The context of the salary increase includes Ford’s selection as the new CEO for the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority, but it’s not clear at this point whether Ford will take the job. At the June 10 meeting Ford said, “Right now, I’m still the CEO here…”

The increase for the period from October 2012 through September 2013 raised Ford’s base salary from $164,800 to $169,744. The 3% increase on that amount through the current fiscal year brings his salary to $174,836. The board’s June 10 action authorized a lump sum payment to cover the retroactive raises up to the present time, as well as a $20,000 payment into Ford’s 457 deferred compensation plan account, which reflects payments of $10,000 cash for the fiscal year 2013 and 2014. The lump sum retroactive salary adjustment works out to a little less than $11,900.

Before this most recent increase, Ford’s most recent previous revision to his compensation had come at the board’s Dec. 15, 2011 meeting, when his salary was increased by $4,800 to $164,800 annually. Ford’s contract also includes a car allowance that translates to roughly $10,000 a year. [.pdf of June 10, 2014 compensation letter][.pdf of Ford's contract]

This current raise was awarded to Ford based on a performance evaluation the board had completed at its May 15, 2014 board meeting, which came 11 days after a successful transit millage proposal on May 6, 2014. That performance evaluation also came in the context of Ford’s application for the CEO position with the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority. The day after his evaluation, Ford was named as one of three finalists for the RTA job, and was subsequently made an offer of the job, which is still pending. The RTA was established by the state legislature in late 2012, and includes Detroit and the four-county region of Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland.

Commenting on his current status at the AAATA board’s June 10 meeting, Ford said: “Right now I am still the CEO here and I’m not having any other discussions at this point with the RTA and that’s my status. I’ll leave it at that.” Board chair Charles Griffith added that Ford has not ruled out the RTA job, saying that the AAATA board would obviously prefer that Ford stay at the AAATA. But if Ford chose to go elsewhere, the board would support that decision. Ford had also assured Griffith that the AAATA would be in good hands and would have a stable transition if Ford were to leave.

Ford’s evaluation was expressed in the form of a board resolution approved on May 15:

Whereas the AAATA board’s evaluation of CEO Michael Ford’s performance reflects his leadership, work ethic, and ability to motivate staff to work at a high level of public service during a challenging period of transitioning the AAATA;

Whereas Michael’s outreach to community leaders in Ann Arbor and surrounding communities has laid the foundation for the expansion of the authority to include Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township and for the newly expanded organization to do an improved job of providing high-quality transit services;

Whereas Michael has led the organization to a number of significant accomplishments during the previous and current fiscal years, including: continued growth in overall ridership; growth in the vanpool program; growth in AirRide ridership and a decrease in the cost of the service; a new collective bargaining agreement ratified by the members of the TW Local 171 and approved by our Board of Directors; launch of a new AAATA website with improved rider information, navigation and tools; construction of a new Blake Transit Center; development of a new five-year urban core transportation improvement plan and a successful millage proposal;

Therefore be it resolved that the AAATA Board of Directors recognizes Michael Ford’s performance and accomplishments and desires to continue his employment as CEO, and the board looks forward to working with Michael on a new contract to continue his employment and also working with him to improve transit services in our community. Our intent is to complete this contract the time of our next meeting.

This brief was filed from the Holiday Inn Express at 600 Briarwood Circle, where the board held its special meeting.

The commissioners were sworn in by Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum. They are: Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). All but two of the commissioners – Martinez-Kratz and LaBarre – are incumbents.

The board also elected its officers for the coming year. As anticipated, Rabhi was elected as the new chair, replacing Conan Smith, who has served in that role for the past two years. Rabhi, who was chair of the board’s working session in 2011 and 2012, had announced his intent to run for the board chair. Although there was no previous substantive discussion about Rabhi’s candidacy, Smith referred to Rabhi as the “chair elect” in an announcement last month regarding a selection panel for the regional transit authority board appointments, and in subsequent communications had indicated an assumption that Rabhi would be the next chair.

The vote on Rabhi as board chair was 8-1, with dissent by Dan Smith. Smith noted that in previous two-year officer election cycles, the board has rotated the position of chair between commissioners who represent urban and rural communities. But this year the board has broken with that tradition, he said, by electing as chair another Ann Arbor commissioner. [Conan Smith also represents one of the three Ann Arbor districts.] Rabhi responded by saying he wanted to set a tone of collaboration and cooperation, and looked forward to working with Dan Smith and other commissioners to help achieve their goals.

Also elected were Alicia Ping as vice chair, Felicia Brabec as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and Andy LaBarre as chair of the working sessions. Dan Smith also dissented on the election of Brabec. It’s been the board’s custom to elect commissioners to the same leadership roles for two consecutive years, starting with the first year of their two-year terms. So it’s likely that these officers will serve in 2013 and 2014.

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

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

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]

From left: Michael Smith, director of the Washtenaw County dept. of veterans affairs, and Ira Brownridge, a veteran of the conflict in Iraq who was appointed to the county’s veterans affairs committee – the first veteran from that conflict to serve on the committee. (Photos by the writer.)

The board ultimately voted to appoint Gregg Weaver, Robert Fletcher and Ira Brownridge. Weaver and Fletcher are reappointments. Brownridge – who was appointed to a vacancy following the death of World War II veteran Eddie Steele – is the first veteran from the conflict in Iraq to be appointed to the committee. The majority of commissioners supported the continuity of reappointments, and the chance to appoint someone to represent the next generation of veterans.

The vote on these appointments was 9-2, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Wes Prater (D-District 4). Prater and Smith wanted the board to respect the recommendations from the veterans posts in the county, which had supported the appointments of three different men: John Kinzinger, David “Doc” Martinez, and Elmer White – all veterans of the Vietnam war, and active in the Washtenaw County chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America. Kinzinger, White and other veterans spoke during public commentary, urging the board to appoint the most qualified applicants and those who have long been involved in helping veterans in this community. They also addressed what some referred to as a dysfunctional department, and felt that it needed more oversight.

In other action at the meeting, the board gave a one-time salary adjustment to 940 of the county’s 1,321 employees – people who had taken unpaid “banked leave” days in 2012. The payment will equal 1.5% of their salaries, or an average of about $800. Several commissioners praised employees for making sacrifices in the past to help balance the county’s budget. The vote on the pay adjustment was 10-1, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

The commissioners also gave themselves a pay increase, bumping up their base pay from $15,500 to $15,750 annually and replacing per diem payments with stipends, effective Jan. 1, 2013. In addition, four officers of the board will be getting compensation beyond their base pay. Dan Smith was the only commissioner to vote against these increases.

Commissioners gave final approval to the 2013 general fund budget of $102.84 million, with a net increase of one full-time position. [.pdf of 2013 Washtenaw County budget] The largest expenditures relate to personnel, which accounts for 66% of general fund expenses. The 2013 budget shows a $4.7 million increase in that category, compared to the original 2013 budget that commissioners approved in late 2011.

The Dec. 5 meeting also included farewells to four outgoing commissioners – Barbara Bergman, Leah Gunn, Wes Prater and Rob Turner – as well as to Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, who did not seek re-election. Commissioners and staff also had a moment of silence to honor Patrick Barrie, executive director of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, died suddenly this month. Bergman, a long-time WCHO board member, called his death is a great loss for people who use WCHO services. “They have lost a champion,” she said, “and I have lost the dearest of friends.”

Employee Compensation

The Washtenaw County administration proposed giving employees who have taken unpaid “banked leave” days in 2012 a one-time payment that’s equivalent to 1.5% of their salaries. The average payment would be about $800 and would affect 940 of the county’s 1,321 employees. The adjustment – a total increase of $361,000 – was included as part of the 2013 budget, which was also on the Dec. 5 agenda for final approval.

According to a staff memo, the majority of union workers and all non-union employees took 10 banked leave days in 2012, or the equivalent of a 3.85% salary decrease. Banked leave days are unpaid, but don’t affect retirement calculations. Most of the unions representing county employees had agreed to cuts during previous contract negotiations, as the county worked to eliminate a budget deficit caused in large part by declining property tax revenues.

However, decreases in property tax revenues were not as dire as originally projected – a decline of 0.77%, compared to a projected 5% decrease.

Employee Compensation: Public Commentary

Nancy Heine – president of AFSCME Local 3052, which represents employees who work as supervisors for the county – thanked the board for making the one-time adjustment. She felt the giveback would help reduce some of the financial pain and emotional stress that her union members had felt. They supported the action. However, she also wanted to acknowledge that unions are under attack in Lansing and that union members working for the county will continue to make significant financial concessions in 2013. She hoped that the board would consider some kind of financial relief at an appropriate time next year.

Caryette Fenner – president of AFSCME Local 2733, the county government’s largest union – told outgoing commissioners that she hated to see them go, but she looked forward to welcoming the new board. She thanked commissioners for the 1.5% adjustment, saying that even though it’s seen as a token, she wanted to give the board a “big thank you.”

Employee Compensation: Board Discussion

Several commissioners praised county employees for the financial sacrifices they’d made over the past few years. Board chair Conan Smith thanked the administration for making the proposal, and for being honest about cost savings that could be shared with employees. The county employees “were there for us” during the budget process, he said, adding that he hoped the adjustment would make Christmas a little brighter for the staff.

From left: Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052; and Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733.

Ronnie Peterson asked whether there would be any wage adjustments in 2013. County administrator Verna McDaniel said that only two unions would receive adjustments next year: the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM), with about 250 members; and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM), with about 30 members. POAM and COAM members will receive a 1% salary increase effective Jan. 1, 2013.

Peterson noted that in general, employees are paying more in contributions to health care and retirement, and have made huge sacrifices for the county. “This is no present. This is no gift,” he said, adding that the county is “just giving them back what they’ve already rightfully earned.”

Leah Gunn said she’s been with the county for 16 years and has always been impressed with the work ethic, creativity, innovative thinking and tremendous output of county employees. Citing a comment made earlier in the meeting by Janis Bobrin, Gunn said Washtenaw County is a model county, with a national reputation for “knowing how to do it right.”

Acknowledging that it was a token amount, Barbara Bergman noted that “money’s money, so it’s a good token.” It shows appreciation for the staff and the work they do, she said.

Rob Turner observed that the union negotiations for the 2012-2013 budget cycle had been difficult. For businesses, if there is a better-than-expected outcome, the company usually keeps the profit, he said. The fact that the administration put forward this proposal shows integrity, Turner said, and he hoped it would build an even better relationship with the unions. He noted that next year there would be negotiations for the next two-year budget cycle of 2014-2015, and those would also be difficult – he didn’t envy commissioners or staff. [Dec. 5 was the last board meeting for Turner, who lost his re-election bid on Nov. 6.]

Directing his comments to Heine and Fenner, Yousef Rabhi said he supported the unions in their efforts to fight the right-to-work legislation proposed in the state legislature. He described the legislation as bad news for the state, and said he’d work to fight it.

Outcome: The board voted 10-1 to award the 1.5% pay adjustment, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2), who referred to it as a bonus.

Commissioner Compensation

On the agenda was a resolution to approve increasing the base salaries of Washtenaw County commissioners from $15,500 to $15,750 annually and replacing per diem payments with stipends, effective Jan. 1, 2013. Commissioners had previously debated the issue at their Nov. 7 meeting, giving the increase initial approval at that time.

Most commissioners currently are paid a salary of $15,500. The new amount of $15,750 is calculated by indexing it to one-half the median “step” of the lowest grade salary among county employees. The resolution authorizing the increase also directs future boards to adjust commissioner salaries based on this same calculation.

From left: Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman and Andy LaBarre, who will begin his first term on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners in January. They were talking at a holiday reception held prior to the Dec. 5 county board meeting.

Officers of the board earn more than other commissioners. The board chair, Conan Smith, is currently paid $18,500. The board vice chair, Alicia Ping, earns $16,000, while chairs of the board’s ways & means committee (Rolland Sizemore Jr.) and working session (Yousef Rabhi) are each paid $16,500. Starting next year, all board chairs will receive $3,000 over their base salary. In a friendly amendment added to the resolution on Dec. 5 by Yousef Rabhi, the board vice chair will receive an extra $1,000 over the base salary.

Currently, commissioners also have a $3,550 flex account to use for per diem and mileage reimbursements, training or other authorized expenses. For example, a per diem of $25 per authorized meeting is allowed, as is mileage driven to those meetings – at a current rate of $0.555 per mile. Some commissioners don’t use their flex accounts, however, and most don’t use the entire amount. The payments are administered through the county clerk’s office.

The resolution given final approval on Dec. 5 changes that approach. Starting in 2013,  commissioners will receive stipend payments based on the number of meetings that a commissioner is likely to attend for a particular appointment. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increase based on the number of meetings. At the high end, more than 24 meetings would pay $1,000. Commissioners will be able to waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk.

Here’s the stipend schedule:

Stipend schedule of payments for Washtenaw County board of commissioners, starting in 2013.

The county clerk’s office is compiling a spreadsheet listing the boards, commissions and committees on which county commissioners serve, and the amount of the stipend for each group.

Changes to compensation for an upcoming term must be set by the board before that term starts. So for the two-year term beginning in January 2013, any changes in compensation must be made before the end of 2012. The administration of per diem and other compensation is governed by the board’s rules and regulations. [.pdf of county board rules & regulations]

Commissioner Compensation: Board Discussion

Wes Prater pointed to the importance of tracking the number of meetings that commissioners attend, because the stipend payments will be made automatically. Commissioners need to be accountable for attendance, he said, noting that board rules address this issue.

Specifically, the current board rules state:

Habitual non‐attendance of Commissioners at meetings to which they have been appointed shall be reported to the Chair of the Board. If a member is absent three consecutive times without a reasonable excuse, he or she will be considered as having vacated his or her seat and a new Commissioner shall be appointed by the Chair of the Bard and confirmed by a majority vote of the Board members elected and serving.

Leah Gunn suggested addressing this when the new board convenes in January, as part of adopting its board rules. Conan Smith agreed, acknowledging that some accountability is lost in this stipend approach.

Ronnie Peterson stressed that because the number of commissioners on the board is decreasing from 11 to 9, the overall budget for commissioners is decreasing – despite the raises for individual commissioners. He said he would never have voted for an increase. [Peterson had been absent from the Nov. 7 meeting, when these changes were given initial approval.]

Gunn pointed out that the overall budget for commissioners will be decreasing. [The line item for the board in 2013 is $492,623. That's lower than the 2012 budget of $505,664 but higher than the original 2013 line item amount of $489,165 that was proposed last year. It's also higher than the $477,736 line item for the board in 2011.]

Gunn also said that because the new board will be reduced in size, each individual commissioner will have a heavier workload.

Outcome: The compensation changes were approved, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

2013 Budget Approval

A public hearing and final approval for Washtenaw County’s 2013 general fund budget of $102.84 million, with a net increase of one full-time position, were on the Dec. 5 agenda. [.pdf of 2013 Washtenaw County budget]

From left: Raman Patel, the county’s equalization director, and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

The county works on a two-year budget planning cycle. In late 2011, commissioners set the budget for 2012 and 2013. However, state law mandates that the board must approve the budget annually. At its Nov. 7 meeting, commissioners gave initial approval to a budget “reaffirmation” for 2013, including several proposed adjustments. The original 2013 budget proposed a year ago was for general fund revenues and expenses of $97.066 million – $5.774 million less than the budget that was ultimately approved this month.

Property taxes typically account for about 63% of revenues, and the general fund budget is based on an operating millage rate of 4.5493 mills. Because property values have not decreased as much as originally anticipated, the county expects about $2.4 million more in property tax revenues for 2013 than it had previously accounted for in the 2013 budget. The 2013 budget now assumes that property tax revenues will be 2% lower than in 2012. The 2013 budget includes a planned use of $3.287 million from the fund balance. Of that, about $2 million is estimated to be carried over from a budget surplus in 2012.

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

2013 Budget: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge was the only person to speak at a public hearing on the budget. He urged the board to find ways to increase revenues, including asking voters to approve a millage increase. He also criticized what he called the right-wing, regressive agenda of Gov. Rick Snyder and other Republicans, saying it would take the state back to pre-World War II conditions by eliminating help for deserving residents.

2013 Budget: Board Discussion

Other than comments regarding commissioner compensation and the 1.5% pay adjustment for employees, there was no additional discussion about the budget.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the county’s 2013 general fund budget.

2012 Apportionment Report

The annual apportionment report provides details of the 2012 taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. A preliminary report had been presented to commissioners at their Oct. 17 meeting, and a final report was on the Dec. 5 agenda. [.pdf of final 2012 apportionment report]

The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. December tax bills were mailed out to property owners based on these calculations.

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

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

Raman Patel – the county’s long-time equalization director – attended the Dec. 5 meeting, but was not asked to address the board. Patel actually retired at the end of 2011, but has been working for the county on a contract basis in 2012. He is being paid $124,990 this year.

