoped there would be time at the retreat for commissioners to get to know each other and learn about their priorities. Rabhi replied that he’d gotten feedback from a few commissioners, who felt that the last retreat wasn’t focused enough on the board’s priorities. So the format for a second retreat will be different, he said, with more opportunity for commissioners to share their thoughts.

Communications & Commentary: Ann Arbor DDA

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), one of the commissioners representing Ann Arbor, told the board that he wanted to make everyone aware of discussions happening at the Ann Arbor city council regarding funding for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The council’s action could have implications for the county, he said, so he wanted to put it on their radar.

Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), whose district covers Chelsea and other parts of the county’s west side, asked Rabhi to elaborate. What might the implications be for the county?

Rabhi said his understanding of the proposal is that the funding mechanism would change so that the DDA would capture fewer tax revenues in its district, and more dollars would come back to the county. The downside, he added, is that there would be less money for the DDA to do their work in downtown Ann Arbor. It’s just something to be aware of, Rabhi said.

For Chronicle coverage related to the proposed Ann Arbor DDA ordinance changes, see: “Planning, DDA: City Council to Set Course?” “DDA Tax Capture Change Gets Initial OK” and “DDA Ramps Up PR after First Council Vote.”

Communications & Commentary: Land Bank

Ronnie Peterson reported that he had asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to be involved directly with the new land bank committee. He’s also asked that she extend an invitation to communities that have been greatly impacted by the economic downturn, with neighborhoods that have seen home values drop – including Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Superior Township. He has asked that the meetings of the land bank committee be public, so that anyone can attend.

By way of background, at its March 20, 2013 meeting, the board voted to form a committee that will explore the feasibility of creating a land bank. The resolution named three people to the committee: Peterson, county treasurer Catherine McClary, and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development. The committee is directed to report back to the board by Aug. 7, 2013.

A land bank is a mechanism for the county to take temporary ownership of tax- or mortgage-foreclosed land while working to put it back into productive use. “Productive use” could mean several things – such as selling it to a nonprofit like Habitat for Humanity to rehab, or demolishing a blighted structure and turning the land into a community garden.

Communications & Commentary: Waste Knot Awards

Yousef Rabhi highlighted the upcoming annual Waste Knot awards, on Thursday, April 11 from 5-7 p.m. at Weber’s Inn. The Waste Knot program encourages businesses and organizations to increase waste reduction and recycling activities.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Jeff Krcmarik – the county’s environmental supervisor – reported that this year the county is also partnering with the Community Partners for Clean Streams and recognizing the 2012 Environmental Excellence Award winners. The event’s guest speaker will be Josh Bloom, a building contractor who specializes in LEED-certified buildings. Locally, Bloom designed and built the new LaFontaine auto dealership in Dexter.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

The only speaker during public commentary was Thomas Partridge, who criticized commissioners for not adopting a comprehensive, people-oriented agenda that focuses on the most vulnerable people in the county, including the disabled, senior citizens, mothers with children, and everyone who suffers from the difficult economic climate. Yet meeting after meeting, commissioners bring county managers and outside contractors, like the auditors, to make presentations, he said, while not sending resolutions to the state legislature calling attention to the waste of requiring annual audits. There are many unmet needs, he said, including needs for affordable housing, and accessible public transportation to that housing.

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

Absent: Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, but receives most of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. WCHO contracts for services through CSTS. Although staffing has remained fairly constant in the last five years, demand for services has increased by about 40%. These jobs are being created to provide the capacity to meet that demand.

The new jobs include client service managers, support coordinators, mental health professionals, mental health nurses, management analysts, administrators and a staff psychiatrist. All of the reclassified positions are client service managers. Of the 39 new positions, 30 of them are union jobs, represented by AFSCME.

According to a staff memo, the changes will add $14,255,535 to the CSTS 2012-2013 budget, bringing the budget total to $41,822,489. Of that, WCHO is providing $38,692,815, including revenues from grant pass-throughs. Other revenues include $165,190 from the Haarer bequest and $246,846 from a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

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]

The CSTS budget runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30, in sync with the state’s fiscal year. The county operates on a calendar year cycle.

The proposed $29,607,596 budget – an increase from the $26,838,557 budget approved for the current fiscal year – calls for eliminating 1 FTE as a result of reclassifying the job, and creating 2.7 new FTE positions. (Last year’s budget had a net loss of five FTEs, and an additional 19 FTE positions were reclassified.)

Though CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, it receives 91.2% of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. The county provides another 1.2% of CSTS funding for services at the jail. The remaining revenue is generated by fee-for-service billing, according to a staff memo.

The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. At this point, WCHO “leases” its employees from the county, and contracts for services through CSTS.

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

Also acknowledged at the Sept. 21 meeting was the retirement of CSTS executive director Donna Sabourin, who has worked for the county for 20 years. She’s been executive director of CSTS since 2002. The board approved a resolution of appreciation in her honor at Wednesday’s meeting.

The proposed $26,838,557 CSTS budget calls for eliminating seven FTEs and putting one position on hold/vacant status, but creating three new FTE positions, for a net loss of five FTEs. In addition, 19 FTE positions will be reclassified. Though CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, it receives 98.8% of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. Commissioners were briefed on a reorganization of the WCHO at a July 7, 2011 working session. The changes are aimed at limiting the county’s financial liabilities.

The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. At this point, WCHO “leases” its employees from the county, and contracts for services through CSTS.

The CSTS budget runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30, in sync with the state’s fiscal year. The county operates on a calendar year cycle.

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

The general fund adjustment reflects an increase of $3,476,225 in property tax revenue for 2011, offset by a $1,034,000 shortfall in anticipated expense reductions. The 2011 budget approved by commissioners in late 2010 included the use of $5,289,000 from the county’s fund balance. In light of increased property tax revenues, only $2,921,391 will be used from the fund balance for the current budget year, which ends Dec. 31. The total 2011 general fund budget is $100,696,000.

The CSTS increase reflects an adjustment in the cost allocation plan (CAP) – an amount charged to each department for items like the county attorney and administration. According to a staff memo, the expense will be offset by additional revenue from the Washtenaw County Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System.

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.