Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman, left, talks with Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) before the board’s May 21, 2014 meeting. Bergman spoke during public commentary to oppose a possible road tax. (Photos by the writer.)

The vote on levying a millage was 2-6, with support only from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent. The tax would have been levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval.

Several commissioners spoke against levying this kind of tax at this time. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) advocated for waiting to see whether the state provides more funding for roads. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) reported that the boards of Willow Run and Ypsilanti public schools are considering levying tax increases this summer of 2.8 mills and 1.2 mills, respectively. The state passed legislation that enables school districts to levy millages for debt retirement without voter approval. Noting that a new public transit millage had been approved by voters earlier this month – in Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Ann Arbor – Peterson said the communities that he represents would be hard-pressed to handle yet another tax increase.

Dan Smith argued that there are few funding options available to the county to pay for road repair, and that the need for additional revenues is critical because the roads are in such bad shape. He said he was well aware of the reasons why this was a bad plan – even a terrible one – but added that the only thing worse would be to do nothing. Conan Smith pointed out that because all of the board seats are up for election this year, residents will have a way to weigh in on this decision, albeit indirectly. “This is the most defensible moment that we have” to levy a tax that doesn’t require voter approval, he said.

The May 21 meeting also included a public hearing on the possible levy. And the board heard from people on the topic during general public commentary. In total, seven people spoke about the road funding issue. Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman, who is an Ann Arbor resident, argued against levying the tax, while former state Rep. Rick Olson of York Township urged commissioners to levy the full 1-mill amount allowed under Act 283. Another resident argued against any tax that isn’t approved by voters, calling it taxation without representation.

After the tax levy resolution was rejected, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) brought forward a resolution to create a seven-member road funding committee that would explore options – including Act 283, as well as other possible revenue sources like bonding or a voter-approved tax. The initial vote to form the committee passed on a 6-2 split, over dissent from Conan Smith and Dan Smith. A final vote is expected on June 4. If approved, members would be appointed at a later date, with the direction to provide a road funding plan to the board in the fall.

Commissioners also weighed in to oppose oil exploration and drilling in the county, prompted by a company’s permit application to the state to drill in Scio Township. The vote was 7-1, over dissent from Dan Smith. Two residents spoke during public commentary,urging the board to oppose oil drilling.

During deliberations, Dan Smith argued that the issue was outside of the county’s purview, because the county can’t regulate oil drilling. He noted that the easiest way to prevent oil drilling is for property owners not to sign leases with companies that seek to drill on their land. Other commissioners supported the resolution, citing environmental and public health concerns, including the proposed drilling location’s proximity to the Huron River.

In other action on May 21, commissioners took initial steps to: (1) put a 10-year countywide parks and recreation operations tax renewal on the Nov. 4 ballot, at 0.2353 mills; (2) create a board of health that would give advice on public health issues; and (3) approve an application for a $940,000 federal grant that the county would make on behalf of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency. Funds would be used to help redevelop the former General Motors Willow Run Powertrain plant in Ypsilanti Township for use as a connected vehicle testing facility.

Given final approval on May 21 was this year’s allocation to local nonprofits through the coordinated funding process, in which the county participates.

The board also approved a process that will determine how the $3.9 million budget surplus from 2013 will be allocated. Conan Smith said he felt “personally let down” by the approach, because the county administrator has already recommended to keep that amount in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves. He thought it was “turning out to be little more than a rubber stamp of a decision that’s already been proposed by the administration.” Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading this process, stressed that commissioners will be discussing and making the final decision – which might differ from the administration’s recommendation.

Road Tax

The May 21 agenda included a proposal to levy a 0.4-mill countywide road tax in December. The tax could be levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval. The board also held a public hearing on the issue, and heard from several people during public commentary.

Barb Fuller, one of three road commissioners, attended the May 21 meeting of the county board.

Prompted in part by what many view as a chronic underfunding of roads in Michigan – combined with a particularly harsh winter – county commissioners have been discussing for months how to generate more revenues to repair the county’s road network.

At the board’s May 7, 2014 meeting, Dan Smith (R-District 2) brought forward a resolution that would have authorized a 1-mill tax to be levied December 2014 – under Act 283. A 1-mill tax would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.”

On May 7, the board debated the issue at length but ultimately voted to postpone the resolution until May 21 over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

On May 21, Dan Smith brought forward a revised resolution that addressed some concerns raised by corporation counsel Curtis Hedger during the May 7 meeting. The new resolution proposed an 0.4-mill levy and included a list of specific projects that the tax revenues would fund. [.pdf of May 21 resolution]

The resolved clauses stated:

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the authorization of Public Act 283 of 1909 (MCLA 224.20), the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners approves a millage of 0.4 mills to be levied against all real property in the County, which will generate approximately $5,—,— to be collected in December, 2014, for use in calendar years 2014 and 2015 to keep existing Washtenaw County public roads, streets, paths, bridges and culverts in reasonable repair, and in condition reasonably safe and fit for public travel; and that this levy be exempt from capture by TIF Districts or TIFAs to the greatest extent allowed by law.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners agrees with Washtenaw County Road Commission’s initial determination, as attached hereto and made a part hereof, and levies said millage for the purposes therein.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Road Commissioners is invited to present a revised determination in accordance with Act 283 of 1909 to the Board of Commissioners at its annual meeting on September 17, 2014 for an additional levy not to exceed 0.6 mills.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel is directed to provide an exhaustive formal written opinion, by September 17, 2014, which clearly and convincingly details the exact mechanism under which Act 283 of 1909 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people; and that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners waives any attorney/client privilege concerning this opinion.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners asks the county’s legislative delegation, State Senators Randy Richardville and Rebekah Warren and State Representatives Gretchen Driskell, Jeff Irwin, David Rutledge and Adam Zemke, to request an Attorney General opinion regarding the ability for counties to levy a tax under Act 283 of 1909 in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

For additional Chronicle coverage on road-related issues, see: “County Board Continues Weighing Road Tax,” “County Board Debates Expanded Road Commission,” “County Board Sets Hearing on Road Tax,” “County Considers Road Funding Options,” “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

Road Tax: Public Commentary

During the first opportunity for public commentary – at the board’s ways & means committee meeting – committee chair Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) announced that the device used to time the speaking turns was broken. Instead, time would be marked by holding up handwritten cards, she said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) kept time manually for public commentary, as the boardroom’s timing device was broken.

Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman – a Democrat from Ann Arbor – urged commissioners not to levy a tax for roads. If they do, they’re sending a message to Lansing “that we are rich enough to take care of ourselves,” she said, and that the state doesn’t need to help meet the needs of its vulnerable citizens. But this is patently untrue, she said. There are huge unmet needs in Washtenaw County – for food, shelter, services for children and for adults who are returning to the community after incarceration.

Beyond the ethical considerations, Bergman said, the county doesn’t need to do this because “roads have very loud voices.” Officials at the local and state levels want to be re-elected, she noted, and she bet that funds could be found to repair the roads to ensure that motorists are happy. One way is for state legislators to adopt an equitable, progressive tax code for Michigan, she said. If that doesn’t happen, then local millages should be used to support those who are often invisible, she said. Mental health funds are about to be cut 30%, she noted, which means that services for 240 customers of the county’s Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) will be cut. Affordable housing and health insurance are also needed, Bergman said. “A millage to meet human services needs could pass a test with ethics,” she said. “A millage for roads cannot.”

Thomas Partridge spoke generally about the need to support the county’s most vulnerable, including affordable housing, public transportation, education and health care. Everyone needs adequate roads, he added, and if it’s left to Lansing, “we are left with potholes.” He also supported a progressive tax to generate more funds for local governments.

Rick Olson introduced himself as a York Township resident and former state representative of District 55. In 2011 he became very interested in transportation, he said, and generated a report on how much money would need to be spent to repair Michigan’s roads and bridges – $1.4 billion at that time. That was a figure used by the governor’s workgroup on infrastructure, on which Olson served. It led to a series of bipartisan bills that were introduced in January 2012, with the idea that $1.2 billion would be raised at the state level, he said, and the remainder raised through an optional county vehicle registration fee. Unfortunately, Olson said, the legislation wasn’t enacted. He said the amount needed has now been updated to just under $2.4 billion. Even if the legislature comes up with additional funding for roads, it likely won’t be enough, he said. Olson told commissioners that the county needs to invest a considerable amount, in addition to whatever the legislature does. He fully supported an Act 283 millage at the full 1-mill level.

Former state representative Rick Olson and county commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

A man who didn’t give his name said he opposed the road millage, especially if it were levied without a public vote. “Citing some law from 1909 doesn’t change the fact that this is taxation without representation,” he said. He told commissioners that 40% of county residents aren’t property owners, and wouldn’t pay the tax. “So once again, government is picking on a select group of people to pay for the benefit of all,” he said. “There is no word to describe this other than unfair.” Washtenaw County already has the highest average property tax in Michigan, he said. Prices are increasing, and people have to adjust their budgets accordingly. “We don’t have a golden pocket to reach into.” Yet government feels entitled to take more from its residents. He said he’s tired of his government telling him what they’re going to take, instead of listening to him tell them what they can have. “So I will organize, I will educate, I will motivate, and I will vote,” he said, so that government will be accountable for its budget and debts, just as the government holds him accountable.

Jim Bates of Ann Arbor Township asked if it would be possible for the county to assess a gas tax. He said he was just curious about that. [In Michigan, county governments don't have authority to levy a gas tax.]

Victor Dobrin said he’s been an Ypsilanti Township resident 23 years. [Dobrin is also a candidate for the District 5 seat on the county board.] The proposed road millage isn’t popular, he said. Government doesn’t always do what’s popular, but they look for the common good. He respected Olson’s opinion, however he thinks that solving any problem in society begins by defining the root cause. Government should take an engineering approach to problem solving. What is the root cause? Why are our roads crumbling? Is the proper work being done when roads are constructed or fixed? He noted that right now, you can see workers throwing shovels of asphalt into potholes, but that’s not going to solve the problem. It will result in wasting lots of money. The root cause is in the way that roads are engineered and built, he said.