Outcome: The board approved the final 2012 apportionment report, without discussion.

Appointments to Veterans Affairs Committee

Commissioners were asked to make three appointments to the county’s dept. of veterans affairs committee. The nominations put forward by board chair Conan Smith were for Gregg Weaver, Robert Fletcher and Ira Brownridge. Weaver and Fletcher are reappointments with four-year terms. Brownridge, a veteran of the conflict in Iraq, was nominated for a vacancy following the death of Eddie Steele, a World War II veteran.

Veterans posts in the county had recommended the appointments of three different men: John Kinzinger, David “Doc” Martinez, and Elmer White – all veterans of the Vietnam war, and active in the Washtenaw County chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America.

The county’s dept. of veterans affairs, located at 2155 Hogback Road, is supported by a tax of 0.0286 mills, which is levied in December. That rate is expected to raise $390,340 in revenues for use during 2013. In September of 2012, commissioners voted to raise the rate from 0.025 mills, which brought in $344,486 in 2012. The board was briefed on the department’s activities by Michael Smith, the department’s director, at its Sept. 5 meeting.

Veterans Affairs Committee: Public Commentary

Several veterans spoke during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary.

John Kinzinger of Ann Arbor began by noting that he and other veterans had spoken to commissioners earlier this year in support of an increase in the millage to fund services for indigent veterans. Tonight, he said, the board would be voting on three positions for the county’s veterans affairs committee, and there were about 20 people in the room who qualified for those positions. Kinzinger described the work they’ve done for local veterans in need, including delivering Thanksgiving Day dinners to the families of indigent veterans. He noted that the county’s veterans affairs committee oversees a budget of about $350,000, and said that the committee members need to be veterans who are active in this community. They need to be familiar with community affairs, and have backgrounds in finance and business. Kinzinger said he wasn’t suggesting that the previous committee members have been delinquent, but the committee could be much more proactive. He hoped the board would select the veterans who would best serve those goals.

Doug Fuller, right, talks with veterans who attended the Dec. 5 county board meeting. Fuller was reappointed to the county road commission during the meeting. Seated in the background is John Kinzinger, who spoke during public commentary about appointments to the veterans affairs committee.

In his second turn at public commentary, Kinzinger said that he, Martinez and White have received recommendations that represent about 80% of membership in the county’s veterans groups. He highlighted the medals that Martinez was wearing, and said those “didn’t come out of a Cracker Jack box.” He described some of Martinez’s background and qualifications, and said he couldn’t imagine anyone who’d be more concerned about veterans. Kinzinger hoped that Martinez would be considered for one of the positions.

Elmer White, an Ann Arbor resident, told commissioners that he’s an attorney. He noted that until June of 2012, there was only one qualification to serve on the veterans affairs committee – its members needed to have been honorably discharged from the military. Now, however, there’s a three-pronged test mandated by the state. In addition to an honorable discharge, members must have a recommendation from at least one veterans post in the county, and have demonstrated knowledge, skills and experience in public service, business or finance. [The changes were enacted by the state legislature in MCL 35.621]

White told the board that they need to carefully scrutinize the candidates that they had. He pointed out that two years ago commissioners took an oath of office to uphold the constitution and laws of the state. He highlighted the qualifications of Kinzinger, noting that over the years Kinzinger has been honored nationally, as Michigan veteran of the year, and as the Ann Arbor News citizen of the year.

White echoed Kinzinger’s remarks that the veterans affairs committee needs to be proactive. He wondered why there’s no sign on the building where the department is located, and why it’s only open four days a week. “This is a department that needs to have scrutiny and needs to have some oversight,” he said. He hoped that’s what the commissioners would do, or that they’d at least ”kick the can” to the next board when it takes office in January.

During White’s second turn at public commentary, he described the volunteer work he’d done for the county, including service on a citizens advisory board to the sheriff’s department under the previous sheriff, Dan Minzey. White described the department under Minzey as dysfunctional and said he’d dubbed Minzey the “invisible sheriff” because Minzey never attended meetings of the advisory board. But after Jerry Clayton was elected sheriff, White didn’t seek reappointment to that advisory board, he said. He also noted that he had served on the county’s historic district commission, and pointed to the installation they’d done in the lobby of the county administration building – a display honoring the USS Washtenaw. But he didn’t seek reappointment to that commission either, he said, because he felt it was time for others to get involved.

In contrast, he said, it seems like getting appointed to the veterans affairs committee is like being appointed to the Supreme Court. The board needs to rethink that tradition when the veterans affairs department is dysfunctional, he said. White noted that he had attended recent meetings of the committee, and hadn’t been impressed. Regardless of the board’s decision on the committee appointments, he urged commissioners to attend the Dec. 18 meeting of the committee and see for themselves how it functions.

Marvin Rivers of Chelsea, vice president of the Washtenaw County chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America, said he strongly urged commissioners to consider the appointments of Kinzinger, White and Martinez. He could attest to their leadership and caring about veterans issues. Rivers said the three men would serve with great dignity, motivation and wisdom.

Bob London of Saline told the board that he’s a former Marine who had served with Martinez in Vietnam, and that he also has worked with commissioner Ronnie Peterson in the past. He felt that members of the veterans affairs committee should be changed every four years, so that there would be people with new ideas.

Veterans Affairs Committee: Board Discussion

The board voted on all other appointments as part of its consent agenda (see below), but pulled out the veterans affairs committee for separate consideration.

Several commissioners thanked all the veterans for their service, and for coming to the meeting. Wes Prater noted that he’d never seen this number of veterans attend a county board meeting, and to him it showed a high level of concern about the department.

Commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wondered why no “lady” veterans had applied, and he felt there needed to be recruitment to encourage them to apply. Barbara Bergman objected to the term “lady” – there are men and women, without judging whether they are gentlemen or ladies, she said. “I say that as a woman who might not always be a lady.”

Dan Smith noted that Friday, Dec. 7 was Pearl Harbor Day, when he would be flying the flag at his home at half mast. He was disappointed by the nominations that were brought forward by the board chair as appointments to the veterans affairs committee. He understood that the board is not obligated to follow the recommendations of the local veterans posts. But nine posts recommended the same three people and the board didn’t select even one of those people, he observed. He wanted to see at least the appointment of one of those recommendations to fill the post that was vacant.

Leah Gunn said she supported the three people that were being nominated. The two people who were being reappointed [Weaver and Fletcher] have served honorably on the committee, she said. And Gunn noted that the position previously filled by a World War II veteran [Eddie Steele] is being filled by an Iraqi war veteran [Brownridge]. It’s time to recognize the service of the younger generation of veterans, she concluded.

Ronnie Peterson stated that the county has many distinguished citizens who have honorably served this great nation. But one concern he had was about the process of these appointments. The local veterans posts have made recommendations, but they should also have some input in determining the criteria for making these appointments, he said.

Peterson clarified with Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, that the state statute limits the number of committee members to five. Peterson felt that the three men recommended by the veterans posts would be good choices, but so would the three men who were nominated by the board chair. In this case, he said, he would trust the board chair and support the nominations. But he hoped that the next board chair would revisit the process issue.

Wes Prater (D-District 4), at the county board’s Nov. 7, 2012 meeting.

Prater argued that the board wasn’t following the state statute or its own board rules and policy in making the appointments of Weaver, Fletcher and Brownridge. He criticized board chair Conan Smith, contending that Smith has previously disregarded board policy – by not issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for animal control services. Prater argued that the county clerk’s office hadn’t received the appropriate application materials for Brownridge by the stated deadline – a point that Hedger disputed. Prater contended that the three men who were recommended by the veterans posts had done exactly what they were supposed to do – applying in the proper way. If someone wants to apply, “they need to do their homework.”

Prater noted that Smith could withdrawal the nominations, but if they moved forward, Prater would vote against them. “That’s your prerogative,” Smith replied.

Alicia Ping asked Hedger to address some of the concerns Prater had raised. Hedger acknowledged that he and Prater disagreed about whether the process had complied with the law. Hedger believes that it did. The notice that the county placed in local publications and that was sent to veterans posts to seek applications referenced only a letter of interest and resume, he noted – not a recommendation from a veterans post. While the state statute does require a letter of recommendation, there’s not deadline attached to that, he said. In theory, a letter of recommendation could be brought forward even at that meeting, up until the appointments had been made, Hedger said.

As for Brownridge’s recommendation, Hedger reported that it had been hand-delivered on Nov. 16 to the county administrator’s office. He acknowledged that Prater believed it should have been taken to the county clerk’s office before the Nov. 16 deadline for application, but Hedger again restated that there was not a deadline for letters of recommendation. [The recommendation for Brownridge came from Mark Lindke, a member of the American Legion Post #117 in Manchester and former director of the county's dept. of veterans affairs. Lindke attended the Dec. 5 meeting but did not formally address the board.]

Regarding the public commentary about the qualifications required by state statute, Hedger stressed the importance of the word “or” in the list of “public service, business or finance.” A veteran who has served in the military overseas in a war zone has demonstrated the ultimate public service, he said.

From left: Hazelette Robinson, Michael Smith, and Andy Brush. Robinson is chief of staff for the Washtenaw Community Health Organization. Smith is director of the county’s dept. of veterans affairs. Brush is the county’s IT manager.

Prater replied that Hedger’s theory about there being no deadline for letters of recommendation “doesn’t stand water.”

Ping supported Gunn’s comments about the need for a representative from the younger generation of veterans, as well as the need for continuity of the reappointments. She said she’d support the nominations.

Conan Smith said he was sorry that Prater felt he had tried to abuse the process. These are appointments of the board and reflect the board’s values, Smith said. He hoped no one left with the impression that he was some kind of a “kingmaker” who chose these appointments without the support of the board. The recommendations from veterans posts need to be balanced with other factors, including diversity. Smith said there had been some great conversations on this issue over the past few weeks, and he was confident that the appointees would represent the best interests of local veterans.

At this point, Gunn called the question – a procedural move that, if approved by the majority of commissioners, would end debate and force a vote on the resolution.

Outcome on calling the question: The motion passed 10-1, with dissent by Wes Prater (D-District 4).

Outcome: Commissioners approved the appointments of Gregg Weaver, Robert Fletcher and Ira Brownridge on a 9-2 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Wes Prater (D-District 4).

At the end of the meeting, Prater again raised the issue of the appointments, saying he wouldn’t leave until the board had finished what it had started. Both the law and board policies need to be clarified, he said. Veterans who had come to the meeting were being “slapped in the face,” Prater contended. The veterans who had applied had done everything they’d been asked to do, he said, yet “look what you did to them.”

At this point, Leah Gunn moved to adjourn, a motion that was supported by the majority of the board.

Some of the veterans seemed to think there would be an opportunity for public commentary at the end of the board meeting. In previous years, that was true. But in January of 2012 Conan Smith brought forward a proposal to shorten the time available per speaking turn – from five to three minutes – and to eliminate one of two agenda slots for public commentary. The majority of commissioners supported those changes, and the final public commentary slots for the ways & means committee meetings and regular board meetings – which are held back-to-back – were eliminated.

As the board adjourned on Dec. 5, John Kinzinger came up to the podium and began addressing the commissioners, most of whom were getting up to leave the boardroom. As they departed, he told them he was very disappointed in the appointments. “You failed us,” he said.

Other Appointments

The board had made the bulk of its appointments to various county committees, commissions and boards at its Nov. 7, 2012 meeting, which had been preceded by an appointments caucus that was attended by all board members except Ronnie Peterson.

However, a few additional appointments and adjustments were proposed on Dec. 5.

• Washtenaw County road commission: Doug Fuller was reappointed to a six-year term. Last month, board chair Conan Smith had recommended holding off on that appointment, saying he wanted to give the new county board – who will take office in January – some flexibility in discussing the future of the road commission, including a possible consolidation with county operations. However, in an email to the board on the morning of Dec. 5, Smith stated: “Although I am hopeful that the board next year will discuss the structure of our road commission, I’m convinced by leveler heads to make our appointment decisions based on current reality rather than the potential of that change.”
• Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission: Janis Bobrin was appointed as a citizen representative to a term ending Dec. 31, 2014. Bobrin has served on WCPARC in the position of county water resources commissioner, a job she held for 24 years. However, she did not seek re-election this year and was replaced in that WCPARC slot by the new water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt.
• Brownfield redevelopment authority board: Mark Heusel and Victoria Pebbles were reappointed for three-year terms ending Dec. 15, 2015.
• Natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC): The previous appointment of Kris Olsson was revised to end on Dec. 31, 2013. This was characterized as an administrative change to align the terms so that the correct number of positions expire each year. Also, the board voted to rescind the appointment of Layla Aslani – commissioners had made six appointments on Nov. 7, but there are only five open slots. NATAC is an advisory board for the county’s natural areas preservation program.
• Historic district commission: Leslie Ledbetter’s term was clarified as ending on Dec. 31, 2013. Hers had been among the appointments made last month, but the board had not indicated who would be appointed to the shorter term on the commission.
• Emergency medical services commission: Kristopher Thompson was appointed to a three-year term ending Dec. 31, 2015.

The board did not make appointments to the one open position on the community action board, which had been discussed at the Nov. 7 appointments caucus. There was no indication when that appointment might be made.

Outcome: Without discussion, these appointments and adjustments were approved unanimously.

2013 Board Meeting Calendar

Annual approval of the board’s meeting calendar is normally a routine agenda item. On Dec. 5, Ronnie Peterson raised concerns about the proposed calendar’s administrative briefings, which were scheduled in weeks prior to the regular board meetings. He didn’t like the fact that the briefings would be held in the administration conference room rather than the boardroom, saying he objected to going into a “backroom” to discuss the public’s business.

Washtenaw County commissioner Leah Gunn (D-District 9), left, talks with Mary Udoji at a reception held prior to the county board’s Dec. 5 meeting.

By way of background, in March 2011 the board voted to eliminate the briefings entirely. That decision was made in the wake of criticisms by Peterson, who did not attend the briefings because of his objections to the location, which he believed was too far out of the public eye. [In the boardroom, meetings can be broadcast and recorded for viewing online and on cable access TV. But briefings held in the conference room, even though they were open to the public, were not recorded.] After that March 2011 vote, a weekly agenda-setting meeting took the place of briefings, attended by senior staff and just three commissioners: Smith, as board chair; Rolland Sizemore Jr., chair of the ways & means committee; and Yousef Rabhi, chair of the working sessions. Because the meetings did not involve a quorum of commissioners, they were not required to be open to the public.

Later in 2011, the briefings were re-instituted, scheduled at 4 p.m. on the Tuesday during the week prior to the board’s regular Wednesday meetings. The time – prior to the end of a typical workday – proved difficult for some commissioners to attend. So at the board’s first meeting in January 2012, Dan Smith proposed amending the calendar schedule so that administrative briefings would be held at 6 p.m. prior to the 6:30 p.m. working sessions, which are typically held on the first and third Thursdays of each month. Ultimately, the briefings were wrapped into the working sessions as the first agenda item, and the start time for those sessions was moved up to 6 p.m.

Because board meetings are held on the first and third Wednesdays of each month, the change meant a nearly two-week span between the tentative agenda being reviewed at the briefing and the next board meeting. So often there are few agenda items ready to be brought forward at these briefings, and discussions are not as robust as they were when the briefings were held a week prior to the board meetings.

The proposed 2013 calendar reverted to the way briefings were handled prior to March 2011.

At the board’s Dec. 5 meeting, Yousef Rabhi responded to Peterson, saying that the calendar was open for discussion. He noted that the board’s current approach seemed to be working well. Starting earlier this year, the board has held its administrative briefings immediately prior its working sessions, so that the briefings can be televised. He said he’d be fine with eliminating the separate briefings that were listed on the 2013 calendar, and rolling those briefings into the working session meetings.

There were no objections from other commissioners to this change. Peterson joked that he wanted to express his appreciation to the board’s incoming chair – an allusion to Rabhi’s likelihood of becoming chair in 2013. Commissioners will elect officers at their first meeting in January, and Rabhi has indicated his interest in that position.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the 2013 calendar, as amended.

Farewells to Outgoing Commissioners

At its last meeting of the year, Washtenaw County commissioners recognized the service of four outgoing members, as well as the retiring county water resources commissioner.

Farewells to Outgoing Commissioners: Public Commentary

Julie Steiner, executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, thanked the commissioners who were leaving the board, but singled out Leah Gunn and Barbara Bergman for special praise for being “absolute champions” and suffering great indignities over the years in their support of services for the homeless. “The battles are not over yet,” Steiner said, so she encouraged the other commissioners to stay strong. She provided print copies of the WHA’s most recent data report on homelessness in the county, and said she’d be returning to talk about how to resolve these issues.

Kathleen Timberlake, a Scio Township resident, thanked the outgoing commissioners on behalf of those who worked to restore the East Delhi bridge over the Huron River. A historic marker is now in place, she noted. The restoration had been one of the best decisions that the county had made, she said, especially since most of the funds came from federal sources. The bridge and its setting is one of the county’s top tourist draws, she said, bringing lots of national attention to this area.

Farewells to Outgoing Commissioners: Resolutions of Appreciation

The board gave resolutions of appreciation to Democrats Barbara Bergman and Leah Gunn, who represent Ann Arbor districts and did not seek re-election, as well as Democrat Wes Prater and Republican Rob Turner, who were not successful in their re-election bids on Nov. 6. Prater, a York Township resident, currently represents District 4. Due to redistricting that took effect during this election cycle, he faced fellow incumbent Alicia Ping in the new District 3 – an election that Ping, a Republican, won. Turner, who lives in Chelsea and represents District 1, was defeated on Nov. 6 by Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz.

From left: Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin, county commissioner Barbara Bergman (D-District 8) and Sally Petersen, an Ann Arbor city councilmember. Bobrin and Bergman did not run for re-election in 2012, and are serving their last month in office. They were talking to Petersen at a reception held prior to the county board’s Dec. 5 meeting, in the lobby of the county administration building.

Former county administrator Bob Guenzel showed up to read the resolution for Bergman, who was first elected in 1994. He joked that he was speaking as “one retiree to another.” Bergman was recognized for her work on several county initiatives, including the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, where she’ll continue to serve as a board member.

Jeff Irwin, a former county commissioner who now represents District 53 in the state House of Representatives, had intended to present Gunn’s resolution, but was held up in Lansing during a raucous lame duck session. Instead, Yousef Rabhi made the presentation, joking that he was “channeling” Irwin. Gunn’s tenure on the county board dates back to 1996. She also currently serves as chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, an appointed position.

Gunn gave commissioners two pieces of advice: Listen to each other, and “trust Verna” – a reference to county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Board chair Conan Smith delivered the resolution to Turner, who had been first elected in 2010 and served only one term. Smith joked about how he’d been “scared” by Turner’s height when they first met, but the fact that Turner was a Republican “really scared me.” Smith said Turner had a big heart and cared about serving the public. Turner had been a mentor, Smith said, and an incredible asset to the county.

In his remarks, Turner described the board and staff as an extended family, and said they had been in his prayers and in his family’s prayers. He praised the staff, and urged commissioners to support McDaniel and “lift her up.”

County commissioner Rob Turner (R-District 1), right, talks with Mary Jo Callan, director of the county/city of Ann Arbor office of community & economic development.

Prater’s resolution of appreciation was presented by Rolland Sizemore Jr., who said they’d been friends for a long time. Prater said, “I’ve been kicked around a lot, but it’s been a lot of fun. After a while you learn how to take it.” He joked that he appreciated other commissioners putting up with him, adding “now it’s Barbara’s turn” – a reference to his wife.

All four commissioners were presented with wooden seals of the county, engraved with their names and dates of service. When Prater received his seal, he held it up and said, “This is two that I’ve gotten – but I’m not starting a collection!” Prater first served on the board from 2001 to 2006, was defeated in 2006 but elected again in 2008.

The new nine-member county board will take office in January 2013.

Also recognized on Dec. 5 was Democrat Janis Bobrin, the county water resources commissioner who has served in that role since she was first elected in 1988. She also decided not to run for re-election this year and endorsed fellow Democrat Evan Pratt, who won the Nov. 6 election for that position.

Gunn made the presentation to Bobrin, saying that Gunn knew her before she became water resources commissioner. Bobrin “will be missed very, very much,” Gunn said.

Bobrin told commissioners that she could only accomplish what she’d done because of the board’s support in authorizing innovative programs and passing ordinances related to environmental protection. Some people call Washtenaw a “model county,” she said, because it’s at the forefront of environmental issues and people work together toward that goal. “I don’t know if you guys know how unusual that is.”

Toward the end of the meeting, Ronnie Peterson also spoke at length in praise of Bobrin and the outgoing commissioners, paying special tribute to Turner. Peterson, a Democrat, described Turner as his “buddy” and said he respected Turner, who “lives what he talks about in his life.”

A holiday reception held prior to the start of the Dec. 5 meeting included recognition of the outgoing commissioners.

Remembrance for Patrick Barrie

Patrick Barrie, executive director of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, died suddenly this month and was honored at the Dec. 5 county board meeting with a moment of silence.

Several WCHO staff members – including chief of staff Hazelette Robinson – attended the meeting, and stood with commissioners Barbara Bergman and Felicia Brabec as they marked Barrie’s passing. Brabec was appointed earlier this year as the board’s liaison to WCHO. Bergman had held that role for several years, and now serves as a citizen representative on the WCHO board.

Bergman spoke briefly, saying that Barrie’s death is a great loss for people who use WCHO services. “They have lost a champion,” she said, “and I have lost the dearest of friends.”

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: Road Commission

In his final liaison report to the board, Rob Turner highlighted the Washtenaw County road commission’s budget, which he said now will show a slight surplus. However, he added, projected funding levels will likely decrease the commission’s fund balance in future years.

Turner provided a handout – which had been posted on the road commission’s website in mid-November – showing that the number of road commission employees in 2012 was the same as in 1960: 106. During that time, the county’s population had doubled from 172,440 to 347,962 and the total miles of county roads and state trunkline roads had increased 26% from 3,130 miles to 3,950 miles.

Communications & Commentary: The Washtenaw Ride

Wes Prater asked for an update on The Washtenaw Ride, saying it was his understanding that the city of Ypsilanti remained a member of that transit authority.

Three municipalities had previously voted to join the authority. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, confirmed that two of those municipalities – Ypsilanti Township and the city of Saline – had subsequently voted to opt out, but he wasn’t sure whether Ypsilanti had taken that action.

Prater indicated that this is something the next county board needed to deal with.

The county had been the entity to file articles of incorporation with the state of Michigan to form the new transit authority under Act 196 of 1986. That action had been preceded by the development of a 30-year transit master plan and a five-year service plan by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, over a more than two-year period. The county’s role was limited to filing the articles of incorporation, but county commissioners were not unified in support of the effort. The final vote to pass the articles of incorporation and a related four-party agreement – taken on Aug. 1, 2012 – was 6-4.

The Washtenaw Ride was ultimately incorporated on Oct. 3, 2012, but local communities had the opportunity to opt-out of participation – and most of the 28 local municipalities did. The move that essentially killed the effort came from the Ann Arbor city council on Nov. 8, when councilmembers unanimously voted to opt out as well. Their action terminated a four-party agreement – between Washtenaw County, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the AATA – that would have governed a transition from the AATA to a countywide authority. Until Ann Arbor’s decision, those jurisdictions still participating in the new authority included more than half the county’s population, and included the county’s largest population centers: Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, and Saline.

Prior to the Dec. 5 meeting, commissioner Dan Smith had indicated that he might bring forward a resolution to officially dissolve the transit authority – to dispel any doubt about the future of The Washtenaw Ride. He had characterized it as a housekeeping item and a way to give local communities a “clean slate” if they want to pursue other alternatives to expanded public transit. However, he did not present a formal resolution on Dec. 5.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

In addition to the public hearing on the 2013 budget, Thomas Partridge spoke during both opportunities for public commentary on Dec. 5. Referencing the discussion about the veterans affairs committee, Partridge said he had been proud to serve in the ROTC when he was in college, and he urged commissioners to support services for veterans and all other who needed help. He described a woman who was homeless and selling issues of Groundcover News just a block or so away from the county administration building – as he’d met her on his way to the meeting. He urged employees who were receiving the “county-provided Christmas bonus” to donate it to a community foundation fund that he proposed the board establish. Such a fund could be used to provide housing support services and to further the goal of eliminating homelessness, he said.

Responding to Partridge, Barbara Bergman called Groundcover News the “best deal in Washtenaw County, noting that she buys one every Saturday for $1 and then uses the $1 coupon to get coffee at the People’s Food Co-op.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 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!

Most commissioners currently are paid a salary of $15,500. The new amount of $15,750 is calculated by indexing it to one-half the median “step” of the lowest grade salary among county employees. The resolution authorizing the increase also directs future boards to adjust commissioner salaries based on this same calculation.

Officers of the board earn more than other commissioners. The board chair, Conan Smith, is currently paid $18,500. The board vice chair, Alicia Ping, earns $16,000, while chairs of the board’s ways & means committee (Rolland Sizemore Jr.) and working session (Yousef Rabhi) are each paid $16,500. Starting next year, all board chairs will receive $3,000 over their base salary. In a friendly amendment added to the resolution on Dec. 5 by Yousef Rabhi, the board vice chair will receive an extra $1,000 over the base salary.

Currently, commissioners also have a $3,550 flex account to use for per diem and mileage reimbursements, training or other authorized expenses. For example, a per diem of $25 per authorized meeting is allowed, as is mileage driven to those meetings – at a current rate of $0.555 per mile. Some commissioners don’t use their flex accounts, however, and most don’t use the entire amount. The payments are administered through the county clerk’s office.

The resolution given final approval on Dec. 5 changes that approach. Starting in 2013,  commissioners will receive stipend payments based on the number of meetings that a commissioner is likely to attend for a particular appointment. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increased based on the number of meetings. At the high end, more than 24 meetings would pay $1,000. Commissioners will be able to waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk.

Changes to compensation for an upcoming term must be set by the board before that term starts. So for the two-year term beginning in January 2013, any changes in compensation must be made before the end of 2012.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) stressed that because the number of commissioners on the board is decreasing from 11 to 9, the overall budget for commissioners is decreasing – despite the raises for individual commissioners.

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]

Washtenaw County commissioners Barbara Bergman and Yousef Rabhi at the Nov. 7 county board meeting. Rabhi usually wears his hair tied back, but he let it down at the beginning of the meeting to announce a plan to raise money for local shelters – he’s collecting pledges for each inch he cuts off. (Photos by the writer.)

Taking another step toward addressing a year-long controversy over how much to pay for animal control services, the board authorized contracting with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 annually. The action enables the administration to negotiate a contract with HSHV for up to four years, with the option of adjusting the amount based on changes to the taxable value of property in the county. Voting against the resolution were Dan Smith, Wes Prater and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

The county would not likely pay that entire amount. There are preliminary commitments from five municipalities with their own animal control ordinances, to help the offset the cost of the HSHV contract. Those entities are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township.

Several commissioners expressed concern that the county is essentially in the same position as it was when this process began. Wes Prater objected to the fact that the county’s procurement policy wasn’t being followed, because a request for proposals (RFP) wasn’t issued.  Ultimately, a sufficient number of commissioners agreed to back the resolution, giving it final approval. The contract itself will not require authorization by the board.

In another move related to animal control services, the board gave final approval to a civil infractions ordinance, giving the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. [.pdf of proposed ordinance] In the context of animal control, enforcement of the county’s dog licensing ordinance is low because the current penalty – a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine – is relatively harsh. The idea is that enforcement would improve if a lesser civil infraction could be used.

Commissioners also debated options for changing their own compensation, ultimately giving initial approval to boost their base salaries from $15,500 to $15,750 annually and replacing per diem payments with stipends, effective Jan. 1, 2013. An amendment by Yousef Rabhi also increased the pay for chairs of the ways & means committee and the working session – bringing them to the same level as the board chair, at $3,000 more annually than the base salary of other commissioners. Voting against the changes as amended were Dan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. A final vote is expected at the board’s Dec. 5 meeting, when a final vote on the overall 2013 budget will also occur.

In non-budget items, Dan Smith brought forward a resolution to rescind the board’s previous support for a regional transit authority (RTA) that’s being proposed in Lansing. The RTA would include the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. Conan Smith has been an advocate for that effort, both as chair of the county board and in his role as executive director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance. During deliberations on the item, some commissioners criticized Conan Smith for acting on behalf of the board and not keeping them fully informed. Wes Prater felt Conan Smith’s actions reflected disrespect for other commissioners – but Smith said he meant no disrespect.

A sense of disrespect was also felt by a resident who attended the Nov. 7 meeting to advocate for the county’s help in establishing a daytime warming center for the homeless. Alexandra Hoffman chastised the board because no commissioner responded to commentary about a warming center, and instead the remarks by advocates for the center had been followed by “disturbingly lighthearted talk about haircuts.”

Hoffman was referring to an announcement earlier in the meeting by Yousef Rabhi, whose hair is longer than any other commissioner, male or female. He hopes to get donations of $500 for every inch he cuts, to raise money for three local nonprofits: Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, Interfaith Hospitality Network, and SafeHouse Center. Rabhi told Hoffman that he was simply trying to raise awareness and money for the same issues that the warming center advocates supported.

The meeting fell the day after the Nov. 6 general election, which had resulted in the defeat of two of the nine commissioners who were running for re-election: Republican Rob Turner and Democrat Wes Prater. In District 1, Turner was outpolled by Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz, decreasing the number of Republicans on the future nine-member board from three to two. Republican Alicia Ping won the District 3 seat over Prater – as the two incumbents faced each other due to redistricting that took effect with this election cycle. The last meeting for Turner and Prater – as well as for Democrats Leah Gunn and Barbara Bergman, who did not seek re-election – will be on Dec. 5.

It’s likely that the new board, which takes office in January, will eventually deal with a controversial topic that was raised during an appointments caucus on Nov. 7: Possible consolidation of the Washtenaw County road commission with county operations. During the caucus, held immediately prior to the regular meeting, Conan Smith suggested not yet reappointing the one road commissioner, Doug Fuller, whose term is expiring – though Fuller will continue to serve. Smith wanted to give the new county board some flexibility in discussing the future of the road commission. Some of the other issues emerging during the appointments caucus related to the role of the county’s historic district commission, economic development corporation, and the criminal justice community collaborative.

Commissioner Compensation

For Washtenaw County commissioners, changes to compensation for an upcoming term must be set by the board before that term starts. So for the two-year term beginning in January 2013, any changes in compensation must be made before the end of 2012. After the Nov. 6 election, the board had only two meetings to act regarding compensation: on Nov. 7 and Dec. 5.

At an Oct. 18 working session, board chair Conan Smith had indicated his intent to bring forward a proposal on commissioner compensation. Then on Nov. 5, two days before their meeting, Smith had emailed commissioners a draft proposal that he described as “a straw-man policy to poke at.” [.pdf of proposal emailed from Smith to the board]

At the Nov. 7 meeting, he introduced the resolution by noting that there had been many conversations among commissioners about compensation, and that his proposal was based on input from those conversations.

Most commissioners currently are paid a salary of $15,500. Smith said that in discussing the issue with county administrator Verna McDaniel, she had initially suggested setting the salary at half the median salary for county employees. But several commissioners had indicated to him that this calculation resulted in a salary that was higher than they could agree to, he said.

Washtenaw County commissioners Felicia Brabec and Conan Smith.

So the proposed amount of $15,750 was calculated by indexing it to one-half the median “step” of the lowest grade salary among county employees. According to a memo accompanying the resolution, Step 4 of Grade 12 (AFSCME Local 2733) is $31,507.75 – half of that amount is $15,753.88.  Smith’s resolution directed future boards to adjust commissioner salaries based on this same calculation.

Officers of the board currently earn more than other commissioners. The board chair, Conan Smith, is currently paid $18,500. The board vice chair, Alicia Ping, earns $16,000, while chairs of the board’s ways & means committee (Rolland Sizemore Jr.) and working session (Yousef Rabhi) are each paid $16,500.

Smith’s proposal recommended eliminating pay for vice chairs. He noted that only nine commissioners will serve on the next board, due to redistricting, compared to the current 11 members. Giving extra pay to chairs and vice chairs would mean that six of the nine commissioners – a supermajority – would be receiving extra compensation. So Smith proposed that vice chairs receive the same base salary as other commissioners, unlike the current compensation arrangement.

For chairs, Smith proposed keeping the same “bump up” – an extra $3,000 for the board chair, and an extra $1,000 each for the chairs of the ways & means committee and the working session.

Currently, commissioners also have a $3,550 flex account to use for per diem and mileage reimbursements, training or other authorized expenses. For example, a per diem of $25 per authorized meeting is allowed, as is mileage driven to those meetings – at a rate of $0.555 per mile. Some commissioners don’t use their flex accounts, however, and most don’t use the entire amount. The payments are administered through the county clerk’s office.

Smith proposed replacing the current per diem system – which requires that commissioners submit a request for payment – and instead paying commissioners an automatic stipend as part of their compensation. The total stipend amounts would be capped at the flex account level of $3,550 per commissioner.

The stipends would be calculated based on the number of committees or boards to which a commissioner is appointed, as well as the number of meetings that each of those groups is expected to hold. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increase based on the number of meetings. At the high end, more than 24 meetings would pay $1,000. Appointments of commissioners to boards and committees will be made at the beginning of 2013.