Road Tax: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) responded to public commentary by thanking Barbara Bergman, noting that her comments reflect his own opinion. He also said the issue isn’t one of taxation without representation, as residents are represented by the county commissioners.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he wouldn’t support a road tax. About a year ago, he said, he and Ken Schwartz – who was then a road commissioner – tried to get a group together to work on this issue, but Sizemore didn’t think that had happened. So he didn’t think enough work went into the current proposal, and he’d like to take more time to work on it.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) told commissioners he had modified his original resolution to address concerns that the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, had laid out in a confidential memo to the board. The proposed millage is now 0.4 mills, rather than the full 1 mill. The resolution includes a list of proposed projects, and notes that this process is starting earlier than the board’s annual meeting because of the harsh winter.

Smith then formally withdrew his earlier resolution from May 7, and moved the new modified resolution for consideration.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Smith for his work on this proposal. LaBarre echoed that thanks, but said he wanted to wait a bit to see what the state legislature does regarding road funding. The process required by Act 283 gives the board some breathing room, he said, “and hopefully it’s a moot issue.”

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) agreed with Sizemore that the issue needed to be studied further. More funding is expected from the state, and a community in his district – Scio Township – recently approved a special assessment for roads, he noted. If the county levies a road tax, it would be a bit hard on those taxpayers, he added.

Martinez-Kratz wondered if Hedger had time to review Smith’s new resolution, to see if there were any concerns. Based on the previous memo from Hedger, levying an Act 283 millage wasn’t legal, Martinez-Kratz said. [The memo from Hedger was not released to the public.]

Regarding the list of projects from the road commission, Martinez-Kratz said not all communities would get funding, so some of his constituents think that’s inequitable.

Dan Smith (R-District 2), standing, consults with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger while Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office looks on.

Sizemore said that as the board’s liaison to the road commission, he’d be happy to work with county commissioners and road commissioners to come up with a plan. He didn’t think they could count on the state.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) reminded the public that this effort was driven by the road commission, not by the county board – though he noted that Dan Smith has been an advocate for road funding.

Peterson said all local communities have the ability to address these road issues, and he wanted to work with communities within the county to help address their needs. But it’s the road commission that has responsibility, he said.

There isn’t any urgency to levy a tax now, Peterson continued. The board needs to be patient and see what comes out of Lansing, he said.

Peterson also noted that Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, which he represents, already have high taxes. What’s more, the boards of Willow Run and Ypsilanti public schools are considering levying tax increases this summer of 2.8 mills and 1.2 mills, respectively. The state passed legislation that enables school districts to levy millages for capital improvement debt retirement without voter approval – which Peterson called a ridiculous law.

In addition, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township will have another new millage, along with Ann Arbor, that was passed by voters earlier in May for public transit. In total, it’s “a huge increase in new taxes,” Peterson said. “And believe me – I’m no rock star conservative on taxes. I believe you pay for what you get.” However, Peterson said the communities that he represents – Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Superior Township – would be hard-pressed to handle yet another tax increase for roads.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Peterson indicated that he’d be interested in exploring the option of bonding to fund roads.

Dan Smith argued that there are few funding options available to the county to pay for road repair, and that the need for additional revenues is critical because the roads are in such bad shape. The proposed millage is only for 0.4 mills, he stressed – not the full 1 mill.

The easiest option is to do nothing, Smith said – to do more studies and plans, or wait for Lansing. “The reality is that the roads are terrible,” he said. Even if Lansing provides more funding – and he wasn’t hopeful about that – it won’t be enough for Washtenaw County. Smith pointed out that this would be an annual levy, and if there’s no need for it in 2015, the county wouldn’t levy it.

Smith also noted that the millage is tied to the road commission’s plan, which is similar to one that the road commission brought forward in the fall of 2013. There’s nothing surprising about it, he said.

Many communities don’t have the taxing ability to pay for maintenance of the county’s major roads that run through their jurisdiction, Smith said. The best example is the six miles of Austin Road in Bridgewater Township. It’s a major road in a township with the lowest taxable values in the county. So some communities just don’t have the capacity to deal with these major roads, he said.

Smith also didn’t think it was fair to require, for example, Northfield Township, Webster Township and Ann Arbor Township to take care of roads like Newport, North Territorial and Pontiac Trail – “roads that the much broader community uses,” he said. Some of these roads, like Newport, cross multiple jurisdictions. For these reasons, major roads should be taken care of by the county, Smith argued.

“This is a bad plan, for lots and lots of reasons,” Smith continued. “I would even say it might even be a terrible plan. The only thing that might be worse than this bad plan is to continue doing what we’ve been doing, which is absolutely nothing. The roads are crumbling underneath us.” There will not be a perfect plan, no matter how long they talk about it, he said.

Roy Townsend, managing director of the Washtenaw County road commission.

There are two problems with a voter-approved levy, Smith said. First, it wouldn’t be on the ballot until November. Second, it would likely be for a larger amount and a longer period – like a half-mill for four years or more. The other problem is one that Conan Smith had raised during the May 7 discussion, Dan Smith noted – competing interests for millages that might go on the ballot. He pointed out that the parks & recreation operations millage renewal will be on the November 2014 ballot. Former commissioner Barbara Bergman had mentioned other possibilities for millages, he noted, such as funding for human services.

An Act 283 millage would be at a lower rate for only one year, Smith said. Even though he didn’t like it, “it is the least-bad option I think we have right now.”

Sizemore expressed frustration at not doing anything, then proposed sitting down with road commissioners and managing director Roy Townsend to figure out what to do.

Martinez-Kratz replied to Smith’s comments, saying that if it’s a bad or even terrible plan, then “it’s not worth spending taxpayers’ money on.”

Peterson asked if communities would have the ability to opt-out of an Act 283 levy. Hedger replied that there is no opt-out option.

Peterson then asked if any other local leaders – from city councils or township boards – had contacted the county in support of an Act 283 millage. He felt that if other elected officials were supportive, they’d be there tonight. All of the communication he’d received was urging him not to support an Act 283 millage, Peterson said. It’s difficult for him, especially during an election year, to take responsibility for a road tax when other elected officials aren’t also supporting it.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked how short the road commission was in terms of funding related to winter road maintenance. Townsend replied that the county had received some additional funding from the state to cover some of the winter overages, like salt usage, diesel fuel and overtime costs. “But what they didn’t really give us money for is to fix the roads,” he said.

Road conditions have continued to decline, Townsend said. He pointed to a handout he’d provided to commissioners, showing that Michigan ranks last among all 50 states in state highway expenditures per capita. The data was from 2011, but since then the state hasn’t increased its funding, he noted. Most states are putting in at least double the amount of per-capita funding for roads. For example, Pennsylvania’s per-capita spending was $557 compared to $135 in Michigan.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Townsend said the county’s infrastructure was in poor condition prior to this harsh winter, with deep freezes and thaws that made things even worse. Generally, the road commission uses about 400 tons of cold patch. This year, the commission used 1,400 tons – enough to fill about 300,000 potholes. These are temporary fixes, Townsend said.

Some of the projects on the plan that the road commission has presented to the board this year have been on previous plans presented since 2011, Townsend said – like work on North Territorial and Scio Church roads, among others. The plan would improve 44 miles of road, used by over 100,000 people every day. “So I think 100,000 people would probably appreciate that you could fix those 44 miles of road,” he said. The tax for an average $200,000 home would be just $40, he noted.

Townsend said that any state legislative action likely wouldn’t result in funding until 2015, so the roads would go through another winter. “And god help us what it’s going to look like next spring,” he said. There’s a short window for construction, he noted.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said the upshot is that the roads are terrible, and they won’t get better as the county waits for legislative action from Lansing or for voters to weigh in this November. There’s an opportunity now, he said, with only a modest hit to taxpayers and an immediate benefit to the community.

C. Smith also responded to the public commentary about taxation without representation. That phrase emerged in a different context, he said. The people are represented in this process, he noted. The elected county commissioners have a duty to represent the interests of their constituents, to listen carefully to their needs. “This is a representative process by design,” he said.

Regarding the road tax issue, both sides have been well-articulated, C. Smith said. If there’s any time to do something like this without a vote of the people, it’s now – just a short time before an election. Because all of the board seats are up for election this year, Smith said, residents will have a way to weigh in on this decision, albeit indirectly. “This is the most defensible moment that we have” to levy a tax that doesn’t require voter approval, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) spoke next, noting that the levy couldn’t occur until December, so there’s time to figure out what their other options are. She wants to take that time.

C. Smith asked Townsend how the finances would work with an Act 283 tax. Townsend explained that the road commission would want some kind of contractual agreement with the county before it bid out work this summer. It would be similar to how townships contract with the road commission, and then later reimburse the road commission for the work. It’s a legal question to be determined if Act 283 funds can be used for reimbursement, Townsend noted.

Dan Smith made a distinction between “funding” and “financing.” The funding mechanism would be through Act 283. If the board passed the road tax resolution that night, it would be a commitment to provide that funding when the tax is levied in December.

At this point, Dan Smith distributed another resolution – dated Oct. 15, 2014. According to Hedger, the board’s official vote to levy an Act 283 tax must occur in the fall, Smith noted. The draft resolution he distributed would ratify the funding decision regarding the 0.4 mills. The draft resolution also would give the board the option of levying an additional 0.6 mills. [.pdf of Oct. 15, 2014 draft resolution]

These decisions about funding are separate from how the county actually handles the financing, D. Smith explained. Sometimes the county issues tax anticipation notes – that’s what this would be, he said. There might be other options, like using the general fund’s fund balance or short-term borrowing. But the funding would still come through the Act 283 levy in December.

D. Smith also addressed Peterson’s comments about the lack of any other local leaders at the May 21 meeting. He said that one reason is because townships have no authority or responsibility for roads. It’s the county board that has the tools for funding and fixing the roads countywide. He acknowledged that some townships have been very aggressive in their road programs, and some municipalities have vastly better roads as a result.

At this point, Rabhi called the question – a procedural move designed to end discussion and move toward a vote. Commissioners unanimously approved calling the question.

Outcome on main resolution to levy an 0.4-mill tax under Act 283: The resolution failed on a 2-6 vote, with support only from Dan Smith and Conan Smith. Alicia Ping was absent.

Road Tax: Roads Funding Committee

Yousef Rabhi then proposed a resolution to create a roads funding committee. He read aloud the resolution that he’d written by hand during the previous deliberations.

An excerpt from Yousef Rabhi’s handwritten resolution regarding a roads funding committee.

The committee would consist of seven members: (1) a road commissioner or designee; (2) the road commission managing director or designee; (3) the county board’s road commission liaison; (4) one additional county commissioner; (5) a position representing townships; (6) a position representing incorporated municipalities; and (7) a member of the general public.