On Smith’s proposal, commissioners would be able to waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk. According to a two-page document provided by Smith, stipends would be pro-rated, aggregated and paid out biweekly as part of a commissioner’s paycheck. [.pdf of draft stipend guidelines]

In explaining his rationale for the change to stipend payments, Smith said it’s important to make sure that serving on the board is accessible to everyone. People who are paid hourly shouldn’t have to choose between their job and their passion for serving the county, he said. The change also takes away the paperwork involved, he said, and attempts to be fair without adding complexity to the system.

Per diems came under fire during the 2010 election season, and resulted in repayment – by most commissioners who were on the board at that time – of a portion of their per diem requests that were determined to be ineligible under board rules. Smith was one of the last commissioners to make a repayment, doing so only in early 2012 and agreeing to repay only some of the money he had been deemed ineligible to claim, in an arrangement that appears to have taken place outside the independent review process. [See Chronicle coverage: "Compensation Change for County Board?"]

The proposed changes do not affect mileage payments – commissioners can continue to request reimbursement for mileage to authorized meetings. Nor does it affect fringe benefits. Fringe benefits include $1,163 that the county pays into a retirement account for each commissioner, as well as payment of 50% of health care insurance if the commissioner chooses to obtain health care through the county as a part-time employee.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate

Wes Prater asked whether these changes in per diem would apply to payments for members of the general public who serve on county committees and commissions. Conan Smith said the policy for those positions would be set by the next board at the beginning of 2013 – so there would be no changes to those per diem payments at this time.

Prater objected to the fact that there was no accountability built into the system for attendance. He also noted that depending on how many appointments a commissioner had, the stipend approach could account for a significant increase in overall compensation.

Smith replied that only one appointment – to the county road commission – would require more than 20 meetings per year. His thinking, Smith said, was that the road commission work is more intense than other appointments and that the other people at those meetings – the three road commissioners, who are appointed by the county board – each receive $10,000 in annual compensation.

Dan Smith thanked Conan Smith for his work in putting together this proposal. D. Smith said he’d given it a lot of thought, and had talked with a few other commissioners about the issue. The approach of using stipends recognizes that there’s work involved on these appointments that doesn’t entail just going to meetings, he said. He supported that approach, but not the salary increase.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate – Proposed Amendment (Salary Unchanged)

Saying that he felt it was the wrong time for a salary increase, Dan Smith proposed an amendment that would keep base salaries at the current level of $15,500. He liked the idea of pegging the salary to a specific level tied to other county employees’ compensation – he felt that was appropriate. But that should be left to future boards to implement. Regarding the argument that salaries hadn’t increased with inflation (a rationale for the increase that had been noted by Conan Smith in his cover memo for the resolution), Dan Smith said that previous boards could have addressed it, but didn’t. When the current commissioners took office, they were aware of the compensation level. As for the rationale that commissioners will be shouldering more work because the board will be smaller due to redistricting, Smith noted that other county employees also are being asked to do more work for about the same amount they’ve previously been paid.

In two years, the economic situation might be different and the next board could reconsider an increase, Dan Smith said. He moved to amend the resolution to keep salary levels unchanged.

Outcome: There was no second to this amendment, so it did not move forward for a vote.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate – Proposed Amendment (Stipends at $200)

Dan Smith then argued that the proposed schedule of stipend payments – with different pay based on the number of meetings that each board, committee or commission was expected to meet – was simply “putting per diems in stipends’ clothing.”

Here’s the stipend schedule:

Proposed stipend schedule of payments for Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Rather than use this approach, Smith proposed making a flat $200 stipend per appointment.

Conan Smith said he’d been grappling with how to deal with the different workloads of certain appointments. The stipend schedule was an attempt to reflect those differing workloads. He suggested that they try this approach for one term, to see if it ameliorates the discrepancy between appointments with only one meeting per year, and those that require 24.

Outcome: The proposed amendment failed, with support only from Dan Smith.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate – Proposed Amendment (No Stipends for Quorum)

Dan Smith cited a section of the proposed general policies that referred to meetings that are attended by a quorum of the board:

a. The Board of Commissioners shall identify the boards, committees and commissions eligible for compensatory service in its Rules and Regulations.
i. The Board of Commissioners may include on the list of eligible bodies any committee, subcommittee meeting or Working Session of the Board, provided that its meetings have been noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Act, Public Act 267 of 1976.

He moved to strike (i), noting that these meetings should be part of the board’s regular work that’s covered by salaries, and should not be eligible for extra compensation.

Outcome: The amendment passed, with dissent from Alicia Ping. This means that regular board meetings, ways & means committee meetings, and working sessions will not be included in calculations for board stipends.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate – Proposed Amendment (Extra for Chairs)

The original proposal called for the chair of the board to earn $3,000 more than the base salary, and for the chairs of the ways & means committee and working session to earn $1,000 more. [A friendly amendment offered by Dan Smith changed the description of those latter two positions to "chairs of permanent standing committees."]

Alicia Ping objected to having different levels of increased pay for the chairs, saying that all chairs should get equal increases. The chair of the board is just a ceremonial figurehead, she said, and not more important than other commissioners. Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he’s served as chair for all three groups, and reported that it’s far easier to be chair of the working session. If you’re a good board chair, he said, “you’re working all the time.”

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Conan Smith reported that when he was previously chair of ways & means, he attended budget planning meetings every other week, as well as meetings to plan for those budget sessions. None of those were eligible for per diems, he said. Now, as board chair, there are many “ministerial” duties – such as signing contracts – that eat up time, he said.

Yousef Rabhi proposed an amendment giving all chairs a $3,000 increase.

His amendment was supported by Conan Smith, who said the board will “work our chairs to death next year.” Smith cited a range of issues that the board will be dealing with: planning and policy decisions for the 2014-2015 budget, implementation of the new animal control arrangement, and the possibility of incorporating the road commission into the county operations. He also noted that a smaller nine-member board will mean a greater workload for everyone.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. objected to the change, noted that they’d been talking about the need to save money, but are now increasing expenses.

Rabhi said his intent was to reflect the leadership roles of the different chairs. He believed they should work as a team, and that their pay should be equal because of that. [There was no proposal or discussion about equalizing the pay by decreasing the chair's extra compensation to $1,000.]

The initial vote on this amendment was taken as a voice vote, but the outcome was unclear. A roll call vote was taken instead.

Outcome: The amendment passed on a 7-3 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Rob Turner. Ronnie Peterson was absent. This means that all officers of the board will be paid $3,000 above the base salary.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate – Vote on Main Resolution

There was little additional discussion on the main resolution.

Outcome: Changes to compensation, as amended, were given initial approval on an 8-2 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Ronnie Peterson was absent. The final vote will come on Dec. 5.

Humane Society Contract

A Nov. 7 agenda item called for the county board to authorize contracting with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 annually. It would enable the administration to contract with HSHV for up to four years, with the option of adjusting the contract.

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, county administrator Verna McDaniel has received preliminary commitments from five municipalities that have their own animal control ordinances, and that have agreed to help the offset the cost of the HSHV contract. Those entities are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township. The memo states that those local governments have agreed to execute contracts with the county to provide funding for animal control services. The Nov. 7 resolution also authorized McDaniel to finalize contracts with each of these local entities. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”]

Conan Smith, the board’s chair, introduced the resolution by praising Rob Turner for his leadership on this issue, helping “with what could have been really treacherous waters.” Turner served on both the board’s policy task force and a separate group led by sheriff Jerry Clayton that helped determine the cost of HSHV services.

Humane Society Contract: Board Debate

Leah Gunn led off the discussion by calling it a “gnarly” problem, adding that she’d reluctantly support this resolution. She said she was “vexed,” contending that HSHV had never presented the county with a cost-per-dog amount, and never told the county how many dogs the county is responsible for. The county is not responsible for animals brought to HSHV that have owners. “We should not be responsible for people’s pets,” she said. Gunn concluded by saying she’d support the resolution out of respect for commissioner Rob Turner and county administrator Verna McDaniel, who had worked hard on it. But she also hoped to get more specific information from HSHV in the future.

Washtenaw County commissioner Rob Turner (District 1).

Turner replied, saying he apologized if the cost breakdown wasn’t adequately shared, but he said that HSHV had provided the information. It works out to about $38 per day for stray dogs, he said, with an average 10-day hold. Just for stray dogs, HSHV calculated its annual cost for county services at about $542,000. In addition, the cost for handling animal cruelty cases is about $350,000, Turner said. So the total cost of county services provided by HSHV is about $890,000. He said the resolution is intended to get the county as close as possible to covering HSHV’s actual costs.

Responding to a question from Barbara Bergman, Turner reported that the costs don’t include a calculation of HSHV’s in-kind volunteer services. If that amount were included, it would increase the cost to $50-$60 per day, he said.

Bergman said she’d support the resolution reluctantly, but “I’m not happy about it.” Basic needs like food and shelter come first for her, she said, so she’d be diverting her charitable contributions to organizations that provide food for those in need.

Humane Society Contract: Board Debate – Procurement Policy

Wes Prater argued that the county’s procurement policy requires the county to issue a request for proposals (RFP). That policy isn’t being followed, he said, so the board is doing business in a way that violates county policy. Is this the kind of organization they’re going to run in a lame-duck session? he asked.

Prater observed that the county has been “diddling around” with this issue for two years. When commissioners adopted the general fund budget in 2011, they allocated $250,000 for animal control services in 2012 and 2013. Yet here they are, back at the previous $500,000 annual level, he said. Prater maintained that they were violating county policy and they shouldn’t be handling the situation in this way.

Prater noted that the resolution being considered by the board didn’t include a scope of services for the HSHV contract, or even a list of state-mandated services that the county is required to provide, to indicate whether the county is in compliance. Commissioners took an oath of office to uphold the law, he said, “and we’re absolutely not doing it.”

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger responded to Prater’s concerns. HSHV is the only qualified, licensed entity within Washtenaw County that can provide these services, he said. The procurement policy has a provision for awarding sole-source contracts, at the discretion of the administrator. The board could still require a competitive bid, he said, but it’s important to take into account the cost of going outside the county for those services.

Prater replied that the county has contracts frequently with out-of-county vendors. Hedger noted that in this case, using such an entity would mean that Washtenaw County residents would be required to travel farther in order to pick up their pets. Prater indicated that if people wanted their pets, they could go and get them – regardless of the location.

Humane Society Contract: Board Debate – Amendment (Contract Adjustments)

Dan Smith was concerned about the first resolved clause – specifically, the phrase “with the potential to adjust for inflation.”

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the County Administrator to work with the Office of Corporation Counsel to finalize and execute a contract for up to four years with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 per year, with the potential to adjust for inflation.

Smith noted that the state’s Proposition A puts a cap on increases of taxable value at no more than 5% per year. [The state ballot initiative, passed by voters in 1994, put in place a cap of 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.] If inflation increases at a higher rate than 5%, then HSHV would be paid a higher increase than the county was getting in property tax revenues. He suggested amending the clause to substitute the phrase “with the potential to adjust based on property tax revenue changes.”

There was some confusion about the meaning and intent of Smith’s suggested amendment. Alicia Ping wondered how it would work, and how it would relate to inflation changes as measured by the CPI (consumer price index).

County administrator Verna McDaniel suggested changing the language of the resolution to put a 3% cap in place for potential contract increases.

Conan Smith observed that inflation affects the HSHV’s cost of providing services, while Dan Smith’s amendment ties any contract changes to the county’s ability to pay – a wiser approach, Conan Smith said. It recognizes the opportunity for increases, but limits it to an amount that’s within the county’s ability to pay.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, pointed out that the word “potential” in the original clause was intended to provide the county with flexibility in negotiations. There was no requirement to adjust the contract amount.

Ping at one point indicated she’d like to amend Dan Smith’s amendment to include a 3% cap on any potential increases, as McDaniel had suggested. Conan Smith said he’d oppose that move because it would put an additional constraint on potential increases – a limit lower than the state’s 5% cap. He liked pegging any change to the county’s revenues in a straightforward way.

Barbara Bergman expressed concern about the potential of handing HSHV several million dollars, describing it as a “windfall” that none of the commissioners would want to consider. Conan Smith said that although the board wouldn’t need to approve the contract that McDaniel negotiates, commissioners would still be able to see it. The resolution they were voting on that night sets a framework for negotiations, he said. It doesn’t guarantee that the contract amount will be higher or lower in the future.

Saying that the discussion had become ridiculous, Ping withdrew her proposed 3% cap amendment. The vote then centered on a slightly revised version of Dan Smith’s original amendment (new language in italics):

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the County Administrator to work with the Office of Corporation Counsel to finalize and execute a contract for up to four years with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 per year, with the potential to adjust for inflation on the basis of the rate of taxable value change.

Outcome: The amendment passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent from Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Humane Society Contract: Board Debate – Amendment (New Revenue)

Several commissioners expressed concern about the final resolved clause. It stated:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners declares that new animal control related revenue or increased contractual revenue from those local governmental entities, which maintain their own animal control ordinances which may be identified during the four-year contract period between the County and Humane Society of Huron Valley, shall be directed to the Humane Society for Huron Valley.

Yousef Rabhi felt that this opened the door too much, and that it was not proper to direct all new revenue to HSHV. If there is additional revenue, the board should decide how it’s allocated, he said. Rabhi noted that he had asked for this clause to be removed from the draft, and wondered why it had been left in.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said there was keen interest on the part of HSHV to defray more of their costs, which she said they estimate to be closer to $800,000 annually for services provided to the county. This clause about new revenue was seen as a way to make the new contract more appealing to the HSHV board, she said.

Rabhi proposed adding an additional sentence: “Any other animal control-related revenue will be used to provide animal control services as directed by the board of commissioners.”

Conan Smith said the board had discussed how the county would likely incur costs related to enforcement of the animal control ordinance, so it would be appropriate to offset those costs with additional revenue.

Wes Prater objected again to the way the process was being handled, saying it didn’t make any sense to him – the county was giving HSHV absolute control of the purse strings. “I just can’t believe this is happening!”

Outcome: The amendment passed on a 9-1 vote, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Humane Society Contract: Board Debate – Concluding Remarks

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he wouldn’t support this resolution. He felt that the administrator should bring back the contract with HSHV for approval – saying items like this should be approved by the board. He also had a “real problem” with HSHV, saying they hadn’t offered to help or provide any suggestions to address new ways of handling animal control services. The county will be negotiating with its unions and asking for cuts, he said, yet commissioners are prepared to give HSHV whatever it wants “without any questions.”

Commissioners Yousef Rabhi and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Sizemore also objected to the county “picking up the slack” of other communities that had their own animal control ordinances.

Rob Turner responded, noting that at the meetings held over the past few months by the policy task force and the sheriff’s working group, HSHV members had brought up many suggestions and ideas. HSHV has been very pro-active, he said. Although many of the other communities with animal control ordinances already have their budgets in place for 2013, Turner said, if the county can work out a longer-term contract with HSHV, it’s possible that negotiations can occur with those communities and that they’ll provide more revenues in the future.

Sizemore noted that if those communities don’t pay the county, there’s no recourse. Turner believed the county could withhold providing animal control services for those communities, if they didn’t pay. That’s a big incentive, Turner said. Sizemore countered by saying that the county would have to take responsibility for some of those services anyway, because of its state mandate.

Dan Smith said he was deeply bothered by this whole process. He characterized it as returning to “square one” – that is, the $500,000 level that the county had paid in 2011. There have been meetings on top of meetings, he said, with apparently no progress and insufficient information provided. He described the $38-per-day amount as “obscenely high,” equating it to payments for a $225,000 mortgage. For two dogs at $76 a day, it could provide them a pretty nice hotel room, he joked.

The proposal doesn’t seem like a solution, Smith said. It seems like the board is just putting the problem away for four years. Animal control services are one of the few mandated services for which the county uses a third-party contractor, and it creates a whole host of questions about who interprets the mandate, he said. Saying that he wished they had made more progress, Smith said he’d be voting no on the resolution.

Alicia Ping disagreed with Smith. The intent was never to get services at a lower level, she said. Rather, the process was intended to arrive at a determination about the cost of providing those services. Whether Smith agreed with the amount was irrelevant, she said. “The cost is what the cost is.” Ping didn’t feel the process had been a waste of anyone’s time, and she felt that the board had all the information they needed.

Ping then called the question, a procedural move intended to end debate and force a vote. The vote on calling the question was unanimous.

Outcome: The main resolution as amended passed on a 7-3 vote. Voting against the resolution were Dan Smith, Wes Prater and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

Civil Infractions Ordinance

An agenda item later in the meeting – also related to animal control services – asked commissioners to give final approval to a civil infractions ordinance. The ordinance would give the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. [.pdf of proposed ordinance] The board had taken an initial vote on the resolution at its Oct. 17, 2012 meeting.

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

Civil Infractions Ordinance – Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge was the only person to speak during a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. He objected to “unnamed civil infractions and unnamed enforcers” that he believed would target people who are unable to protect themselves or unable to keep up their homes like country clubs with manicured lawns. He advocated that the board vote down the entire ordinance.

Outcome: There was no discussion on this item and it was approved unanimously as part of the board’s consent agenda.

2013 Budget Reaffirmation

At their Nov. 7 meeting, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a 2013 general fund budget of $102.84 million, with a net increase of one full-time position. [.pdf of proposed 2013 budget]

The county works on a two-year budget planning cycle. In late 2011, commissioners set the budget for 2012 and 2013. However, state law mandates that the board must approve the budget annually. So this year, the vote on a budget is an “reaffirmation” for 2013, including several proposed adjustments. The original 2013 budget proposed a year ago was for general fund revenues and expenses of $97.066 million – $5.774 million less than the current proposal.

Property taxes typically account for about 63% of revenues, and the general fund budget is based on an operating millage rate of 4.5493 mills. Because property values have not decreased as much as originally anticipated, the county expects about $2.4 million more in property tax revenues for 2013 than it had previously accounted for in the 2013 budget. The budget assumes that property tax revenues will be 2% lower than in 2012. The 2013 budget includes a planned use of $3.287 million from the fund balance. Of that, about $2 million is estimated to be carried over from a budget surplus in 2012.

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

2013 Budget Affirmation: Board Discussion – Borrowing from Fund Balances

Commissioners asked several questions for clarification. Dan Smith also raised concerns over one of the new policies that accompanied the budget resolution. It allows the county to replenish the general fund balance by “borrowing” from other county fund balances:

37. Due to the change in the timing of the collection of property tax revenue, which is now seven months into operations of a fiscal year, there is the likelihood that the General Fund (1010) cash balance may be depleted to a negative balance prior to the collection of the July tax levy. In the event the General Fund (1010) does experience a negative cash balance funds held within the Capital Reserve Fund (4060), Capital Equipment Fund (4010), and the 1/8 Mill Capital Improvement Fund (4010) may be utilized to be borrowed from as these funds are supported by allocated general revenues. In the event these funds have insufficient cash balances to address the negative balance within the General Fund other funds within the pooled cash account may be borrowed from. All funds borrowed will be repaid immediately upon collection of the July property tax levy.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, explained that the policy makes transparent the process of providing a financial buffer, as the county awaits receipt of tax revenues that aren’t available until July. From May until July, the general fund cash balance gets “really lean,” she said. This policy allows the county to borrow from its other fund balances to replenish the general fund until those July tax revenues are available. Then, the money is returned to the other fund balances.

Administrative analyst Elaine Holleran gives a handout to county commissioner Dan Smith during the Nov. 7 meeting.

Dan Smith noted that by using these other fund balances, there was no need to pay interest when borrowing occurred. But he wondered why this policy was needed now, though it apparently hadn’t been needed in the past?

Belknap replied that the county’s reserve of state-shared revenues, which previously had been as high as $26 million, had helped provide the kind of buffer that was needed. But as those funds have been spent – the reserves will be depleted in 2013 – that buffer is gone.

Smith thought the situation provided an argument for building up the general fund balance. That way, there wouldn’t be the need for borrowing. He said the proposed policy set an extremely dangerous precedent, creating a habit that the county shouldn’t start. Smith noted that when the county received higher-than-expected property tax revenues in 2012, those revenues were spent, not saved. He also wasn’t happy about the $5.7 million increase in the 2013 general fund budget. The county is still in dire financial straits, he said. “We need to bank that money, not spend it.”

Alicia Ping wondered whether there were any regulations over this kind of internal borrowing. She was especially concerned about the timing, and didn’t want the county to start dipping into those borrowed funds any sooner than was absolutely necessary. Belknap said the board could set any parameters it wanted – it was all county money. The goal is to not borrow until as close to July as possible, she said. Belknap also noted that the county hasn’t needed to draw as much from the fund balance as it has budgeted for in 2012, and she hoped that trend would continue in 2013.

Both Belknap and county administrator Verna McDaniel acknowledged the need to build the fund balance. McDaniel said it was about $4-5 million away from being stable – a level that could secure a better bond rating for the county.

At the end of 2012, the general fund balance is expected to be $16.544 million. The 2013 budget calls for using $3.287 million from the fund balance, with a projected balance of $13.257 million at the end of 2013. A year ago, the county had anticipated needing to draw more than that from the fund balance in 2013 – $3.805 million.

2013 Budget Affirmation: Board Discussion – Long-Term Liabilities

Wes Prater was concerned about the county’s long-term liabilities, which he pegged at $430 million. In 2007, he noted, that amount had been about $379 million – it had grown nearly $50 million in five years. Kelly Belknap pointed out that the amount Prater referred to included not just retirement obligations but all long-term liabilities, including debt from bonds for public works and other capital projects.

Prater said the county needed to take these liabilities seriously, and that they couldn’t afford to accumulate those amounts at the same rate each year.

Outcome: Initial approval for the 2013 budget was given on a 9-1 7-3 vote, with dissent from Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Ronnie Peterson was absent. A final vote and public hearing will occur at the board’s Dec. 5 meeting.

Public Transportation

At the county board’s Oct. 17, 2012 meeting, commissioner Wes Prater had asked for an update about proposed state legislation regarding creation of a regional transit authority (RTA) for southeast Michigan – the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. Conan Smith has been an advocate for that effort, both as chair of the county board and in his role as executive director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance.

About a year ago, at its Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, the board unanimously passed a resolution of support for the RTA. From then until the Oct. 17 meeting, little discussion of the RTA has taken place at commission meetings, and several commissioners seemed unaware of the county’s level of involvement in that effort.

At the county board’s Nov. 7 meeting, Dan Smith brought forward a resolution to rescind the board’s previous support. [.pdf of resolution to rescind support of the RTA]

The resolution also stated that the board opposes any other legislation that would involve Washtenaw County in an RTA:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners opposes legislation which would include Washtenaw County in a Regional Transportation Authority, which does not protect:

• The ability of county entities to manage designated transportation funding.
• The right of county entities to independently mange a transit system.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners supports the concept of a Regional Transportation Authority to enhance interconnectivity among the communities of the southeast Michigan region, but feels that Washtenaw County and the voters thereof should determine when to join the Authority.

Smith’s original draft – which was distributed to commissioners – had included references to specific pending state legislation. After a sidebar discussion with Conan Smith, Dan Smith revised the language to eliminate the citations to HB 5309 and SB 909.

Public Transportation: Board Debate

During deliberations, Conan Smith and Yousef Rabhi both thanked Dan Smith for “softening” the resolution, though both said they couldn’t support it, despite that change.

Rabhi said he was very supportive of the RTA legislation, and he knew that everyone in Lansing believed more amendments were needed. That process is underway, he said. Rabhi noted that when he and Barbara Bergman had been appointed to an advocacy group called R-PATH (Regional Partners Advocating Transit Here), they attended meetings at which a range of concerns had been aired. Yet the overwhelming sense was support for the general concept of the RTA, he said. Regional transit has been tried many times but has failed in the past because everyone wanted to hold on to their turf, he said.

Conan Smith spoke at length about the challenges and need for the RTA. It’s been a complicated process that they’ve been working on for more than a year, he said. The interests of Washtenaw County have been difficult to elevate because of the relative size in population and the weight that it carries. But as home to major universities, the county has an extraordinary role to play, he said. The vision of the future – of Detroit as a vibrant urban area – is compromised by the current reality. It’s a mighty mountain to climb, he said, and there’s a long way to go.

Commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

Conan Smith also summarized several issues and concerns that had been raised by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority in regards to a possible RTA, including the impact of federal pass-through funds to the AATA, the ability to set fares and schedules, and the issue of providing sufficient funding for local transit services.

Saying he felt he’d be compromising his past conversations with the governor and others if he didn’t support the RTA, Conan Smith said he’d reluctantly oppose Dan Smith’s resolution, though he agreed with its values.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he wasn’t happy that Conan Smith had gone to Lansing and the Mackinac Policy Conference without informing the board. Yet noting that he serves on the board of the Detroit Region Aerotropolis, Sizemore wondered if the county board would be shooting itself in the foot by not supporting an RTA. He wasn’t sure how he would vote, but he did want the board to be updated regularly about these efforts. County residents should be informed, too, he said.

Wes Prater supported the RTA, but said it should be the county board that’s involved, not just the chair. It bothers him when someone speaks on behalf of the board “when they really don’t have the authority to do so.” Other commissioners don’t know what kind of commitments Conan Smith made, he said. “I think you disrespect us – I really do.”

Prater said the situation is becoming like the contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which was discussed earlier in the meeting. It seems like the RTA would provide very little service in Washtenaw County, he said – just a stop in Ypsilanti and at Ann Arbor’s Blake Transit Center. He didn’t see that as being beneficial, and he wondered how much it would cost and how it would be paid for. “We should have learned from what happened with AATA,” Prater said, alluding to the effort to expand transit under an Act 196 authority.

[The following evening, at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council voted to opt out of the Act 196 authority. The action effectively ends that particular approach to expanded public transit, although the council's resolution did call for continued discussion of regional transportation options. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "End of Road for County Transit Effort?"]

Conan Smith apologized to Prater, saying he did not lack respect for his colleagues. At times, all commissioners are called on to speak on behalf of the county, he said. There was never any intent on his part to sneak anything past the board.

Rob Turner called the question, to end debate and force a vote on Dan Smith’s resolution. The vote to call the question passed over dissent by Conan Smith and Felicia Brabec.

Outcome: The resolution rescinding support of the RTA passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent from Conan Smith, Yousef Rabhi, Felicia Brabec and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

The board had originally scheduled an update on the RTA for its Nov. 8 working session – from Gary Owen with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., the Lansing-based firm that serves as the county’s lobbyist on state issues. However, following the board’s action on Nov. 7, that update was cancelled.

Appointments

The board made a raft of appointments to various boards, committees and commissions at its Nov. 7 meeting. Although there was no discussion other than a reading of the appointees’ names during that meeting, commissioners had discussed the choices for about an hour during an appointments caucus held immediately prior to the evening’s regular meeting. [.pdf of appointments application grid]

Appointments – Public Commentary

Benjamin Muth addressed the board during public commentary, saying he was there to advocate for his application to the Huron River Watershed Council. He wanted commissioners to see him and understand his intent. He’s a graduate of the Vermont Law School, which he described as the nation’s top environmental law school. He said he was born and raised in Michigan, and wanted to return to practice law here – specifically, a focus on water law to protect the Great Lakes. According to the cover letter and resumé provided to the board, Muth was born in Ann Arbor and attended Pioneer High School.

He told commissioners that he understood that the decision about appointments might already have been made. If so, he hoped they would consider him for future appointments. In addition to HRWC, he listed several other areas of interest, including the natural areas technical advisory committee, the agricultural lands preservation advisory committee, and the brownfield redevelopment authority.

Muth concluded his remarks by stating, “If you give me the opportunity, I’d like to go to work for you.”

Commissioner Alicia Ping told Muth that the appointments had been determined, but that they were excited he had attended the meeting. She said she was sure that when there’s an opening, he’d be getting a call.

Appointments – Pre-Meeting Caucus

All but one of the 11 commissioners attended an hour-long appointments caucus that began at 5:30 p.m. on Nov. 7, prior to the start of the 6:30 p.m. ways & means committee meeting. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

Commissioners were given a packet of materials that included cover letters and resumés for most applicants, as well as a grid that provided: (1) brief summaries of each board, committee or commission; (2) an indication of the number and types of appointments that were needed (some appointments require certain qualifications); and (3) a list of people who had applied.

Yousef Rabhi suggested that there are too many of these groups, and that a review is needed to see if some of them can be eliminated. If necessary, the responsibility for some groups could be shifted to others, he said.

Here are some highlights from that caucus discussion:

• Community Action Board: There were two open positions and two current members seeking reappointment: Mike DuRussell and Shoshana DeMaria. Conan Smith noted that in the past, the CAB had developed an “entitlement mentality” – that is, board members expected that in exchange for serving on the board, their groups would be awarded funding. That culture is changing, he said, but it’s been difficult. Other commissioners noted that the CAB members had also been accustomed to being paid for travel and meals at nice restaurants with their spouses. Leah Gunn described DuRussell, the current CAB chair, as not being “part of the problem” – she suggested that he be reappointed, and he was. However, DeMaria was not reappointed, and that position remains unfilled.
• Criminal Justice Community Collaborative: There were six vacancies but only three applicants, including two – Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran and Ann Arbor resident Mike Fried – who applied for reappointment. Barbara Bergman described CJCC as “basically pretty useless,” with nothing to do. Conan Smith reported that sheriff Jerry Clayton felt it should be dissolved. Smith noted that judges don’t attend the meetings: “It’s hard to collaborate with justice when justice isn’t there.” Wes Prater suggested looking at the resolution that created CJCC to see if its original purpose might be served by another group.
• Economic Development Corporation: There was one opening for a member of the general public. The current representative, Pam Horiszny, did not seek reappointment. She is CFO at the Ann Arbor YMCA, and a trustee of the Washtenaw Community College. There were five new applicants. However, Conan Smith said he’s interested in restructuring the EDC so that it could be a convening forum for members of other entities, like local downtown development authorities (DDAs), local development finance authorities (LDFAs) and other groups doing economic development work. The idea would be to help coordinate those activities countywide. In light of that, no appointments were recommended. [In March of 2012, The Chronicle covered on of the EDC's rare meetings: "County EDC: Money to Loan, But No Deals."]
• Historic District Commission: Conan Smith said he hoped to shift the HDC’s focus to be a driver of economic development. In the past, this group hasn’t leveraged its capacity in that regard, he said – by exploring tax credits for historic preservation, for example. Leah Gunn noted that the group tends to get bogged down in “minutia.” Smith wanted to appoint people who would see the value of their role in economic development. Though there were some concerns expressed about reappointing local attorney Jean King – as her health problems sometimes prevent participation. There were no other applicants to fill the required slot for an attorney, so she was reappointed. Other appointments were new to the HDC: Leslie Ledbetter, James Mann, Courtney Miller, and Tony Ramirez.
• Road Commission: Conan Smith suggested not making an appointment, but letting the current road commissioner whose term is expiring continue to serve. That road commissioner is Doug Fuller.  [The two other road commissioners are Fred Veigel and Ken Schwartz, a former county commissioner.] Smith wanted to wait until the board of commissioners could have a conversation next year about possible consolidation of the road commission with overall county operations. Currently, the road commission operates independently, although its governing board of three road commissioners is appointed by the county board. [Past attempts by the board to make changes at the road commission – to expand the number of commissioners, for example – have been contentious.]

Appointments – Board Vote

Outcome: Appointments were approved unanimously, without discussion.

Finance Policy

Two items were introduced during the meeting that related to finance policy.

The board was asked to authorize a policy on the use of lines of credit issued by vendors. According to a staff memo, using lines of credit reduces the need to issue employee credit cards, but there is not a current policy in place to ensure effective internal controls. [.pdf of resolution and policy]

During the Nov. 7 meeting, Kelly Belknap – the county’s finance director – told commissioners that the proposed policy simply formalizes what’s already in practice.

The board was also asked to approve an update to the county’s procurement policy. [.pdf of updated procurement policy, with changes highlighted] According to a staff memo, the changes do the following: (1) remove the procurement card process from the policy; (2) reflect the processes/internal controls regarding the use of a county credit card; and (3) direct departments to use environmentally appropriate products when appropriate. The memo notes that because banks offer the same limits and software for procurement cards and credit cards, there is no need for the county to use both types of cards.

Outcome: The two resolutions to the county’s finance policy were approved unanimously as part of the board’s consent agenda. Both initial and final approvals were given at the Nov. 7 meeting.

Coordinated Funding

A one-year extension for a pilot program using a “coordinated funding” model to support local human services was on the Nov. 7 agenda for final consideration. An initial vote had been taken on Oct. 17, 2012.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are the city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The Ann Arbor city council approved the one-year extension at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting.

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

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

Coordinated Funding – Public Commentary

As she has on several occasions at meetings of the county board and other local governing bodies, Lily Au spoke against the coordinated funding approach.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board gave final approval to a one-year extension for the coordinated funding program.

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: Haircut for Charity

At the start of the meeting, Yousef Rabhi signaled that something was different by letting his nearly-waist-length hair down – he typically wears it tied back.

Rabhi announced that he hadn’t cut his hair in a long time, and he thought he’d get a haircut and turn it into a fundraiser, too. He hopes to raise $500 for every inch he cuts, to raise money for three local nonprofits: Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, Interfaith Hospitality Network, and SafeHouse Center. Supporting these shelters is especially important as winter approaches, he said.

Rabhi said he plans to give his hair to Locks of Love or a similar organization. The highest donors might also be able to vote on his new hairstyle. His goal is to make it a fun activity and engage the community while raising as much money as possible for these groups. He hopes to post a website for the effort by Thanksgiving, and run the fundraiser through year’s end.