The county administrator would help provide administrative support to the committee. The resolution also stated that the road commission could present a road funding plan at the board’s annual meeting in the fall “as Act 283 of 1909 provides.”

Conan Smith said he appreciated the sentiment, but wouldn’t support it. The board just received recommendations from a previous committee that had worked on road commission issues, he noted – that happened on May 7, 2014. He noted that leaders of local government “made it abundantly clear at that point that they don’t think the county board of commissioners had a role to play in their road funding situation.”

There was a specific opportunity this year to intervene in funding, C. Smith said, because of the harsh winter. But he didn’t believe that road maintenance should be a higher priority than other things, like public safety, human services, public health and environmental health.

The board had just voted not to get involved by not levying an Act 283 tax, he said. “I think that should be the end of the conversation.”

Ronnie Peterson asked for an explanation about what the board had just voted on, and what Rabhi had subsequently proposed. Felicia Brabec explained that the board had rejected a resolution to levy the Act 283 tax. Now they were considering a proposal to form a road funding committee. Peterson said he just wanted the public to be clear about what had happened.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Andy LaBarre said that to him, the Act 283 issue was one of timing. None of these options are good, he added: “We’re choosing to pursue bad or less bad.” He felt the state legislature had the potential to shock everyone and do something proactive. If that doesn’t happen, it would be possible to consider the Act 283 levy this fall, he noted. If they do eventually levy the millage, it would help but wouldn’t be a comprehensive solution, LaBarre said.

Dan Smith noted that there are few mechanisms available for road funding – either levy a property tax under Act 283, or take a bond or millage proposal to the voters. The county can’t institute a gas tax or vehicle registration fee, he said. The board can spend the next six months talking about their options, but “barring some extraordinary action from Lansing, our options in six months are going to be exactly what they are now,” D. Smith said. And levying Act 283 in the fall “isn’t going to be any nicer than it is right now.”

Clearly frustrated, D. Smith said that instead of acting, the board is doing what government always does – forming yet another committee to study it more. The issue has already been studied, he said. “Nobody wants to touch this hot potato.”

Conan Smith observed that the county could issue general obligation bonds, which wouldn’t require a voter referendum.

Peterson noted that levying Act 283 was difficult for him during an election cycle. He said he was progressive so he didn’t worry about winning over conservatives, but he was interested in saving people’s tax dollars. Citizens haven’t brought forward this proposal, he said, nor has the request come from local community leaders.

Outcome: The resolution creating a roads funding committee was given initial approval a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith and Conan Smith. Alicia Ping was absent. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Road Tax: Public Hearing

Later in the evening – after the road tax resolution was defeated – the board held a public hearing on the issue, which had been set at the May 7 meeting. Two people spoke.

Thomas Partridge said it was important to find funding for road repair. No business wants to locate in a county that doesn’t maintain its roads. Voters need to be educated about the importance of this issue, as well as other concerns like affordable health care, public transportation, and affordable housing. The state legislature backs away from supporting these critical needs. Partridge supported Democrat Mark Schauer for governor, saying that Schauer would support these issues.

Sandra Carolan told commissioners that she pays the taxes for her parents’ property in Chelsea. She was thankful for the discussion, but she can’t ask her 91-year-old mother who’s on a fixed income to support an increased millage “for a solution that really is just a band-aid.” New technology needs to be used on the roads. She said if she goes to the store to buy a blouse and only finds bad blouses, she doesn’t buy one at all.

Parks Millage Renewal

Voters will be asked to renew a 10-year countywide parks and recreation operations millage in November. On May 21, commissioners were asked initial approval to put the request on the Nov. 4 ballot.

During the May 21 county board meeting, Bob Tetens – director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation – sat next to the daughter of county commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2353 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.2 million annually. That’s about half of the parks & recreation annual operating expenses of $6.7 million. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations. [.pdf of staff memo]

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

Comments were brief before the May 21 vote. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said the parks staff do wonderful work. He thanked everyone who serves on the parks & recreation commission.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to put the millage renewal on the November ballot. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Board of Health

On May 21, commissioners were asked to take an initial step to create a board of health, an entity that would prove advice on public health issues for the county.

A description of the board’s duties is outlined in a staff memo that accompanied the May 21 resolution:

The purpose and role of a Washtenaw County Board of Health will be to identify public health problems and concerns in the community, establish health priorities, and advise the Board of Commissioners and the Health Department on issues and possible solutions. The Board of Health will serve as advocates and educators for public health services and policies. The Board of Health will provide oversight and guidance to the Health Department, and will recommend a program of basic health services to the Board of Commissioners.

The new Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals and requests for variances from the local public health and environmental regulations established under the Public Health Code. The Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals regarding the suspension or revocation of food service licenses.

The resolution creating the health board also dissolves an existing existing environmental health code appeals board and the hearing board for the Health Department Food Service Regulation. The duties of those boards would be absorbed by the new health board. [.pdf of staff memo]

The recommended size is 10 members, including one ex-officio representative from the county board of commissioners. According to the staff memo, appointments could represent “health service delivery (physicians, dentists, mental health practitioners, administrators); environmental health and conservation, land use planning, food service and nutrition, academia, K-12 education, philanthropy, social service delivery, legal services, and consumers of public health services.”

Members would be compensated for attending each meeting. The total cost for the health board, including in-kind staff support, is estimated at $19,000 annually. The board of health would be expected to convene for the first time in October 2014.

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s public health officer, attended the May 21 meeting but did not formally address the board. There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Initial approval was given on a 7-1 vote, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. Alicia Ping was absent. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Oil Drilling

Commissioners considered a resolution to oppose oil exploration and drilling in the county. The resolution was brought forward by board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) of Ann Arbor, working with Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1). Rabhi had alerted the board about his plans at the previous meeting on May 7. He said he’d met with residents from the west side of the county about the threat of oil extraction. West Bay Exploration has applied to the state for a drilling permit in Scio Township, and residents are afraid that the state will grant the permit.

The two resolved clauses state:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Washtenaw County, Michigan:

1. Opposes said oil exploration and drilling, and any future oil exploration and drilling in this area and other areas within the boundaries of Washtenaw County; and

2. Respectfully requests that the Michigan Supervisor of Wells, as part of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, deny the permit application to drill the Wing 1-15 well as proposed; and

3. Hereby requests that the State of Michigan and federal legislators move to enact legislation and improve regulations to reduce the risks to public health, safety, welfare and the environment posed by the oil and gas industry, and re-commit to promoting and protecting quality of life, our economic well-being, and our environment through less reliance on non-renewable energy resources.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted as the County’s official comment on said oil drilling permit and application by the Clerk, to each elected official representing Washtenaw County in Lansing, the Office of the Governor, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a similar resolution opposing oil exploration in Scio Township.

Oil Drilling: Public Commentary

Two people spoke on the topic during public commentary. Gus Teschke from the advocacy group Citizens for Oil-Free Backyards thanked Yousef Rabhi and Kent Martinez-Kratz for their work on the resolution opposing oil exploration and drilling in Washtenaw County. Citizens for Oil-Free Backyards was formed because of a proposed well at Miller and West Delhi, he said. If the company finds oil, then there could be a lot of oil wells in that area. That could impact individual residential wells as well as the Huron River, which provides 85% of Ann Arbor’s drinking water. Accidents can happen, and people are concerned about that, he said. About 1,200 people live within a mile of the proposed oil well, and are concerned about their health, noise and other issues. He hoped commissioners would support the resolution.

Brian Herron, a Scio Township resident, spoke during public commentary to oppose drilling in the county.

During the final opportunity for public commentary, Brian Herron introduced himself as a business owner in Ann Arbor and resident of Scio Township. Residents there find it very concerning that there’s a proposal to drill so close to residential properties. The proposed drilling would be less than a mile from the Huron River, he noted. It seemed inappropriate to allow drilling in a residential area. It doesn’t make sense, and he urged commissioners to support the resolution that opposes drilling.

Oil Drilling: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said that for him, this is a fundamental issue of protecting the environment in Washtenaw County, making sure the air, water and soil stayed healthy for generations to come. It’s time to take a stand, even though the county doesn’t have the ability to stop it outright, he said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he normally supports economic development so that residents have opportunities for jobs. But he’s in total opposition to drilling in this county. He wondered if there were any supporters of drilling at that night’s meeting, or any company representatives to talk about how the county would benefit from drilling. [No one came forward.] It seemed like they’d want to present their case to the public, he said.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), who represents an area that includes Scio Township, said he had attended a public forum about the proposed drilling. Someone had suggested being proactive regarding oil rights, rather than waiting for oil companies to secure them. He liked the idea, which entails having a community group purchase the oil rights and hold them in trust.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she’d visited the Irish Hills area near Jackson, where there’s been an increase in oil exploration. So she’s seen firsthand the economic, health and environmental impacts on a community. It’s very harmful, she said, and people there were distraught. It’s also frustrating, she added, because communities have little recourse and authority over these issues.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) characterized it as “a total NIMBY issue.” The problem is that no one in Lansing will listen to this resolution, he said, but he supported it. They also need to find ways to communicate with the state legislature, which he said has robbed local communities of their ability to make decisions regarding oil drilling.

Rabhi agreed that the issue was one of local control – and not just for oil drilling, but also for natural gas extraction. That’s the campaign that needs to be waged, he said. “We need legislators who respect local control.” The state should set a baseline standard for environmental health, but each community should have the right to set even stricter standards for cleaner air, water and other aspects of the environment, he said.

Martinez-Kratz agreed that it might be a NIMBY issue, but he argued that almost anything could be called NIMBY – like zoning and noise ordinances. The drilling proposal to him is alarming because it’s within a mile of the tributary that leads to Ann Arbor’s drinking water supply. He pointed to the 2010 oil spill in the Kalamazoo River that’s still not completely cleaned up. Even though there’s very little that the county government can do about this proposal, the board needs to take a stand, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) opposed the resolution, noting that it does nothing and addresses an issue that’s outside of the board’s purview. The law is extraordinarily clear, he noted – that a county can’t control or regulate drilling. They might all wish that it was within their purview, and the concerns about drilling are valid, he said. “I certainly don’t want an oil well in my backyard either.” Concerns over environmental impacts are legitimate too. “Unfortunately, the oil is where it is, and there’s nothing any of us can do to move where the oil is located,” he said.