Several commissioners pledged support. Conan Smith said he’d give $500 for the first inch, plus $50 for each quarter-inch of facial hair that Rabhi removed.

Dan Smith wondered if Rabhi intended to match the hairstyles of sheriff Jerry Clayton, corporate counsel Curtis Hedger or Greg Dill, infrastructure management director – all three men have shaved heads. Rabhi indicated he wasn’t sure he’d go that far. Wes Prater said he’d pledge $500 for the inch of hair that’s closest to Rabhi’s scalp.

Communications & Commentary: Warming Center

Four people addressed the board during public commentary about the need for a daytime warming center for the area’s homeless. Orian Zakai told commissioners that now, there are only two places for people to go during the day: (1) the Ann Arbor District Library, where you have to be careful not to fall asleep or you’ll get kicked out; and (2) a limited number of chairs at the Delonis Center, where you can stay during the day if you’re fortunate enough to be housed there, she said. Zakai described the Imagine Warming Centers effort, and said the group is now holding activities once a week at the Delonis Center. That’s successful, she said, but they need a permanent space.

Several supporters in the audience applauded after remarks by Zakai and two others who spoke in support of a warming center.

During the second opportunity for public commentary later in the meeting, Alexandra Hoffman said she hadn’t planned to speak. But there had been no commissioner response to the previous commentary about a warming center, she said, and instead their remarks had been followed by “disturbingly lighthearted talk about haircuts.” It’s important to talk about the successes in dealing with homelessness, she said, but it’s equally important to talk about failures. It’s atrocious that there’s no longer a daytime drop-in center at Delonis. The temperatures are already falling below freezing. The supporters of the Imagine Warming Centers are doing the best they can, but they need support, Hoffman said. She urged commissioners to please open the door, and not to be afraid of their own failings. Things can get better, she concluded, and commissioners can play a major role in that.

Yousef Rabhi – the commissioner who had introduced the “lighthearted talk about haircuts” – thanked those who had spoken and said it wasn’t his intent to make light of that situation. He had hoped to raise awareness and money for the issue that the speakers had addressed. Washtenaw County is great, but they can always do more, he said. Rabhi appreciated that the group was challenging the board on that. He noted that even though the county was under financial constraints because of the economy, they did not cut funding for nonprofits that provide human services. He said the county needs more citizen advocates, like those who had spoken to the board, to help understand the needs of the community.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. promised to try to find space that might be available in commercial buildings that aren’t currently occupied.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

In addition to the remarks reported previously in this article, Thomas Partridge spoke during one of the two general public commentary slots of the evening. He advocated for the county’s most vulnerable residents, urging the board to take action on addressing homelessness, affordable housing, public transit and other issues.

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

Absent: Ronnie Peterson.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

On Nov. 5, two days before their meeting, board chair Conan Smith had emailed commissioners a draft proposal that he described as “a straw-man policy to poke at.” [.pdf of proposal emailed from Smith to the board] The basics of his proposal remained in place, though some amendments were made during the Nov. 7 meeting.

Most commissioners currently are paid a salary of $15,500. The new amount of $15,750 is calculated by indexing it to one-half the median “step” of the lowest grade salary among county employees. Smith’s resolution directs future boards to adjust commissioner salaries based on this same calculation. During deliberations on Nov. 7, Dan Smith proposed an amendment that would keep salaries at their current levels, but it was not seconded.

Officers of the board earn more than other commissioners. The board chair, Conan Smith, is currently paid $18,500. The board vice chair, Alicia Ping, earns $16,000, while chairs of the board’s ways & means committee (Rolland Sizemore Jr.) and working session (Yousef Rabhi) are each paid $16,500.

Yousef Rabhi proposed an amendment to increase the pay for chairs of the ways & means committee and the working session – bringing them to the same level as the board chair, at $3,000 more annually than the base salary of other commissioners. His amendment passed on a 7-3 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Rob Turner. So, unlike the current compensation arrangement, vice chairs will receive the same base salary as other commissioners.

Currently, commissioners also have a $3,550 flex account to use for per diem and mileage reimbursements, training or other authorized expenses. For example, a per diem of $25 per authorized meeting is allowed, as is mileage driven to those meetings – at a current rate of $0.555 per mile. Some commissioners don’t use their flex accounts, however, and most don’t use the entire amount. The payments are administered through the county clerk’s office.

At an Oct. 18 working session, Conan Smith had indicated his intent to bring forward a proposal on commissioner compensation. [See Chronicle coverage: "Compensation Change for County Board?"] He described replacing the current per diem system – which requires that commissioners submit a request for payment – and instead paying commissioners an automatic stipend as part of their compensation. Per diems came under fire during the 2010 election season, and resulted in repayment – by most commissioners who were on the board at that time – of a portion of their per diem requests that were determined to be ineligible under board rules.

Conan Smith’s resolution proposed making stipend payments based on the number of meetings that a commissioner is likely to attend for a particular appointment. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increased based on the number of meetings. At the high end, more than 24 meetings would pay $1,000. Commissioners would be able to waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk.

During the Nov. 7 deliberations, Dan Smith proposed eliminating these staggered amounts and replacing them with a flat $200 annual stipend per appointment. That amendment failed – as  he was the only one voting in favor of it.

Changes to compensation for an upcoming term must be set by the board before that term starts. So for the two-year term beginning in January 2013, any changes in compensation must be made before the end of 2012. The board has only one more scheduled regular meeting this year to take the final vote – on Dec. 5.

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]

Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, at the Oct. 17, 2012 board meeting. At an Oct. 18 working session, Smith indicated that he might bring forward a proposal to the board’s Nov. 7 meeting for changing commissioner compensation.

The topic was brought up at an Oct. 18 working session, which was attended by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum at the invitation of board chair Conan Smith. Kestenbaum’s office is responsible for administering the requests for per diem and mileage payments that commissioners make for attending certain meetings.

During that working session, Smith indicated there had been a number of recent conversations about commissioner compensation, and that he might bring to the Nov. 7 board meeting a proposal about possible changes.

No public discussion of this issue has taken place by the board of commissioners since the spring, when Dan Smith brought forward a proposal in March to cut commissioner compensation and benefits for 2013 and 2014 – by 5.7%. His intent was for the board to vote on a change before the May 15 filing deadline for county board candidates, so that candidates would have a clear understanding of their compensation before entering the race. His proposal gained no traction among other commissioners at the time.

Based on comments by Conan Smith at the Oct. 18 working session, he’s exploring the idea of replacing the current per diem system – which requires that commissioners submit a request for payment – and instead paying commissioners an automatic stipend as part of their compensation. Per diems came under fire during the 2010 election season, and resulted in repayment – by most commissioners who were on the board at that time – of a portion of their per diem requests that were determined to be ineligible under board rules.

The determination had come from an independent review conducted at the direction of the county administrator. In gathering background on this topic, The Chronicle learned that Conan Smith and Kestenbaum later struck an agreement under which Smith agreed to repay some of the money he had been deemed ineligible to claim, in an arrangement that appears to have taken place outside the independent review process.

When asked by Conan Smith at the Oct. 18 working session for his opinion on the issue of stipends, Kestenbaum was supportive of the change to stipends, describing the current system as a lot of bookkeeping for a small amount of money. He also observed that the approach of having stipends would eliminate the kind of political vulnerability that commissioners have experienced.

Board Compensation: Background

The process for setting compensation for county commissioners is governed in part by state law – Act 261 of 1966, Section 46.415. Changes for an upcoming term must be set by the board prior to the start of that term. So for the two-year term beginning in January 2013, any changes in compensation must be made before the end of 2012. The board has two more scheduled regular meetings this year – on Nov. 7 and Dec. 5.

The line item for the board of commissioners is a relatively small percentage of the county’s general fund budget of nearly $98 million. In the county’s 2012 general fund budget, the line item for commissioners is $505,664. That includes $176,005 for salaries, $55,000 for fringe benefits, and $39,050 for “flex accounts.” Fringe benefits include $1,163 that the county pays into a retirement account for each commissioner, as well as payment of 50% of health care insurance if the commissioner chooses to obtain health care through the county as a part-time employee.

Other major expenses for the commissioners’ budget include $55,150 for consultants and other contracts, and $32,597 in dues for state and national county associations. The $505,664 line item for the board also includes $104,602 for a “cost allocation plan” (CAP). The CAP is a charge that’s levied on each county unit, designed to cover general costs like administration, technology, building use, and insurance, among other things. It’s intended to reflect the county’s true cost of doing business.

Seven of the 11 commissioners are paid a salary of $15,500. Officers of the board earn more. The board chair, Conan Smith, is paid $18,500. The board vice chair, Alicia Ping, earns $16,000, while chairs of the board’s ways & means committee (Rolland Sizemore Jr.) and working session (Yousef Rabhi) are each paid $16,500.

All commissioners also have a $3,550 flex account to use for per diem and mileage reimbursements, training or other authorized expenses. For example, a per diem of $25 per authorized meeting is allowed, as is mileage driven to those meetings – at a current rate of $0.555 per mile. Some commissioners don’t use their flex accounts, however, and most don’t use the entire amount. The payments are administered through the county clerk’s office. [.pdf file of flex account rules]

A spreadsheet of 2012 payment requests from flex accounts through early October shows that only five of the 11 commissioners have tapped those accounts: Barbara Bergman ($925 in per diem, $351.88 in mileage); Felicia Brabec ($675 in per diem, $209.79 in mileage); Wes Prater ($800 in per diem, $529.47 in mileage); Yousef Rabhi ($150 in per diem, $67.94 in mileage); and Rolland Sizemore Jr. ($375 in per diem, $275.28 in mileage). [.xls spreadsheet of 2012 per diem and mileage requests] [Google spreadsheet of same data]

The administration of per diem and other compensation is governed by the board’s rules and regulations. [.pdf of county board rules & regulations]

Board Compensation: Background – Per Diem Controversy

Commissioner compensation became an election issue in 2010, when local attorney Tom Wieder charged that then-commissioner Mark Ouimet and others were inappropriately reimbursed for per diem and mileage, and that they should repay the county. Wieder raised this issue at an Oct. 6, 2010 board meeting, during Ouimet’s ultimately successful campaign for state representative in District 52. Ouimet, a Republican, was running against Democrat Christine Green. Wieder was one of Green’s supporters.

A review of the payments was conducted for all commissioners, including an initial report by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum presented to the board on Oct. 20, 2010. It was found that several commissioners – including Ouimet – had been reimbursed for amounts to which they weren’t entitled, based on board rules. An independent audit was later conducted at the direction of the county administrator, and resulted in identifying overpayments for 10 of the 11 commissioners. [Ronnie Peterson did not make any requests for per diem or mileage payments.] The overpayments ranged from a high of 14,385.88 by Ouimet to a low of $25 by Kristin Judge and Leah Gunn.

Most of the commissioners repaid those amounts relatively soon after the audit was completed. But Wieder returned to the board during public commentary on March 2, 2011 to note that some commissioners still hadn’t repaid the county: Democrats Barbara Bergman ($1,875.33) and Conan Smith ($591.39), and former commissioners Jessica Ping ($5,002.68) and Ken Schwartz ($1,054.60). [Ping, a Republican, did not run for re-election in 2010, and Schwartz, a Democrat, was defeated by Republican Dan Smith in the November 2010 general election.]

Bergman subsequently made a repayment, as did Smith. Smith’s repayment came only after he took an adamant initial position against repaying, which he maintained at least through June 30, 2011, as he announced that he would be seeking re-election in 2012. He wrote a lengthy post on his Facebook page describing his reasons for not repaying the money deemed ineligible by the independent reviewers. An excerpt:

… paying the consultants’ assessment would essentially be an admission of guilt. Those of you who know me know that I am never hesitant to admit when I’ve made a mistake and I’m quick to rectify it if I can. In this case, the mistakes were made by others.

At that time, Smith refused requests by The Chronicle to be interviewed on the topic, and deleted one such request from his Facebook page. However, Smith wound up repaying money, though he paid a lower amount than the independent reviewer had deemed ineligible –  $175 compared to the $591.39 he was originally deemed to have owed.

A letter dated Jan. 11, 2012 and signed by Smith and Kestenbaum, also a Democrat, stated that some of the payments that were previously deemed ineligible were reviewed again and found to be eligible. [.pdf of letter] The letter also included this statement:

It should be noted that all of the meetings deemed ineligible occurred during the Commissioner’s first year of service. The current per diem processing system is designed to prevent simple clerical mistakes. It seems that had this system been in place in 2005 then the Clerk’s office would have worked with the new commissioner to determine which meetings he was eligible for and the commissioner would not owe the County any money.

Once Commissioner Conan Smith pays the per diems deemed ineligible then it will be the opinion of the Clerk that this matter is settled. Meetings were only declared eligible if it was proven that Commissioner Conan Smith was in attendance per his role as a County Commissioner. This is the same standard that is applied to per diems currently.

Board Compensation: Background – Previous Attempts to Cut

The issue of per diem payments – as well as the county’s overall budget crisis – were factors in previous efforts to make cuts to commissioner compensation. At the board’s Nov. 17, 2010 meeting, Leah Gunn had floated a resolution to abolish all per diem, mileage and travel payments, but it failed to secure enough votes to pass.

At the board’s last meeting in 2010, a resolution that would have cut flex accounts for commissioners from $3,550 annually to $1,500 wasn’t even brought forward for a vote, though Conan Smith had circulated a draft of the resolution via email. He said he decided not to introduce it because after talking to individual commissioners before the meeting, it was clear that he couldn’t marshal enough votes to get it passed.

More recently, earlier this year Dan Smith made another attempt to address commissioner compensation. He brought forward a proposal in March to cut compensation and benefits for 2013 and 2014 by 5.7%. His intent was for the board to vote on a change prior to the May 15 filing deadline for county board candidates, so that candidates would have a clear understanding of their compensation before entering the race. [.pdf of Smith's proposal]

Smith’s proposal called for an increased base salary of $16,250 per commissioner, but the county’s pension contribution would be eliminated. Each commissioner would also receive $2,813 in optional benefits, including a county pension match of $813 (5% of their salary), $1,000 for education and training, and $1,000 for stipends to replace mileage and per diem payments. Overall, the proposal would have cut total compensation by 5.7% per commissioner – from the current $20,213 to a proposed $19,063.

Smith stated at the March meeting that he hoped to get feedback from commissioners and make a formal resolution in April. There was no additional discussion at the March meeting from others on the board, however, and Smith did not bring forward a formal resolution.

Possible Changes to Compensation

Within the past few weeks, several options for compensation changes have been floated among commissioners – though none have been presented at a public meeting. [.xls spreadsheet of compensation options] [Google spreadsheet of same information]

In response to a request from The Chronicle, Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, emailed a spreadsheet of the 2012 budget for commissioners and the proposed 2013 budget, which will require approval by the board. The proposed  total budget for commissioners shows a 2.5% decrease from $505,664 this year to $492,623 in 2013. [.xls spreadsheet of proposed budget for board of commissioners] [Google Spreadsheet of same information] The vote on the budget for commissioners would come in the context of approval of the overall 2013 general fund budget.

The number of commissioners will decrease as of Jan. 1 – from 11 to 9, due to redistricting – but the total amount budgeted for salaries in 2013 shows a slight increase from $176,005 in 2012 to $176,684 in 2013. Belknap pointed to a separate line item labeled “personnel adjustment” of negative $21,499 as part of the accounting for fewer commissioners, adding that the administration didn’t want to make any final assumptions about personnel funding until after the Nov. 6 election.

At this point, the amount allocated for flex accounts is unchanged at $39,050, according to the spreadsheet. If divided evenly, that means each individual commissioner would have a higher flex account available of about $4,338 compared to the current $3,550.

Fringe benefits are set to increase from $55,000 to $60,000. In part that reflects increases in health insurance, according to Belknap. Because they are considered part-time employees, commissioners can get health insurance through the county, with the county paying 50% of that cost. Belknap noted that not all funds are used from the board’s budget – for example, if commissioners don’t use their flex account funds or health insurance benefits. Any unused funds at the end of the year are transferred back as revenues for the general fund.

All of these budgeted amounts for 2013 are still tentative, and could change depending on budget amendments that might be brought forward by commissioners on Nov. 7.

Based on a discussion at the board’s Oct. 18 working session, commissioners also might vote to replace their per diems with stipends. That means commissioners would automatically receive a stipend payment for meetings that they are currently authorized to receive a per diem for – if and when they request a per diem payment. With stipends, they wouldn’t need to submit a claim for payment, although they would likely be able to waive the entire stipend amount for the year, if they chose to do so.

Conan Smith had invited county clerk Larry Kestenbaum to attend the Oct. 18 working session to discuss the issue. Saying that Kestenbaum is intimately familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the per diem compensation – because the clerk’s office administers the per diem and mileage payments – Smith asked for Kestenbaum’s opinion of replacing per diems with stipends.

Kestenbaum was generally supportive of the change. The current system requires a lot of bookkeeping for a small amount of money, he said, and he’d be in favor of any way to reduce or eliminate this “rigmarole” of paperwork. The board would need to clearly establish which committee appointments would qualify for a stipend payment, he said. But overall, the approach would eliminate the political vulnerability for commissioners, he noted, including their vulnerability to public opinion of payments that can be scrutinized. There would be no more dispute about it. ”The simpler we can make it, the better,” Kestenbaum said.

Dan Smith wondered about the feasibility of expanding the approach to appointed boards, commissions and committees that also receive per diem payments, like the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. That might be something to consider in the future, he said. Kestenbaum replied that the idea hadn’t occurred to him, but if there were a simple way to do that, it might be a step forward.

On the issue of instituting stipends versus per diems, Wes Prater wondered how they’d handle the potential situation of someone not attending meetings. They’d still receive the stipend – which wouldn’t be the case if they were being paid a per diem. “I think that comes into play also,” Prater said.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said there needs to be a broader discussion about this issue, but at another time. The working session’s agenda did not actually include this topic – the board was being briefed on local educational issues, including the proposed consolidation of Ypsilanti and Willow Run school districts.

Conan Smith wrapped up the discussion by inviting Kestenbaum to attend the board’s Nov. 7 meeting to give additional input. Kestenbaum indicated he’d be happy to do that.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping.

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

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

From left: Jenna Bacolor of the county's public health department, Michaelle Rehmann, Farm to Table director for the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP), and Al Connor of the Michigan Farmers Union. All are involved in helping create the Washtenaw Food Policy Council. (Photos by the writer.)

Two items touched directly on salary and compensation. The board gave final approval to an administrative restructuring that’s estimated to save $326,422 annually, and result in the net reduction of four full-time jobs, which are currently vacant. As he did for the initial vote on Feb. 15, commissioner Ronnie Peterson voted against the restructuring, objecting to a 4% increase that will be given to four top managers in a new cross-lateral team, as a result of their job reclassification. Though the county uniformly gives a 4% raise when any job is reclassified, Peterson argued that the county’s leadership should set an example and that the raises will make it more difficult to ask for concessions in future union negotiations in 2014-15.

Also related to upcoming budgets, commissioner Dan Smith presented a draft proposal that would cut compensation for commissioners in 2013-2014. Overall, the proposal would cut total compensation (salary and benefits) by 5.7% per commissioner – from the current $20,213 to a proposed $19,063. He plans to present a formal resolution at the April 4 meeting. The timing would allow the board to make a decision before the May 15 filing deadline for county board candidates.

Another budget-related item came from the public health department, which proposed fee increases to treat sexually transmitted diseases – one of the mandated services provided by the county. The changes, which were approved unanimously, are being made in response to federal funding cuts and an increase in charges for state services. Though he voted in favor of the increases, Peterson raised concerns about the impact on low-income residents. Dick Fleece, director of the public health department, assured the board that no one would be refused treatment because of the inability to pay.

Public health staff also presented an item with almost no budget impact: A proposal to create the Washtenaw Food Policy Council, with the goal of supporting and coordinating activities in the county’s food system. Partners who’ve been working on this initiative include the Y of Ann Arbor, Growing Hope, Food Gatherers, the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP), Slow Food Huron Valley, Eat Local/Eat Natural, Michigan Farmers Union, and the Ypsilanti Food Coop. A final vote is expected on March 21.

The board also acted on items related to public safety. They voted to accept a $177,500 state grant from the state’s Economic Vitality Incentive program (EVIP), which provides incentives for local governments to collaborate and combine operations. The grant will help pay for work related to dispatch consolidation between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor.

And in a vote to clear up a procedural move, the board authorized a merger of its countywide 800 megahertz (MHz) emergency communications system with the Michigan Public Safety Communication System. The county’s 800 MHz system is paid for through a 10-year, 0.20-mill tax that Washtenaw County voters approved in May 2006. At the time, the plan called for eventually merging with the statewide system.

During the opportunity for commissioners to raise items of discussion, Wes Prater noted that at the Ann Arbor city council’s March 5 meeting, a four-party agreement to establish a framework for a possible countywide transit system was approved. Prater urged the board to begin discussing the issue, too. [In addition to Ann Arbor, the four parties include the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Ann Arbor city council was the first entity to approve the accord, doing so after postponing action on it three times and deliberating for over 3.5 hours at Monday's meeting. See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Council OKs Transit Agreement"]

A working session for commissioners to address the four-party agreement has been set for Thursday, March 22.

Prater also wondered why the board hadn’t received any reports from the county treasurer recently. The treasurer, Catherine McClary, gave a 2010 annual treasurer’s report to commissioners early last year, at their Feb. 16, 2011 meeting, but has not yet submitted the 2011 annual report. Board chair Conan Smith asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to contact the treasurer’s office and request a report.

Administrative Restructuring

Commissioners were asked to sign off on a restructuring of support services in administration, finance, information technology and facilities management. The changes are estimated to save the county $326,422 annually, and result in the net reduction of four full-time jobs, which are currently vacant. Initial approval had been given at the county board’s Feb. 15 meeting.

The changes include creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers: Kelly Belknap, director of finance; Greg Dill, infrastructure management director; Curtis Hedger, corporation counsel; and Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations. Their jobs are being reclassified, so the four positions are among those getting a 4% raise, capped at $126,099. Because of the cap, Heidt’s current salary of $126,098 will remain unchanged. The salaries of the other three managers will increase from $116,758 to $121,437.

The proposal also calls for putting two positions – including the job of deputy county administrator – on “hold vacant” status. Another 11 positions will be eliminated, while nine jobs will be created. A total of seven jobs will be reclassified, and will receive a salary increase. [.pdf of staff memo, resolution and job descriptions]

At the Feb. 15 meeting, commissioner Ronnie Peterson had voted against the restructuring, objecting to the 4% increase that will be given to the cross-lateral team as a result of their job reclassification.

The board had been briefed about this proposal by county administrator Verna McDaniel at its Feb. 2, 2012 working session. At that meeting, McDaniel also outlined plans to seek broader restructuring of the county operations, in the wake of more than 100 county employees retiring at the end of 2011.

Administrative Restructuring: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 7) said she had talked to some union employees and had gotten feedback that there are concerns about the 4% increases, given that unions had made concessions in the most recent round of contract negotiations. People think the cross-lateral team is a great idea, but are bothered by the compensation – Brabec said she could understand that reaction. She asked McDaniel to restate the policy.

As she had done at the board’s Feb. 15 meeting, McDaniel explained that a reclassification is not a promotion. Rather, she said, it reflects an increase of responsibilities within someone’s existing job. In accordance with board policy, she said, reclassifications are handled the same for both union and non-union employees. In both cases, a reclassification results in an automatic 4% salary increase.

Brabec said what she was hearing from McDaniel is that there’s parity between union and non-union employees. She clarified with McDaniel that McDaniel’s original proposal is no longer on the table. That’s correct, McDaniel replied. [Last fall, McDaniel had initially presented a plan that called for each cross-lateral team member to receive a $15,000 stipend. A resolution to that effect had appeared on the Sept. 21, 2011 draft agenda, but McDaniel withdrew it before that meeting after several commissioners objected to the stipend.]

County administrator Verna McDaniel talks with commissioner Rob Turner (R-District 1) before the start of the March 7, 2012 meeting.

Brabec asked what happens if an employee believes their job should be reclassified. McDaniel described a reclassification request form that an employee can fill out and turn in to their supervisor. After the supervisor reviews it, the request is passed along to the county’s human resources staff for another review. Communication occurs with the employee’s bargaining unit, and the request is negotiated. A similar process exists for non-union employees, she said, although no bargaining unit is involved.

Although requests can be made at any time, McDaniel said they try to handle reclassifications during contract negotiations as part of the budget process, or if there’s a broader departmental restructuring.

Wes Prater (D-District 4) said he felt it’s time to reconsider the policy of giving an automatic 4% increase for job reclassifications. It seems like something the board should chew on, he said. The county has asked employees to make sacrifices, and will likely need to do so again – it could be three or four years before the county gets “squared around,” he said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11) emphasized that everyone in the organization made concessions, including the people whose jobs are being reclassified now. This is a policy, and the board needs to follow through on it. He said he did a quick calculation of other jobs changes in the administrator’s proposal, and two of the union positions are getting nearly 6% and 8% increases, respectively. He said he just wanted to put that information out there.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) then spoke at length. He reminded other commissioners that he had voted against this proposal initially, and planned to do so again. He hadn’t intended on speaking about it, he said, because the people involved are highly professional and skilled, and he’s pleased they are staying with the organization. However, he had some concerns. Although everyone made concessions, employees at the lower end of the pay scale feel more pain.

Peterson wondered why employees who are now doing the jobs of two or three people aren’t getting reclassified. He wanted to look at the entire workforce, to see how many people’s jobs should be reclassified. When the administration asks employees to make more concessions in the 2014-15 budget cycle, he said, employees won’t likely be willing to make sacrifices again.

Peterson concluded by saying that the leaders of the organization and those who have the highest compensation should set an example and make greater sacrifices.

Outcome: The proposal was given final approval on a 10-1 vote, with dissent from Ronnie Peterson.

Commissioner Compensation

A draft proposal that would cut compensation and benefits for Washtenaw County commissioners in 2013 and 2014 was distributed by commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) at the county board’s March 7 meeting. [.pdf of Smith's proposal]

Currently, commissioners are paid an annual base salary of $15,500 plus $1,163 (7.5% of their salary) that the county contributes to their pension. [Officers of the board receive higher salaries: $18,500 for the board chair (Conan Smith, D-District 10), $16,000 for the board vice chair (Alicia Ping, R-District 3), $16,500 for the Ways & Means Committee chair (Rolland Sizemore Jr., D-District 5) and the working session chair (Yousef Rabhi, D-District 11).] In addition, each commissioner has a $3,550 “flex” account, which they can tap for mileage and per diem. [.pdf of 2011 flex account expenditures]

Dan Smith’s proposal calls for an increased base salary of $16,250 per commissioner, but the county’s pension contribution would be eliminated. Each commissioner would also receive $2,813 in optional benefits, including a county pension match of $813 (5% of their salary), $1,000 for education and training, and $1,000 for stipends to replace mileage and per diem payments.

Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Overall, the proposal would cut total compensation by 5.7% per commissioner – from the current $20,213 to a proposed $19,063.

Due to redistricting, the number of board seats will shrink from the current 11 commissioners to 9 commissioners, as of Jan. 1, 2013. Combining the proposed compensation cuts with the reduced number of commissioners, Smith calculated that compensation for the entire board would drop from $222,338 to $171,583 – a 22.8% decrease. These calculations do not factor in the higher salaries for board officers.

Smith noted that county employees have been asked to pay a portion of their pension contributions, and that his proposal would do the same for commissioners. Also, having stipends instead of flex accounts would make the paperwork simpler, he said – stipends could be calculated annually, based on each commissioner’s committee assignments.

The goal is to bring forward a formal proposal at the April 4 meeting for discussion and an initial vote. Any changes would need to be approved by the board before the end of 2012, Smith noted, but his intent is for the board to make a decision before the May 15 filing deadline for county board candidates.

He said he hoped to get feedback on the proposal from commissioners between now and April 4. There were no comments made by other commissioners during the meeting.

Food Policy Council

Creation of a food policy council – with the goal of supporting and coordinating activities in the county’s local food system – was on the March 7 agenda for  initial approval. The board had been updated on this effort at a Feb. 16 working session, and is expected to take a final vote on March 21.

According to a staff memo, the Washtenaw Food Policy Council would support local “small and mid-sized farmers by fostering policies that encourage local food purchasing and production.” Among other activities, the council could also: recommend policy changes at the local, state and national levels; provide a forum for discussing food issues; encourage coordination among different sectors of the local food system; evaluate, educate, and influence policy; and launch or support programs and services that address local food needs.

Partners who have been working on this initiative include the Y of Ann Arbor, Growing Hope, Food Gatherers, the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP), Slow Food Huron Valley, Eat Local/Eat Natural, Michigan Farmers Union, Ypsilanti Food Coop, and the Washtenaw County public health department.

The resolution calls for a 15-seat membership roster, with members drawn from the following sectors: agriculture, nutrition, education, emergency food system, health care, food services, food manufacturers and distributors, waste management, planning or transportation, retail/business or economic development, human services, faith-based organizations, local governments (board of commissioners), public health, and at large community member(s). The county public health department will be responsible for recruiting members. A draft set of bylaws also was provided to the board for review. [.pdf of of food policy council draft bylaws]

If final approval is given by the board, the council will convene its first meeting later this spring using grant funds from the Michigan Dept. of Community Health, passed through to the Washtenaw County public health department. The council eventually expects to secure financial support from private grants and philanthropic funds. The project will also seek significant in-kind and volunteer support, according to a staff memo.

This is not the county’s only effort related to the local food system. At its Nov. 2, 2011 meeting, the county board voted to create a task force that is developing a pilot training program for agribusiness jobs in Ypsilanti, including support for entrepreneurs in food-related businesses. The project – called ”Seeds for Change: Growing Prosperity in Ypsilanti” – is intended to provide job training and placement to unemployed workers interested in agricultural employment, and to offer shared commercial kitchen space and business support to local agri-business entrepreneurs.

And in 2010 the county board approved an ordinance change to allow the county parks and recreation department, through its natural areas preservation program (NAPP), to include farmland in its land preservation efforts. At the board’s Feb. 15, 2012 meeting, commissioner Yousef Rabhi – who also serves on the county’s agricultural lands preservation advisory committee (ALPAC) – reported that the committee is recommending the purchase of development rights on six parcels of farmland.

Food Policy Council: Board Discussion

Wes Prater (D-District 4) described the food policy council as one of the best initiatives he’s seen in a long time. It was great to see the effort involve the process from the farm to the table – “and I’m stopping there,” he joked.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11) also praised the proposal. As the county works to become self-sufficient and sustainable, the food system is an essential piece of that puzzle, he said. When a community is dependent on the global food economy, “we are a prisoner to that system.” Quality and dependability is much greater from local food sources, he said. Rabhi also cited the economic advantages of developing a local food system, rather than relying on multinational corporations in other countries to fulfill this basic need.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered why the initiative couldn’t be handled within the county’s public health department – why does a separate entity need to exist? Sharon Sheldon, a manager in the public health department who is administering this project, noted that there are many different food initiatives throughout the county. This council was envisioned as convening representatives from all of these projects and programs, improving communication and coordinating efforts when appropriate.

Organizers looked at similar councils nationwide, she said, and got advice that this structure was the best approach. Being created by an authority like the county board of commissioners gives the council some weight, she said.

Sizemore asked for more information about how the council would be funded. Sheldon replied that initially, funds will be used from a grant that the county received from the state Dept. of Community Health. She said the grant is expected to be renewed in September. [Sheldon later clarified for The Chronicle that $7,000 of the $25,000 state grant will be used for the food policy council.] Aside from that funding, the council is intended to be a volunteer organization, Sheldon said, and other food-related organizations have committed to providing some staff time to support it.

Sizemore said he didn’t like the fact that the council’s membership, as described in the bylaws, would include people who work in the county, but don’t necessarily live here. He said he doesn’t like the idea of people from outside the community telling the county what to do, but that he would support the effort.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to give initial approval to the formation of the Washtenaw Food Policy Council. A final vote is expected on March 21.

Fees for Public Health Services

An increase in fees to treat sexually transmitted diseases – one of the mandated services provided by the county’s public health department – was on the agenda for initial approval. The changes are being made in response to federal funding cuts and an increase in charges for state services.

The board also was asked to approve changes at the medical examiner’s office, including fees for organ procurement services provided to the Michigan Gift of Life program, and a new late payment policy. According to a staff memo, about 10% of revenues are not realized because of non-payment. [.pdf of revised fee schedule]

Dick Fleece, director of the county's public health department, and Jennifer Brassow, the department's finance director.

By way of background, the adult clinic – which treats sexually transmitted diseases – is a mandated service that has relied on federal funding administered by the state. In mid-2011, the county was notified that federal funding for this program, which the state passed through to local health departments, would be cut by 33%. Since then, the Washtenaw County public health department has been notified that it will receive just half of its expected appropriation for this program. At the same time, the department was notified that the Michigan Dept. of Community Health (MDCH) would be increasing its testing fees for gonorrhea and chlamydia from $36 to $78 in January of 2012. It’s in this context that the fee increases are being proposed.

There will be a sliding fee scale for low-income residents, and a commitment that no one will be denied services, according to county staff. In order to verify income, as well as to handle the billing and collection process, the public health department will be buying ePrescribing software at a cost of $28,000. Most of that – $21,500 – will be covered by a federal incentive program.