Smith said the oil has been untouched for years, but has finally become economically feasible to extract. That’s unfortunate, but it’s not under the county’s control, he stressed. There’s a very simple way to shut down all the drilling in the county, Smith added. “The property owners can simply refuse to lease their land to the oil companies. Problem solved.” But these property owners have signed leases with oil companies, and are getting money for that, he noted. They can put that money toward paying for their house, or a college education, or buying things or going out to eat. So there’s an economic benefit to Washtenaw County in that way, Smith said.

Smith reported that he’s recently heard about a Michigan chapter of a national service organization that had received over $500,000 annually from oil revenues, which in turn support local programs. This is an extremely complicated issue, he said, with lots of pros and cons. If commissioners don’t like the current law, they can take their case to Lansing, Smith added. There are six state legislators representing Washtenaw County, he added, including some that are “extraordinary close to members of this body.” [That was a reference to state Sen. Rebekah Warren, who is married to commissioner Conan Smith.]

D. Smith said he didn’t vote against a similar resolution opposing a mineral mining proposal in Lyndon Township, because the county parks & recreation commission is interested purchasing that property – so there was an option that the county could pursue. [Smith stated "present" during that vote, which took place on March 19, 2014.]

But in this case, the resolution serves no purpose and wastes and extraordinary amount of time, D. Smith said. “I really wish we would stop campaigning from the board table,” he concluded, saying there are much more effective ways to advocate for change.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that Smith had been remarkably consistent in his position regarding these kinds of resolutions, which don’t have the force of law. Given that track record, it would be great to have Smith on board with this resolution, LaBarre said. “I think it would add an extra amount of credence to this.” It’s an issue of significance that they can all find ways to dislike, he said, and to express their displeasure. He hoped Smith would consider bending on this.

Rabhi also thanked Smith for his consistency, noting that Smith’s opposition wasn’t about the content of the issue, but rather about the county’s purview. But Rabhi said he had no problem campaigning from the board table, adding that he was campaigning for public health, the environment, and the welfare of county residents. He thought the county did have a role to play, as local governments are allowed to submit comments through the MDEQ’s public process. “It’s not for political gain – it’s for the community,” Rabhi said.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith. Alicia Ping was absent, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. was not in the room when the vote was taken.

2014 Budget Calendar

The board considered a resolution setting a timeline for budget work in 2014. [.pdf of budget calendar resolution] Highlights are:

• July 24, 2013: Board approved budget priorities. (That document was subsequently amended on Aug. 7, 2013.)
• May 7, 2014: Board authorized county administrator to seek consultant for work on budget priorities. The review and selection process for that consultant is underway.
• June 5, 2014: Budget discussion on the board’s working session agenda, to discuss the status of any general fund surplus or shortfall.
• July 9, 2014: County administrator presents recommendation for using surplus or addressing shortfall, based on board priorities. Board to take initial vote on recommendation.
• Aug. 6, 2014: Final vote set for surplus/shortfall recommendation.

The county had a 2013 general fund surplus of $3.9 million. County administrator Verna McDaniel has recommended to keep that amount in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves, to meet the county’s goal of having reserves that total 20% of the general fund budget.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith (D-District 9) began the discussion by saying there were some foundational problems with this approach. One of those problems is that the county administrator has made a recommendation in advance of discussing this issue with the board, he said. The disposition of taxpayer dollars should be made by people elected to make those decisions, Smith said.

In fact, Smith added, since McDaniel has already made a recommendation, much of the work outlined in the timeline isn’t necessary. They should just discuss her recommendation at the board’s June meeting, and take a final vote in July.

Smith didn’t think the board had created an open and transparent process for the community or for county staff to give input on priorities and programs. The timeline also doesn’t give direction to the board about how commissioners can effectively engage in setting priorities for allocating surplus revenues. He expressed frustration that this process “is actually turning out to be little more than a rubber stamp of a decision that’s already been proposed by the administration.”

“I feel personally let down,” Smith continued. Part of his support for a four-year budget had been based on taking this process seriously, he said, and to “engage holistically” with the community in determining how to spend a budget surplus. “I feel personally frustrated because I was a huge part of developing the budgets that resulted in these surpluses,” Smith said. He added that he’d talked to department heads who were asked to make cuts, and had told them there would be discussion about how to get back some of that money if there were surpluses. But now it sounded like the decision has already been made, he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) – chair of the ways & means committee, who has been leading this process – replied that she sees things differently, and she was sorry that Smith was frustrated. She thought the process did take into account all of the things that Smith wanted to see. Hiring a consultant would help make that happen, she said, by engaging commissioners, staff and the community in moving the needle on their priorities.

Brabec said that McDaniel has shared her recommendation, and now it’s time for the board to discuss it in a very public way. It’s probably not happening as quickly as Smith would like, she noted, and she’d also like to move more quickly, but they’re doing it as quickly as they can.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he agreed with some of Smith’s comments. He asked about a handout that Smith had provided to commissioners. [It had not been distributed to the public.] Smith replied that it was part of an email that he’d sent to commissioners in early May. [.pdf of Smith's email]

Smith asked if there was any expectation that the $3.9 million surplus would be used for any purpose other than the fund balance. Brabec said her expectation is that McDaniel’s recommendation will be discussed. “I don’t know what the fruits of that discussion will be,” she said.

Outcome: Earlier in the meeting – prior to this discussion – the resolution had been approved unanimously as part of the board’s consent agenda.

SPARK Grant

Commissioners were asked to approve an application for a $940,000 federal grant that the county would make on behalf of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency. Funds would be used to help redevelop the former General Motors Willow Run Powertrain plant in Ypsilanti Township for use as a connected vehicle testing facility.

The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant is available through the National Infrastructure Investments Program of the U.S. Department of Transportation. SPARK asked that the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED) act as the lead applicant and fiscal agent. OCED already submitted the grant application – on April 25, 2014. According to a staff memo, “due to the grant application deadline, it was not possible to bring the matter before the [board of commissioners] for approval prior to application submission.”

The project is a partnership with SPARK, the University of Michigan, the redevelopment firm Walbridge Aldinger and Ypsilanti Township, among others. According to a staff memo, the facility could lead to the creation of up to 7,800 new jobs in the skilled trades and research sectors. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Initial approval for the grant application was approved unanimously. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders. Initial approval had been granted at the board’s May 7, 2014 meeting, when the board had heard from several nonprofit and community leaders on this topic.

The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. [.pdf of staff memo and list of funding allocations]

Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

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

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation will now be an additional funder in this process.

There was no discussion of this item.

Outcome: Final approval to the coordinated funding allocations was unanimous.

Appointments

The board took action on one appointment: Nicole Sandberg to the food policy council. Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) brought the nomination forward. He reported that three applications had been received and reviewed by the council, who had recommended the selection of Sandberg.

The May 21 agenda originally included a slot to appoint someone to the board of public works, but Rabhi pulled the item, saying he wanted to solicit input from existing members of the board of public works.

Outcome: Nicole Sandberg was appointed to the food policy council.

Millage Rate

Washtenaw County commissioners were asked to take the first step in setting the county’s 2014 general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate.

Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (for operations at 0.2353 mills and capital improvements at 0.2367 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate levied in July to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2013. [.pdf of staff memo]

This is an annual procedural action, not a vote to levy new taxes. With a few minor exceptions, the county board does not have authority to levy taxes independently. Millage increases, new millages or an action to reset a millage at its original rate (known as a Headlee override) would require voter approval.

The rates will be included on the July tax bills for property owners in Washtenaw County.

A public hearing on the millage rates is set for June 4.

Outcome: Commissioners took a unanimous initial vote to set the millage rate. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Proclamations

There were four resolutions honoring individuals or organizations: (1) a resolution of appreciation for Nancy Wheeler, the first African American woman to serve as a Washtenaw County trial court judge and who is retiring this year (she is the aunt of county commissioner Conan Smith); (2) a resolution of appreciation for Lynn Kneer, who is retiring after working as a judicial coordinator for judge Francis Wheeler; (3) a resolution proclaiming June 2014 as Relay for Life Month in Washtenaw County; and (4) a resolution honoring the 20th anniversary of the Interfaith Round Table of Washtenaw County.

Outcome: All resolutions were passed unanimously.

Communications & Commentary

During the May 21 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Success by Six

Ypsilanti Township resident Shannon Novara, program manager at Washtenaw Success by Six Great Start Collaborative, thanked the board for its leadership in supporting the youngest members of the county. The nonprofit’s mission is to make sure every child in Washtenaw County enters kindergarten ready to succeed. She described the services that the nonprofit offers, and thanked its partners. Specifically, she thanked the county for its support of the annual Touch a Truck fundraiser that was held on May 10 at Ypsilanti Community High School. At least 1,250 children and their families participated, she said. She thanked commissioners and staff for their help, giving special recognition to Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) for his work.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (left early), Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

From left: Washtenaw County corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2). (Photos by the writer.)

Following a lengthy discussion, commissioners voted to set a public hearing about a possible countywide road millage. The hearing will be held at their meeting on May 21 so that the public can give input on a proposal to levy up to 1 mill for roads in 2014. The tax would be levied under Act 283 of 1909.

No final decision is expected at the May 21 meeting about levying a tax – although a resolution to levy a 1-mill tax is on the May 21 agenda for initial consideration.

Commissioners all appeared to support finding a way to secure more road funding, but some voiced concern about process and timing – especially because a tax under Act 283 would be levied without voter approval.

The May 7 discussion began when Dan Smith (R-District 2) brought forward a resolution that would authorize levying a 1 mill tax – under Act 283 – in December 2014. It would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.” The board ultimately voted to postpone the resolution until May 21 over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

During the wide-ranging discussion, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) expressed concern that the public hadn’t yet been informed about the Act 283 proposal. At the request of board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Roy Townsend – managing director of the county road commission – had prepared a list of road projects that could be funded by an Act 283 millage, which was distributed at the May 7 meeting. Townsend and two of the three road commissioners – Barb Fuller and Bill McFarlane – attended the May 7 meeting, and Townsend fielded questions from the board.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger cautioned that Act 283 lays out a specific process, which calls for a presentation of proposed road projects at a meeting in late September or October, prior to the December levy. Responding to those concerns, Dan Smith noted that options might include passing a resolution this month or in June to indicate the board’s intent to levy the tax, then possibly using money from the general fund’s fund balance to pay for road work this summer. The fund balance would be reimbursed when the tax revenues are collected in December. Hedger pointed out a risk in that approach: If someone sues the county and a court issues an injunction, then the county might be unable to levy the tax – after already spending general fund dollars.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) supported the Act 283 tax. “I’m almost of a mindset of ‘Let’s do it’ – and if someone wants to sue us over it, you know, then when they file a lawsuit we can reconsider,” he said. Smith preferred the Act 283 levy over a ballot initiative that voters would be asked to approve, saying there are other funding proposals he’d rather put on the ballot – for public safety and human services.