Fees for Public Health Services: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked for a more detailed explanation of these new fees, saying it would affect the county’s most vulnerable population. Often, these people can’t afford to go to a doctor, he said, and only come to the public health department when they’re in crisis. The county needs to be clear that these services won’t be discontinued, Peterson said. The changes should have been presented to the board a long time ago, he said.

Dick Fleece, director of the public health department, assured Peterson that no one would be refused treatment because of the inability to pay. Fleece reviewed the financial issues that are driving this decision, and noted that the fee changes relate specifically to tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Jennifer Brassow, the public health department’s finance director, told commissioners that the sliding scale will be based on federal wage rates. The proposed fees are based on standard Medicaid rates, and the county intends to bill Medicaid for those charges. People who aren’t eligible for Medicaid and can’t pay, she added, won’t be charged.

Peterson again cautioned against limiting access, saying that for some people, the emergency room and the public health clinics are the only places they can get medical care. He said he’d hate to see a reduction in services.

Fleece replied that the reason his department is seeking approval for these fees is so that people who can afford to pay – either personally, or through Medicaid – actually do pay. That way, the department gets the resources it needs to provide services to those who can’t pay, he explained.

Peterson said he understood the need to find revenue, but he restated his concern for the county’s most vulnerable population. The problem of health care coverage is increasing, not decreasing, he said. He asked that the department’s staff return with a report on how they plan to address the need for more funding of health care for low-income residents. The community isn’t aware of this situation, Peterson said, and the board hadn’t been aware of it until that night.

Barbara Bergman (D-District 8), who also serves on the board of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, reported that the WCHO’s chief of staff, Hazelette Robinson, has been coordinating with the sheriff’s office to do outreach and sign up as many county residents as possible for Medicaid. That relieves pressure on the general fund, she said, because the county is then reimbursed for the health care that those people receive.

She noted that the county’s public health department isn’t the only entity serving low-income residents. Packard Health Clinic, Hope Clinic and others are doing the similar work. ”You’re an important piece of the puzzle,” she told Fleece, “but you’re not the only piece of the puzzle.”

Bergman also reminded commissioners that the Washtenaw Health Initiative, which was launched last year, is also working on ways to serve the low-income population. [Earlier that day, the WHI issued a press release estimating that about 6,400 county residents are eligible for Medicaid, but are not enrolled in the federal program. WHI also estimates that as many as 25,000 residents could become newly eligible if the federal health care reform act remains in place. Since last year, the WHI has helped about 700 residents sign up for or retain Medicaid coverage, according to the release. (.pdf of full WHI press release)]

Bergman concluded her comments by saying that ”the situation is dire, but none of us here in the county are sitting on our hands.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the fee changes. A final vote is expected at the board’s March 21 meeting.

State Grant for Dispatch Operations

A resolution accepting a $177,500 state grant to help pay for work related to dispatch consolidation between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor was on the March 7 meeting agenda. The grant was significantly less than the $698,625 that had been requested. Part of the amount that was denied was a $500,000 request related to transition costs for the city of Ann Arbor. Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford confirmed that the $500,000 had not been assumed for budgeting purposes for the coming year.

The award came from the state’s Economic Vitality Incentive program (EVIP), which provides incentives for local governments to collaborate and combine operations. The county board had approved the dispatch consolidation at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting. The proposal had previously been authorized by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 5, 2011. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"]

Five requests had been made to the EVIP program related to this consolidation. The state denied a $500,000 request from the city of Ann Arbor for transition costs related to paying out leave banks, pension, VEBA and associated costs for terminated employees. Also denied was a $21,125 request from the sheriff’s office to cover 25% of the current dispatch manager’s annual salary and benefits, for time spent handling the transition.

The state did award three other requests from the sheriff’s office: (1) $65,000 for a metro dispatch project manager (an outside consultant); $37,500 to cover the cost of newly created dispatch coordinator jobs for three months, before the contract with Ann Arbor takes effect; and (3) $75,000 to pay for an instructional design consultant who is redesigning the sheriff’s Communications Training Officer (CTO) program for dispatch. That $75,000 will also cover a portion of employee wages for time spent cross-training.

The board’s resolution accepting the award also amended the previously approved county general fund budget for 2012. The line item for state revenue was amended from the original $4,810,249 to 4,987,749 – reflecting the additional $177,500 state grant. The total 2012 general fund budget is now $99,419,930.

State Grant for Dispatch Operations: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 10) noted that the EVIP grants were created by the state in lieu of revenue sharing with local communities, with the aim of recognizing outstanding collaboration efforts at the local level. Sheriff Jerry Clayton and his team deserve congratulations for pulling off a project that’s been discussed for more than two decades, Smith said.

He also proposed a friendly amendment – the signatory on the grant should be the county administrator, he said, not the board chair.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved receipt of the EVIP grant.

Merger with State Communications System

To clear up a procedural move, the board was asked to authorize the merger of its countywide 800 megahertz (MHz) emergency communications system with the Michigan Public Safety Communication System (MPSCS).

The merger had been approved in August of 2011 by the county’s 800 MHz project oversight committee. However, the state attorney general’s office informed the county that authorization needed to be given by the county board. The authorization covered three areas: (1) an integration agreement, (2) a co-location license agreement, and (3) a memorandum of agreement.

The county’s 800 MHz system is paid for through a 10-year, 0.20-mill tax that Washtenaw County voters approved in May 2006. At the time, the plan called for eventually merging the county system with the MPSCS, in exchange for $5 million in state credits to be used for future maintenance costs.

Merger with State Communications System: Board Discussion

Two representatives of the Washtenaw County 800 MHz Consortium – Jack Ceo, former deputy police chief for the city of Saline, and Craig Swenson of the Pittsfield Township public safety department, who’s project manager for the MPSCS merger – were on hand to answer questions.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 7) asked for an explanation about how the system worked. Ceo said the merger allows the county’s emergency responders to communicate throughout the state, because the county’s 800 MHz system integrates with the state’s system. It’s also a “two-way handshake,” he added, because the local system must abide by the state’s regulations – specifying things like the amount of fuel that must be kept on hand for the system’s emergency generators, for example. The state also provides certain services to the county, including technical support.

Swenson noted that in the past, responders often had to use their cell phones to communicate with responders from other agencies, or when they traveled outside of their jurisdictions.

Barbara Bergman (D-District 8) observed that the new system also addressed the problem of dead zones – spots where cell phone coverage isn’t available. Swenson reported that the 800 MHz system uses seven towers throughout the county, and now there are rarely complaints about coverage.

By way of background, the locations of those towers were included in a 2010 working session presentation to the board. Those locations are:

• Jackson Avenue west of Baker Road, in Scio Township
• Sunset Road, at the city of Ann Arbor’s water treatment plant
• Dixboro Road south of Pontiac Trail, in Northfield Township
• WEMU radio station tower at the corner of LeForge and Clark, in Superior Township
• Bemis Road, east of the state Forensic Center in York Township
• Manchester Public Schools property, at the corner of Hibbard and Geiske
• Werkner Road north of Waterloo Road in Lyndon Township, at the Chelsea landfill

Rob Turner (R-District 1) asked about the costs to comply with the MPSCS regulations. Ceo replied that those requirements were factored in from the beginning, and were part of the local system’s upfront costs.

Turner also asked whether this project, which involves collaboration among multiple jurisdictions in the county, would be eligible for the state’s Economic Vitality Incentive program (EVIP). Probably not, Swenson replied, because many counties in the state are doing similar projects.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3), a former Saline city councilmember, thanked Ceo for his ongoing work on the project, even though he retired from the Saline police department last year. She noted that sheriff Jerry Clayton had told her that without Ceo’s help, the project would have taken much longer to complete.

Stefani Carter, the attorney who’s filling in while corporation counsel Curtis Hedger is on medical leave, told the board that the only reason they were being asked to pass this resolution is because the action was specifically required by the state attorney general’s office.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve merging the countywide 800 MHz emergency communications system with the Michigan Public Safety Communication System.

Communications and Public Commentary

During the March 7 meeting there were several opportunities for communications from commissioners as well as general public commentary.

Communications: Packard Health Clinic

At the start of the meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel welcomed Nancy Allcroft, the new executive director for the Packard Health Clinic. Allcroft spoke briefly to commissioners, telling them that Packard Health is the biggest, best-kept secret in Washtenaw County. The clinic provides health services both to those who can pay, as well as those who otherwise couldn’t afford health care, she said. It’s a truly integrated organization, she said, with partners in the public and private sectors.

Communications: Four-Party Countywide Transit

Wes Prater (D-District 4) noted that at the Ann Arbor city council’s March 5 meeting, a four-party agreement related to a possible countywide transit system was approved. [In addition to Ann Arbor, the four parties include the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The Ann Arbor city council was the first entity to approve the accord, doing so after postponing action on it three times and deliberating for over 3.5 hours at Monday's meeting. The agreement lays out a framework for a transition to a new transit governance structure provided under Act 196 of 1986 instead of the state statute under which the AATA is currently incorporated – Act 55 of 1963. See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Council OKs Transit Agreement"]

Prater wondered when the board would see a copy of the agreement. Board chair Conan Smith (D-District 10) said the agreement had been emailed out to commissioners on Tuesday, but that he’d make sure everyone had a paper copy, too.

Rebecca Head, former Washtenaw County director of public health, talks with county commissioner Conan Smith prior to the start of the March 7 board meeting. Head serves on the Ann Arbor District Library board, and attended the meeting with her daughter, a Skyline High School student who was completing a class assignment.

Prater said he had received the report from the financial advisory group that’s been working on recommendations for possible mechanisms to fund countywide transit. He hadn’t had the chance to fully digest it, he said, but it does raise some questions. The board needs to be discussing these documents, he said, as well as the articles of incorporation.

One concern Prater cited relates to the 15-member board for a new Act 196 authority. That board would have very little accountability, he said. It doesn’t report to any other entity, he noted, and that’s a concern.

Yousef Rabhi gave some background on the issue, saying that he’s been attending the meetings of the U196 board. [By way of background, the 11-member unincorporated Act 196 board (U196) started meeting in late 2011. Rabhi is not a member, but the meetings are open to the public. Assuming that the authority’s articles of incorporation are approved by the county board and that the four-party agreement is also approved by all parties, the U196 board will finish a report on a five-year transit improvement program, then request that the county clerk file articles of incorporation for a countywide transit authority.]

At the U196 board’s last meeting, Rabhi reported, former county administrator Bob Guenzel attended and briefed the board about the report of the financial advisory group, which Guenzel co-chairs. [.pdf of financial advisory group's draft report – see Chronicle coverage: "AATA Financial Group: Let's Continue"] Rabhi said the group initially identified a funding gap of about $60 million, between existing funding and what would be needed to fund the first five years of expanded services. Then, the group extracted services that have other funding sources, such as federal and state grants. That left a roughly $32 million funding gap for remaining services, he said. The group identified a possible millage amount to cover the gap, he said, but made no recommendations at this point.

Prater raised the issue of a possible regional transit authority (RTA) in southeast Michigan, and noted that Smith had participated in discussions. Smith replied that the meetings he was involved with ended several months ago, and state legislation that would enable formation of an RTA was introduced in January 2012. A state senate committee had held hearings on the legislation, Smith said, and action was expected on the package of bills next week.

Leah Gunn (D-District 9) noted that state Rep. Jeff Irwin – “who used to be one of us,” she said, referring to his former tenure on the county board – had attended Monday’s city council meeting. He had said that this community shouldn’t depend on the RTA, she reported, and should move ahead with the proposed five-year plan for countywide transit. Even if the RTA happens, she added, it would just be a regional overlay. “I’ll take his advice, and hopefully you will too,” she told her board colleagues.

Prater replied by saying that the co-chairs of the financial advisory group – Guenzel and McKinley CEO Albert Berriz – had recommended putting the project on hold until the state acts on the RTA legislation. Smith clarified that Guenzel and Berriz were referring to different legislation separate from the RTA. A bill is being considered that would allow counties to use a different funding mechanism for transit – a vehicle registration fee – rather than a millage. He said when the legislature acts on that bill, then the financial advisory group is expected to reconvene and make its recommendations.

Gunn observed there’s been so much information about the proposal that seems conflicting, and the board wouldn’t resolve those issues that night. Prater noted that they’ll have to talk about it at some point, and Rabhi – who chairs the board’s working sessions – indicated that he would schedule a session on that topic. The session has subsequently been set for March 22.

Communications: Treasurer’s Report

Prater also asked why the board hasn’t received a monthly report recently from the county treasurer, Catherine McClary – it’s required that such reports are submitted, he contended. When board chair Conan Smith replied that McClary does send the reports quarterly, via email, Gunn said she agreed with Prater – she hasn’t received a treasurer’s report in months.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Jason Brooks of the county administrator’s office said the county’s corporation counsel verified that the treasurer does not have a requirement under state statute to provide a monthly report. However, counsel noted that powers outlined in MCL 46.11(k) give the board the authority to compel the treasurer to make a regular report. That section states:

46.11 Powers of county board of commissioners.
Sec. 11. A county board of commissioners, at a lawfully held meeting, may do 1 or more of the following:
…
(k) Require a county officer whose salary or compensation is paid by the county to make a report under oath to the county board of commissioners on any subject connected with the duties of that office and require the officer to give a bond reasonable or necessary for the faithful performance of the duties of the office. An officer who neglects or refuses either to make a report or give a bond within a reasonable time after being required to do so may be removed from office by the board by a vote of 2/3 of the members elected or appointed, and the office declared vacant. The board may fill the vacancy for the unexpired portion of the term for which the officer was elected or appointed. If an election occurs before the expiration of the unexpired term, and if the office is elective, the vacancy shall be filled at that election. The board shall give reasonable notice of the election to fill the vacancy.

McClary gave a 2010 annual treasurer’s report to commissioners early last year, at their Feb. 16, 2011 meeting, but has not yet submitted the 2011 annual report. Annual reports from the treasurer for the years 2006 through 2010 are posted online. A page on the treasurer’s website – “Safeguarding the Public’s Money” – included a “Monthly Treasurer’s Report” link, but the link was no longer functioning. When this link was pointed out to McClary later in the week, she said she had been unaware that the link existed. She then directed her staff to remove it, because the treasurer’s office was not using it to post reports.

On Friday, McClary also sent The Chronicle two recent treasurer’s reports: (1) for the month ending Dec. 31, 2011, and (2) for the month ending Feb. 29, 2012. She indicated that the report from the end of 2011 will provide the basis for her annual treasurer’s report, and includes information on the amounts and yields of various investments, including certificates of deposit, municipal bonds and treasury notes.

At the March 7 meeting, Smith requested that county administrator Verna McDaniel communicate with the treasurer’s office and establish a schedule for regular reports.

Communications: Public Commentary

The only speaker during public commentary was Thomas Partridge, who spoke at both opportunities during the evening. He called on everyone to recognize the anniversary of the 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, and to renew the quest for civil rights. County residents need vital services such as affordable, accessible countywide transportation, he said, including transportation for senior citizens and the disabled. The county needs to help the homeless people living in “Camp Take No Notice,” he said. [The name of the enclave is Camp Take Notice.] People there need immediate help, he said.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Currently, commissioners are paid an annual base salary of $15,500 plus $1,163 (7.5% of their salary) that the county contributes to their pension. [Officers of the board receive higher salaries: $18,500 for the board chair (Conan Smith), $16,000 for the board vice chair (Alicia Ping), $16,500 for the Ways & Means Committee chair (Rolland Sizemore Jr.) and the working session chair (Yousef Rabhi).] In addition, each commissioner has a $3,550 “flex” account, which they can tap for mileage and per diem. [.pdf of 2011 flex account expenditures]

Dan Smith’s proposal calls for a base salary of $16,250 per commissioner, but would eliminate the county’s pension contribution. Each commissioner would also receive $2,813 in optional benefits, including a county pension match of $813 (5% of their salary), $1,000 for education and training, and $1,000 for stipends to replace mileage and per diem payments.

Overall, the proposal would cut total compensation by 5.7% per commissioner – from the current $20,213 to a proposed $19,063.

Due to redistricting, the number of board seats will shrink from the current 11 commissioners to 9 commissioners, as of Jan. 1, 2013. Combining the proposed compensation cuts with the reduced number of commissioners, Smith calculated that compensation for the entire board would drop from $222,338 to $171,583 – a 22.8% decrease. These calculations do not factor in the higher salaries for board officers.

Smith noted that county employees have been asked to pay a portion of their pension contributions, and that his proposal would do the same for commissioners. Also, having stipends instead of flex accounts would make the paperwork simpler, he said – stipends could be calculated annually, based on each commissioner’s committee assignments.

The goal is to bring forward a formal proposal at the April 4 meeting for discussion and an initial vote. Smith said he hoped to get feedback on the proposal from commissioners, but there were no comments made during the meeting.

This brief was filed soon after adjournment of the March 7 county board meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]