The board discussion on this issue will continue at the May 21 meeting.

In other road-related items on the May 7 agenda, the board voted to accept the recommendations of a subcommittee that was appointed last year to explore options enabled by state legislators. The subcommittee had recommended not to make the road commission part of county operations, and not to make the job of road commissioner an elected position.

The May 7 meeting also included an update about the community’s approach to addressing homelessness. The briefing was in response to a board directive given to staff on April 2, 2014 to develop a plan for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness. The blueprint was adopted in 2004. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

Responding to information that there’s been an increase in people from outside of Washtenaw County coming to the Delonis Center shelter in Ann Arbor, Conan Smith cautioned against making that kind of distinction, saying it “dehumanized” people who are seeking help, regardless of where they’re from.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, told Smith that his point was well taken. But she noted that unless the state asks other communities to provide something close to the level of support that Washtenaw County provides, “then it’s an issue of volume. I’m sorry, but it’s not about dehumanizing.” Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, noted that 96% of the shelter’s budget comes from local public funding, and the shelter was built for people who became homeless in Washtenaw County. She said it was her job “to hold that line.”

During the May 7 meeting, commissioners also gave initial approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders. The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

In other action, the board appointed Ellen Rabinowitz as health officer for the Washtenaw public health department; passed a resolution calling for an increase in Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour; and received a first-quarter budget update from the county’s finance staff. First-quarter projections tend to be conservative, because they’re based on only three months of the year, with limited evidence of budget trends. At this point, the 2014 general fund is projected to have a $70,230 shortfall by year’s end – with total revenues of $103,404,537 and total expenditures of $103,474,767. There is no planned use of fund balance for this year’s budget.

Road Funding

The May 7 agenda included a discussion item for road funding options, but there was originally no resolution on the published agenda. At the end of the ways & means committee meeting, Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the board has discussed road commission issues for years. He said he continuously hears from residents that they’re sick of the terrible roads, and they’re tired of hearing explanations about why the roads are so bad. People seem willing to raise their taxes to do it, Smith said. He’d even heard support from “an old Dutchman” at his church, which Smith characterized as the strongest endorsement for increasing taxes that he’ll ever get.

Road commissioner Barb Fuller.

Smith thought the board needed to act on this issue, pointing to the impact that an unusually harsh winter has had on the roads. So he put forward a resolution to levy a 1-mill tax authorized under Act 283 of 1909.

Act 283 requires the road commission to submit a plan of recommended road repairs and the cost to undertake the projects. The law allows the county board to levy a millage to cover those costs, without voter approval. [.pdf of relevant section from Act 283, including summary by Lew Kidder of Scio Township.] Because the law is more than a century old and pre-dates the state’s Headlee amendment, there’s some uncertainty about the ability of county governments to use it.

Commissioners have previously held several discussions about the possibility of additional funding sources for road repair – most recently at a lengthy working session on April 17, 2014. In addition to a possible Act 283 levy, another option that’s been discussed is to put a countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot for voter approval. A draft resolution circulated at the working session called for a four-year, 0.5 mill tax – from 2014-2017 – that would raise $7.15 million in its first year.

The resolution brought forward by Dan Smith on May 7 would authorize levying a 1 mill tax under Act 283 in December 2014. It would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.” [.pdf of draft resolution]

Smith’s resolution would earmark 50% of the gross revenues to be used in the municipality in which the revenue was generated. Beyond that, 10% would be used for non-motorized transportation needs – like bike lanes and pedestrian paths – with the remainder to be allocated “based on use, need, and impact to the traveling public.”

The resolution also addresses concerns about the potential legal issues related to Act 283. From the draft resolution:

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel is directed to provide an exhaustive formal written opinion, by September 30, 2014, which clearly and convincingly details the exact mechanism under which Act 283 of 1909 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people; and that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners waives any attorney/client privilege concerning this opinion.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners asks the county’s legislative delegation, State Senators Randy Richardville and Rebekah Warren and State Representatives Gretchen Driskell, Jeff Irwin, David Rutledge and Adam Zemke, to request an Attorney General opinion regarding the ability for counties to levy a tax under Act 283 of 1909 in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

Road Funding: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d met with the road commission earlier that week. He noted that the road commission had prepared a list of possible projects that could be funded under Act 283. The project list had been prepared based on levying 0.4 mills. [.xls spreadsheet of proposed road projects based on 0.4 mill tax] [.xls spreadsheet of possible amounts raised by jurisdiction] [.pdf map showing location of proposed projects]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Rabhi said if the board decided to levy the full mill, there would be more projects that could be added to the list.

However, Rabhi said he’d spoken with the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, and now had concerns that Act 283 might not be the right approach to get road projects done this year. It might work for next year, Rabhi noted, “but unless we find a creative way of financing this, I think it’s going to be difficult for us to put the dollars levied to road projects in 2014, just because of limitations in the law.”

Yousef asked Hedger when the county could collect the tax under Act 283. Hedger replied, saying he understood there’s some urgency to get money to fix roads. Hedger cautioned that Act 283 lays out a specific process, which calls for a presentation of proposed road projects at a meeting in late September or October, prior to the December levy. It’s meant to be an annual levy, with the road commission determining the projects that need to be done and how much it would cost to do the work. That project list is given to the county clerk, who passes it along to the county board for consideration at an “annual meeting of the board of supervisors.” Hedger noted that Act 283 defines the annual meeting as one that takes place after Sept. 14 and before Oct. 16. Three county board meetings are scheduled during that period this year, he noted.

However, Hedger thought it’s premature to look at levying a millage under Act 283 right now, because the process needs to be followed. The county can’t put the levy on the summer tax bills, he added. Right now, the county levies its general operating millage in July, and every other county tax in December. The state statute allows certain smaller levies to be put on the July tax bill, but not one as large as the Act 283 levy, he said.

Rabhi said he supports what Dan Smith is trying to do, and he knows the road commission is working hard to address the condition of the roads. But no effort, however well-meaning, can overcome the force of nature combined with the force of Lansing, he said, “or the unforce of Lansing.” The situation demands creative thinking, Rabhi said, and there are at least two options. One is levying a millage under Act 283, and the other is asking voters to approve a millage for roads.

Rabhi called the Act 283 levy a “stopgap, Band-aid approach.” If used properly, it can help, he added, but he didn’t know if it would be possible to use it in 2014.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) chaired the board’s subcommittee on possible road commission restructuring.

Responding to those concerns, Dan Smith noted that options might include passing a resolution this month or in June to indicate the board’s intent to levy the Act 283 tax, then possibly using money from the general fund’s fund balance to pay for road work this summer. The fund balance would be reimbursed when the tax revenues are collected in December.

Rabhi asked Hedger if it would be possible to use general fund dollars for road work, then get reimbursed later from Act 283 revenues. Hedger replied that general fund dollars can be used for anything. The reimbursement aspect is trickier, he said, because the statute states that the Act 283 revenues must be used “exclusively for the purposes herein mentioned.” So if the money is fronted from the general fund, the Act 283 revenues wouldn’t technically be used for the purposes of road project – they’d be reimbursing the county.

The bigger issue, though, is if the county paid for the work out of the general fund, but then is sued later in the year and given an injunction that would prevent levying the Act 283 tax, Hedger said. “Then we would have spent the money, and you have no way to recoup it.” He noted that as the county’s attorney, he’s paid to be a pessimist and to explain the potential downsides.

Rabhi then asked if the road commission would be comfortable spending money this year with the understanding that a millage would be levied in December. Hedger noted that the same risks would be involved for the road commission.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked whether an Act 283 millage would be subject to a voter referendum, if citizens decide to do a petition against it. Hedger said it’s not mentioned in the act, so he didn’t think it would be subject to a referendum.

Peterson wondered what would be wrong with putting a millage proposal on the ballot. Let the citizens decide, he said. Peterson complained that the board didn’t support his progressive agenda, and had cut programs like Head Start – yet he was expected to support a road millage. He said he wasn’t necessarily against the road tax, but thought residents should be allowed to weigh in.

Peterson also wondered why the road commission couldn’t issue bonds to cover the work. He said he’d support postponement until the May 21 meeting, so that these questions could be addressed, and so Hedger can put some of these things in writing.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) directed a series of questions to Roy Townsend, managing director of the road commission. He asked about the flexibility of funding that the road commission uses, including formula funding from Act 51. Are those funds discretionary? Townsend replied that the road commission receives Act 51 funding each month from the state, which varies between about $1.1 million to $1.8 million. Townsend indicated that there’s some flexibility in spending those funds. It depends on what priorities are for the townships, and how much township funding is available.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

If the road commission gets direction in May or June, Townsend said, there’s still time to do more road work this season.

Conan Smith suggested working with the road commission on projects for 2015 that could be paid with an Act 283 levy in December of 2014. That approach might free up funds this year for other projects that can be funded with non-Act 283 revenues.

Townsend hoped there’d be a way to figure out how to make more revenues available. He reported getting a call from a resident who lived on Willis Road, who had collected pieces of the road in a wheel barrel – because the road was disintegrating – and wanted the road commission to pick it up.

Conan Smith noted that Act 283 isn’t the best vehicle for road funding, but it’s an option. “I’m almost of a mindset of ‘Let’s do it’ – and if someone wants to sue us over it, you know, then when they file a lawsuit we can reconsider. But know that if you file a lawsuit, there isn’t money for the project anymore.” There’s a sense of urgency that the county board needs to meet, he said.

Responding to Peterson’s question about putting a road tax before voters, C. Smith noted that the earliest the board could get to the ballot would be August – if they voted on it that night – and after that, it would be in November. And there’s no guarantee that voters would approve it, he noted.

The other issue, C. Smith said, is that he has other priorities that can only be funded by going to the ballot. The sheriff has repeatedly articulated challenges regarding public safety, Smith said, and the only mechanism for funding that is to put a millage proposal on the ballot. Human service needs are another area that could be funded with a ballot initiative. With roads, the county has the option of going to the ballot, but also has another means of funding – Act 283. “I’d like to use the other means [for road funding], and save the ballot for those issues that I really, really deeply care about,” Smith said.

C. Smith thanked Dan Smith for bringing forward this proposal, and for designating 10% of the funds raised through Act 283 to work on the non-motorized transportation network. “If you’re a biker or a walker, you know that network is as messed up as the road system is,” C. Smith said.

C. Smith said he was comfortable taking an initial vote on this resolution that night at the ways & means committee meeting, with a final vote on May 21. If everyone else wanted to postpone, that was fine with him too.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he’d been in Lansing the previous day, and had spoken to both of the state senators who represent parts of Washtenaw County. One of those was Sen. Randy Richardville (R-District 17), who is the senate majority leader. Richardville had indicated support for a plan that’s being worked on in Lansing, that might allocate up to $2 billion for a more comprehensive fix to repair roads in Michigan. LaBarre didn’t think it would hurt to wait a few weeks to see what the state legislature would do. “I have zero faith in them as an institution – that’s probably by this point a relatively bipartisan statement – but here’s the deal: They are the only ones, short of the feds, that can dedicate enough resources to actually do this in a way that’s comprehensive.”

LaBarre also wanted to wait so that the other issues raised during the May 7 discussion could be addressed. He wanted to be in a position to defend the board’s decision, if they levied Act 283, to show they did it in the most prudent, thought-out way.

Dan Smith said he was comfortable with the options discussed – postponement or initial approval. As far as seeing what state legislators might do, “I’m greatly tired of waiting for Lansing,” he said. State lawmakers have been talking about it a long time, he noted, and if the county board wants to do anything about its infrastructure, they need to do it themselves. If the state steps in later, “so much the better for transportation infrastructure in Washtenaw County.”

He stressed that an Act 283 levy would raise revenues for projects in cities as well as townships. He also supported putting a tax proposal before voters, but he understood the concerns that Conan Smith had raised.

Road Funding: Board Discussion – Postponement

Peterson moved to postpone the Act 283 resolution until the May 21 ways & means committee meeting, for an initial vote. He stressed the need for some kind of public process – particularly since it’s an election year. [All nine county commissioner seats are up for election in 2014.]

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners postponed the resolution until May 21. Dissenting was Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Road Funding: Board Discussion – Public Hearing

Yousef Rabhi proposed scheduling a public hearing to get feedback on road funding proposals. Dan Smith moved to schedule a public hearing for the board’s May 21 meeting.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Ronnie Peterson wondered what the voters would be responding to: Would the road commission have a plan prepared before then? He also wanted a document from corporation counsel Curtis Hedger, laying out the legal issues. He thought the public should have access to the same information that commissioners have.

Rabhi said the plan that was prepared by the road commission – based on an Act 283 levy of 0.4 mills – had been approved by the road commission board. Rabhi said he appreciated Peterson’s comments, because the resolution for funding proposes a 1-mill tax.

Dan Smith noted that a public hearing isn’t required, but he was in favor of having one anyway. He thought that by the time the May 21 agenda was posted, there would be sufficient information available to the public. He wasn’t too worried about the board eventually deciding to levy less than 1 mill – he didn’t think any citizens would object to a lower levy.

Felicia Brabec wanted time to talk with township officials in the district she presents.

Rabhi noted that the board already has a plan from the road commission for projects that could be funded with Act 283 revenues. But it was confusing, given the different amounts mentioned in the road commission’s plan and Dan Smith’s resolution, so he wouldn’t support scheduling a public hearing yet.

Alicia Ping pointed out that the allocations outlined in the resolution: Of the 1 mill levy, 50% of the revenues would go back to the individual jurisdictions – townships, villages and cities – and 10% would be designated for non-motorized transportation. That brings the amount close to the 0.4 mills mentioned in the road commission plan, she said.

Dan Smith pointed out that a public hearing would be a generic public hearing about levying 1 mill under Act 283. He thought there would be more than enough information in the board packet.

Hedger suggested that the wording of the public hearing notice could be for a levy of “up to 1 mill.” Conan Smith offered that wording as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: On a 5-3 vote, commissioners approved setting a public hearing for an Act 283 levy at the May 21 meeting. Dissenting were Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson and Yousef Rabhi. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Road Funding: Public Commentary

During the evening’s second opportunity for public commentary, Jeff Hayner of Ann Arbor spoke to the board. He said he’d been watching the proceedings from home and thought he’d come to the meeting to say a few words. He’d been surprised to see a public hearing scheduled for May 21 on the Act 283 millage. He noted that a road millage had recently passed in Grand Rapids, and that the previous day, on May 6, a new transit tax had been passed by voters in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. “Now we’re paying more for buses than we pay for the roads they ride on,” Hayner said. “And it got me thinking, you know? The taxpayers’ corpse isn’t even cold yet, and you guys are reaching into their pockets for more.”

He didn’t think it was right that a tax proposal wouldn’t be put before voters for approval. He thought the state’s Headlee Amendment was put in place to give taxpayers a voice. He didn’t think it was right that taxes would be doubled. Hayner pointed out that advocates for a public transit millage had years to prepare, and even that didn’t seem like enough time for a decent conversation, he said. He urged commissioners to take more time so that they could hear from people about the possible road tax.

Road Funding: Subcommittee Recommendations

In another road-related item, the May 7 agenda included a resolution to accept the recommendations of a subcommittee that was appointed last year to explore options enabled by state legislators. The subcommittee had recommended not to make the road commission part of county operations, and not to make the job of road commissioner an elected position.

State legislation enacted in 2012 allowed for: (1) a county board of commissioners to exercise the powers and duties of a road commission; and (2) the functions of a road commission to be transferred to the county board. A sunset clause means that the laws expire on Jan. 1, 2015. That deadline prompted the county board to examine these options.

Outcome: The resolution passed, initially without dissent. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was not in the room when the vote was taken. A few minutes after the vote, Conan Smith (D-District 9) spoke with Pete Simms, a member of the county clerk’s staff who takes minutes for the board. The communication was inaudible to the public, but board chair Yousef Rabhi subsequently announced that Smith had indicated his intention to vote against the resolution.

The following night, on May 8, the board’s working session included a discussion of another restructuring option: Expanding the road commission board. See Chronicle coverage: “County Debates Expanded Road Commission.”

Road Funding: Letter to State Legislature

Dan Smith (R-District 2) drafted a letter to be sent to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, urging passage of House Bills 5117 and 5118, which would remove the sunset clause from state legislation that had been enacted in 2012 regarding the possible restructuring of road commissions. [.pdf of letter]

From the letter:

Washtenaw County’s roads are a critical public asset; stewarding this infrastructure is the responsibility of an independent entity, with negligible input or funding from the elected Board of Commissioners. Eliminating the sunset would provide the board with more options for managing roads, including the possibility of additional locally-generated revenue. We urge passage of HB 5117 and HB 5118.

Yousef Rabhi, Alicia Ping and Kent Martinez-Kratz asked that their names not be included as signatories. After consulting with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger during the meeting, Rabhi told commissioners that if anyone else wanted their names removed from the letter, they should let Smith know.

Outcome: It was not a voting item.

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders.

Community activist Lefiest Galimore and Eileen Spring, president and CEO of the nonprofit Food Gatherers.

The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. [.pdf of staff memo and list of funding allocations]

Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

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

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized as part of the county board’s overall coordinated funding resolution, passed on Nov. 6, 2013. The changes were described in a staff memo:

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

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

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary about coordinated funding and the county’s support for nonprofits. Several others who are involved in coordinated funding – as board members or executive directors of the nonprofits that receive funding – attended the meeting but did not formally address the county board.

Lefiest Galimore noted that he had previously shared his concerns with the board about the coordinated funding approach. The process eliminates African-American organizations out of the funding process, he said. He’s heard that the issue is a nonprofit’s capacity, but “that’s no longer an acceptable excuse,” he said. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. People are trying to do good things but they can’t get funded, he said, so they’re taking money out of their own pockets. Some organizations are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars, Galimore said, but there’s no accountability. African-Americans account for 16% of the county’s population, but over 50% of people incarcerated at the county jail are African-Americans, he said, and the situation isn’t getting better.

Steve Powers, Ann Arbor city administrator.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers told commissioners he wanted them to understand that the Ann Arbor city council is fully committed to the coordinated funding process. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council endorsed the coordinated funding model, and council would be considering the city’s over $1.2 million general fund allocation for coordinated funding at its May 19 meeting. The process is bringing together the community, the public and private sector, and nonprofits to focus on outcomes that matter, he said.

Nicole Adelman, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House, told commissioners that she lives in Washtenaw County, and is also a board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and the HIV-AIDS Resource Center. She thanked the board for supporting local human service agencies, and for spending time later in the meeting to talk about homelessness in Washtenaw County. She reminded everyone of the children and families that experience homelessness, who often aren’t talked about. There are 8 parents and 13 kids at the Alpha House shelter that night, she said. Any discussion about homelessness should include not just individual adults, but also children and families.

Speaking next was Debbie Jackson, director of community impact for community impact for the United Way of Washtenaw County, one of the coordinated funding partners. She noted that together, the six partners leverage about $12.5 million for human services. On May 5, the United Way board had approved the recommendations that county commissioners were now considering. United Way’s commitment to the process this year is $1.8 million, she noted. She thanked commissioners and others in the community for their support.

Carole McCabe, executive director of Avalon Housing, thanked the board for their interest in homelessness, calling it an urgent priority for the community. She reminded them that Avalon’s work to provide permanent supportive housing is an effective solution to homelessness. They operate 260 apartments at 20 different sites around Ann Arbor, providing housing to 160 adults, about 100 families and 150 children. She described the range of services that Avalon provides, and noted that Avalon is a founding member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

Chris Levleit, operations director for Michigan Ability Partners, described the work of that nonprofit in providing housing stability for veterans and others with disabilities. She encouraged commissioners to continue providing support to address homelessness.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said the board had passed a resolution to set up a committee to look at human services funding, and he wondered what the status was for that committee. He said the vote had occurred during the board’s budget discussions last year, at the same time that the board had voted to establish a committee to handle Act 88 allocations.

No one else on the board indicated that they recalled such a resolution, nor did county administrator Verna McDaniel. Peterson hoped someone could research that by the next board meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who serves as board chair, promised to follow up with Peterson.

Peterson spoke at length about the need for supporting human services nonprofits and the residents they serve – especially those struggling with homelessness. He noted that the eastern part of the county, including the Ypsilanti area that he represents, is one of the few places that has affordable housing. The county needs to be involved in addressing some of these unmet needs, he said, and in providing a better “front door” to the county’s own human service agencies.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked the representatives from local nonprofits who were attending the meeting, saying he also interacted with many of them during his “day job.” [LaBarre is vice president for government relations at the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber.] He thanked them for their work in the community.

Rabhi also thanked the nonprofit leaders, noting that they help leverage public dollars for the public good.

Outcome: Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) recused herself from the funding allocation for Food Gatherers, noting that she serves on that nonprofit’s board. Otherwise, the coordinated funding allocations were endorsed unanimously. The board is expected to take a final vote to allocate funding on May 21.

Response to Homelessness

At their May 7 meeting, commissioners were briefed on possible responses to homelessness and a lack of affordable housing in this community. The briefing came in response to a board directive given to staff on April 2, 2014 to develop a plan for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness. The blueprint was adopted in 2004. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County.

The May 7 presentation was given by three different staff members: Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community and economic development; Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center homeless shelter; and Amanda Carlisle, director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Several WHA board members also attended the May 7 meeting, including former county administrator Bob Guenzel, who serves as WHA board president, and attorney Dick Soble, the board’s secretary. [.pdf of presentation]

Schulmeister reviewed the contributing factors to homelessness, including untreated mental illness, increased poverty, a lack of affordable housing and more. She noted that 78% of the people who come to the shelter have income less than $500 per month, and 71% have no income.

The good news is that homelessness “just plain ends with housing,” she said, “and that’s an important phrase to remember.” The formula for success, she added, is permanent affordable housing plus supportive services. That includes “rapid rehousing,” where people who are homeless are quickly given housing with a short- to medium-term subsidy, coupled with supportive services.

This community has a long history of addressing the problem, including creation of the Blueprint to End Homelessness. That effort involved over 300 community members and organizations, including the private sector, sheriff’s office, University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. Carlisle reviewed the blueprint’s four main goals: prevention, housing with services, reforming the system of care, and engaging the community.

Carlisle also described some of the achievements since the blueprint was developed, and pointed commissioners to a more comprehensive report about these efforts that’s posted on WHA’s website. [.pdf of progress report] Highlights include work by Project Outreach Team (PORT) and the Justice Project Outreach Team (JPORT); the Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC), which provides a single entry-point for people seeking services; creation of an endowment for permanent supporting housing; the FUSE (Frequent User Systems Engagement) project, a national pilot program that integrates services for high-risk adults; and creation of a street outreach court and rapid re-housing program, among several other initiatives.

A map showing the percentage of households on public assistance, by census tract: Dark orange (over 30%), light orange (20-30%), tan (10-20%) and cream (0-10%).

Callan noted that a lot has happened in the last 10 years, but it’s no surprise that they haven’t come close to ending homelessness. In 2013, 4,542 people were homeless in Washtenaw County – a 25% increase since 2011. On any given night, 510 people experience homelessness in Washtenaw County. Callan also pointed out that the Delonis Center has seen a 38% increase in people using the shelter from outside of Washtenaw County, from 2012 to 2014.

Several organizations provide a total of 299 emergency shelter beds, but demand far exceeds available resources. Callan noted that the goal isn’t to add more shelter beds, because the solution to homelessness is housing. Temporary shelters are also the most expensive way to address homelessness, she said.

Callan reviewed the spectrum of affordable housing options in Washtenaw County, from temporary shelters and transitional housing to market-rate apartments, public housing, cooperatives, group homes, vouchers, and other options. She noted that during the recession, it was easier to find affordable housing to rent and easier to find landlords who were willing to reduce their rents. Now that the economy is recovering, affordable units are getting more difficult to find, Callan said.

Callan also reviewed the many barriers to helping people find housing. This is the costliest housing market in Michigan. There are only 18 units of affordable, available housing for every 100 of the lowest-income families. The fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Ann Arbor is $942, compared to the average $784 statewide. Callan noted that there’s a $106 difference in rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Ann Arbor compared to Ypsilanti – less than a mile away. “That disparity grows bigger as you go further east,” she said.

Dick Soble, a board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

To put the rent in context, Callan noted that you’d need to earn an hourly wage of $18.31 to afford a two-bedroom apartment renting at $942 a month. The living wage set by the county board is $13.65, while the federal minimum wage is $7.25. Residents who earn that federal minimum wage would have to work 100 hours a week to afford the two-bedroom apartment.

Callan noted that a growing number of residents are spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs, and there’s a growing income disparity.

Callan also highlighted the increased pressure on the county’s shelter system, with a 38% increase in the number of out-of-county people using the Delonis Center in Ann Arbor. It’s untenable for everyone to have Washtenaw County serve as the shelter for all of southeast Michigan, she said.

Schulmeister noted that the three-county region of Macomb, Oakland and Wayne have 14 shelters and a population of just over 4 million. Washtenaw County has 8 shelters for a population of 344,000. There are no shelters in Livingston County, and only two shelters in Jackson County, she noted. In the last year, 43% of the out-of-county people who used the Delonis Center came from Wayne County.

Callan laid out several options that the county and its partners have for addressing these issues:

• Restore funding for affordable housing projects, such as rapid rehousing, affordable housing development, and permanent supportive housing.
• Create and fund a mission-style shelter and/or a permanent warming center.
• Use county assets to advance affordable housing projects.
• Continue to stabilize existing providers, including PORT and local nonprofits.
• Provide funding for short-term motel/hotel stays to engage people in permanent housing programs.

As an example of costs, Callan explained that it would cost about $1.5 million annually to operate a “mission-style” shelter with a day center. That’s based on a 25,000-square-foot facility for overnight sleeping and daytime “warming” for 100 people. It assumes a staff of about 17 full-time employees but does not include capital costs or overhead like accounting.

By comparison, that same $1.5 million could provide rapid rehousing of about 200 people each year, or permanent supportive housing for 107 people. It could also pay for a new housing development with nine units, Callan noted. She again stressed that shelters are the most expensive option, and not a long-term solution. Schulmeister told commissioners that the goal is to turn over shelter beds by finding housing for people, not by kicking them out because they’ve “timed out” of the system.

Callan provided a list of advocacy options that the county board could pursue:

• Support waiver requests from HUD for an increase in the fair-market-rate allowance for Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor housing commission has already started working on this issue.
• Advocate for a “local preference” option for individuals seeking shelter services. “Does it mean we’d turn away anyone who’s not from Washtenaw County? No, we have never done that,” Callan said. But Washtenaw County is doing more than its fair share, she said, so the state should either provide more funding or allow the county’s shelter services to prioritize working with people from Washtenaw County.
• Advocate for state enabling legislation to allow “voluntary inclusionary zoning.” This is more of a city or township issue, Callan said, that would allow jurisdictions to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units in any new development.
• Implement and support new source-of-income anti-discrimination policies at the county and state level. A lot of landlords automatically exclude any income that comes from a housing voucher, and there’s nothing to prevent that.

There are also several options for the county board to engage in working to overcome homelessness, Callan said. They could support the recommendations of a task force on sustainable revenue for supportive housing services, which will be making a presentation at the board’s May 22 working session. They could participate in the Continuum of Care, a broad-based community group that focuses on housing and homelessness. In September, there will be a bus tour of housing and homelessness providers, and later in the fall there will be a “community conversation” forum on these issues.

Response to Homelessness: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he’d been hoping to see a specific timeline for how the Blueprint to End Homelessness will be updated. Amanda Carlisle of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance said the WHA board had been talking about that, and it’s something that will likely happen in the fall. Mary Jo Callan said the original blueprint was developed as a community-wide project, and the update would involve a broad community effort as well, led by the WHA.

Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College and a member of the county’s Community Action Board, and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development.

Responding to another query from Rabhi, former county administrator Bob Guenzel – who serves as WHA’s board chair – said the county and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti had authorized WHA to work on developing the blueprint 10 years ago. Then each of those three public bodies approved the blueprint. He said the WHA would appreciate that same kind of support for the update.

Rabhi hoped it would be possible to develop a more detailed timeline on how the update would occur, to ensure it would be done in 2014. Guenzel indicated that WHA has the same goal.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he was really disturbed by how homeless people are “dehumanized” if they come here from other communities. “They came here because we have high quality of life,” he said. He wanted to stop making that issue a part of the conversation regarding shelter services.

Ellen Schulmeister of the Shelter Association responded. She noted that 96% of the shelter’s budget comes from local public funding, and the shelter was built for people who became homeless in Washtenaw County. It was her job, as director, “to hold that line,” Schulmeister said. To do that, they established the location of a person’s last permanent residence as well as the reason for coming to this county. About 25% of the shelter’s spots were provided to out-of-county people. Anyone who was turned away who isn’t from Washtenaw County was given transportation to wherever they had connections, she said.

A lot of supportive services are funded based on the county’s boundaries, she noted. Many people had court cases in other counties, and didn’t have transportation to get there. There are many barriers to helping people who aren’t from this county, she said.

Conan Smith said he appreciated how Schulmeister framed the issue, calling it a “very hot-button thing” with some people objecting to their money being spent to support anyone who’s not from here. To him, that’s a poor attitude.

Schulmeister pointed out that the shelter is a limited resource. “So we have to make sure we’re taking care of the people in our community with the building that we have,” she said.

C. Smith replied that it’s a very difficult line to draw. What if someone works here but lives in Oakland County and becomes homeless there? Schulmeister said that if someone has a job in Washtenaw County, they’re considered a resident here. She told commissioners that other counties are shipping people to Washtenaw County for shelter services. “That’s not an appropriate way to treat people, either,” she said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

C. Smith told Schulmeister that she was taking the conversation too personally about the shelter. He was talking about a community attitude.

Mary Jo Callan told Smith that his point was well taken. But she noted that unless the state asks other communities to provide something close to the level of support that Washtenaw County provides, “then it’s an issue of volume. I’m sorry, but it’s not about dehumanizing.”

Smith responded: “What you’re saying is it’s a matter of triage. You’re saying a certain kind of person is a better kind of person to serve.”

“I’m not saying that,” Callan replied. “Your point is well taken, but I don’t think that’s what we’re saying.”

Smith acknowledged that it’s a huge challenge, and a comprehensive solution across the entire system is important. Regardless of where people come from, “homeless people have rights, and one of those rights to me is housing.” He hoped they wouldn’t get hung up on the distinction of where people came from. “I think we should just own the fact that we’re going to care for people because they need to be cared for.”

Smith said he thought an economic development strategy needs to be a key component of a solution to homelessness. People need an income in order to sustain their housing, he noted. He asked that Callan, Schulmeister and Carlisle give the same presentation to the county’s workforce development board. Smith said that the chamber of commerce and Ann Arbor SPARK need to understand their role in this effort, too.

Smith also wondered how many of the 4,500 homeless people would likely need supportive housing permanently. Carlisle said that an estimated 1,700 units of permanent supportive housing are needed. Callan added that an upcoming needs assessment will attempt to quantify the need.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Smith said the county wants to have a big role in addressing homelessness, because there are resources that the county can bring to bear on the issue – spanning everything from economic development to community corrections. “Please think holistically and reach out to all of our teams and engage them,” he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) indicated that she didn’t believe housing could end homelessness, because there are so many contributing factors to homelessness that also need to be addressed. If people don’t have the supportive services they need, they won’t be able to sustain their housing.

She pointed to the example of Utah, where officials decided it was more economical to providing housing to everyone who needs and wants it, as well as supportive services. She thought it was an inventive approach.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) invited Callan, Schulmeister and Carlisle to the board’s May 22 working session, to continue the discussion. He chairs the working sessions and sets the agenda.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wanted to talk more about partners who can help the county address this problem, including partnerships with surrounding counties.

Yousef Rabhi wrapped up the discussion by saying people should have a choice about where they live, but “if Washtenaw County is their only option, then we have failed them as a region.” The goal should be making sure that each individual can live in the community of their choice, for whatever reason, he said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

1st Quarter Budget Update

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, delivered a financial report on the county’s general fund budget, for first three months of 2014 – from January through March. She noted that the first-quarter projections tend to be conservative, because they’re based on only three months of the year, with limited evidence of budget trends. [.pdf of Gavalier's presentation]

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

As the board had learned at its April 16, 2014 meeting, Gavalier reported that property tax revenues will be about $720,000 greater than originally projected. The budget had been adopted in late 2013 with an assumption that the tax base would increase by 1% in 2014. According to the equalization report delivered in April, the increase is higher – 2.02%.

Also showing a revenue surplus is the sheriff’s office, with a projected surplus of $111,000 primarily due to higher-than-expected local, state and federal reimbursements.

There are currently projected revenue shortfalls in several areas, including the clerk/register of deeds office ($403,000), district court ($89,000) and interest revenue ($71,000).

In total, there’s now a projected revenue surplus of $277,335 for the general fund, Gavalier said – with shortfalls being more than offset by the property tax surplus.

On the expense side, the sheriff’s office is about $564,000 over the amount budgeted for this year, due to higher-than-expected overtime costs, expenses for inmate food and medical expenses. For all other departments combined, so far expenses are projected to be about $54,000 over budget. Those amounts are partially offset by a projected surplus of about $239,000 in tax appeals and refunds – that is, it’s expected that those expenses will be less than budgeted. Gavalier noted that most of that tax appeal and refund activity will take place in the third quarter, so the amount of any surplus would be clearer then.

Gavalier noted that structural and non-structural adjustments made to the budget since it was passed in late 2013 total about $560,000 in increased expenses. Those include the addition of autism health care coverage, the board’s decision to hire a position for budget work, a “local government initiative” intern, a position in the sheriff’s office, and allocations to keep the homeless shelter’s warming center open in April.

In total, there are $347,565 in general fund over-expenditures as of March 31.

Based on the first-quarter report of revenues and expenses, the 2014 general fund is projected to have a $70,230 shortfall by year’s end – with total revenues of $103,404,537 and total expenditures of $103,474,767. There is no planned use of fund balance for this year’s budget.

Gavalier also reported on several items that will be monitored in the coming months:

• higher expenses in child care programs – for the trial court, children’s services detention, and the department of human services – due to increased caseloads and placements
• fringe benefits
• personal property tax reform
• Act 88 legislation repeal or reform
• annual actuarial valuations for pensions and retiree health care
• annual cost allocation plan
• state revenue-sharing

In the near future, Gavalier said, county administrator Verna McDaniel will present the board with recommendations for dealing with any projected deficits or surpluses. The next quarterly update will occur in August, with a budget affirmation process for 2015 through 2017 taking place this fall.

1st Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the “local government initiative intern” line item. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that it refers to a fellowship that’s being developed to help with budget-related work.

By way of background, at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, commissioners authorized McDaniel to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. As county administrator, McDaniel has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts. She’s taking the approach of creating a fellowship, with the hopes of tapping students from institutions like the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy, for example.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Smith then asked how the current first quarter compares to other years. Gavalier noted that one of the main differences this year is that the budget doesn’t include the use of fund balance. In recent years, the budget has used reserves to help balance the general fund budget.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked about the shortfall in the clerk/register of deeds office. It had been primarily related to a decrease in revenues from document-processing, so he wondered if there was a corresponding decrease in expenses. If so, was the $403,000 a net or gross amount? Gavalier replied that revenues and expenses are looked at separately, because most departments don’t have enough general fund revenue to cover their general fund expenditures. She noted that the budgeted revenues for the clerk/register of deeds in 2014 was $700,000 higher than 2013.

Dan Smith said that his expectation would be to see expenses decrease, if fewer documents are being processed. Gavalier said she’d follow up with him on that.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked about the budget for veterans relief. It seems that the department of veterans affairs regularly shows a shortfall, he said. If the county isn’t levying at a high enough rate to take care of veterans in Washtenaw County, the board should look at increasing that levy, he said. Rabhi asked Gavalier to comment on that.

By way of background, the board voted to levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services on Oct. 16, 2014. The rate of 1/30th of a mill was levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It was expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The previous rate, levied in December 2012, was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 in 2013.

The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Gavalier noted that the board has increased the rate in the past two years. Rabhi replied that it still might not be enough. It’s a priority to take care of veterans who have sacrificed so much, he said. Gavalier indicated it would be possible to discuss options, based on looking at the last two years and the first quarter of 2014. Rabhi noted that the levy is relatively small, which is good from a taxpayers’ perspective, but there’s a need to provide services for indigent veterans.

Switching topics, Conan Smith said he’d like to consider creating a “budget stabilization fund,” like the state has. The state has a “rainy day” fund with money set aside in case something goes wrong, he said. The county’s approach is to leave money in its fund balance, he noted. The target is to have a fund balance that’s 20% of the county’s general fund budget. Smith noted that since November 2013, the board has tapped the fund balance for about $500,000 for various reasons. “When we spend money without identifying a source, that means it comes out of fund balance,” he said. So if they really want to be deliberate in building up a strategic reserve, he thought they should consider creating a separate budget stabilization fund. He hoped the board could talk about that as part of its budget discussions.

Dan Smith said he liked the idea. The board could then as a body make decisions on allocating the funds toward specific activities. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) also supported creating some kind of designated fund reserve.

On another note, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) observed that last year, the administration and board had been on a path to borrow $350 million to cover employee pension and retiree health care costs. He thought they needed to discuss that issue too.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Rabinowitz Appointment

Ellen Rabinowitz was nominated for appointment as health officer for the Washtenaw public health department, after serving in that position on an interim basis since late last year. The appointment is effective May 19.

Ellen Rabinowitz.

Rabinowitz will receive a salary of $126,098. That salary includes her role as executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, a job she’s held for 11 years.

A staff memo notes that the county will see a savings of $30,266 in personnel costs as a result of this appointment. The salary will be covered by the public health department (80%) and the Washtenaw Health Plan (20%). Fleece’s salary was covered in full by the public health department.

The county board appointed Rabinowitz as interim health officer on Nov. 6, 2013. The appointment was spurred by the retirement of former health officer Dick Fleece, effective Dec. 28, 2013.

The position is mandated by the state, and requires a graduate degree and 5 years of full-time public health administration. Responsibilities include overseeing the county’s public health department. [.pdf of Rabinowitz resume]

Outcome: The appointment was approved unanimously. Rabinowitz received a round of applause from commissioners and staff.

Support for Minimum Wage Increase

The May 7 agenda included a resolution calling for an increase in Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

At the board’s April 2, 2014 meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had indicated his intent to bring forward this resolution. Earlier that day, President Barack Obama had given a speech at the University of Michigan that focused on the need to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10.

The resolution debated on May 7 includes a quote from Obama’s speech: “We believe our economy grows best not from the top down, but from the middle out, and from the bottom up paychecks and wages that allow you to support a family…Nobody who works full-time should be raising their family in poverty.” [.pdf of resolution]

The two resolved clauses state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby voices support for the efforts of President Obama to increase the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 per hour.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners supports the current efforts of legislators and citizen groups to increase Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

There was no discussion on this item prior to the vote.

Outcome: The resolution passed, over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Not voting yes was also Dan Smith (R-District 2), who stated “Present” for his vote. In the past, Smith has objected to the board weighing in on state-level issues. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was not in the room when the vote was taken.

Resolutions of Appreciation

The May 7 meeting included three resolutions that showed appreciation in various ways:

• Declaring the week of May 11-17, 2014 as Police and Correction Officers Week, and designating May 15, 2014 as Peace Officers Memorial Day to honor all police and corrections officers who’ve lost their lives in the line of duty;
• Recognizing work of the county’s office of community & economic development as part of the 50th anniversary of the federal Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, when community action agencies were created, and declaring May 2014 as Community Action Month;
• Honoring Tyler Lukomski, a Chelsea resident, for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College and a member of the county’s Community Action Board, accepted the resolution declaring May as Community Action Month. He thanked commissioners for including human services in their list of budget priorities, and for committing $1.15 million to coordinated funding.

Communications & Commentary

During the May 7 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Environmental Issues

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d been in Lansing talking with Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality staff about the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume. He said it seems like there’s progress on that issue, although the timeline is much longer than he hoped. He said he’d continue to press on that.

Rabhi also said he’d met with residents from the west side of the county about the threat of oil extraction. A drilling permit has been applied for in Scio Township, and residents are afraid that the state will grant the permit. Residents might be coming to the county board to ask for support in delaying the permitting process, so that there could be more community input. He hoped to bring forward a resolution at the May 21 meeting.

Update: A resolution is now on the May 21 agenda. The two resolved clauses state:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Washtenaw County, Michigan:

1. Opposes said oil exploration and drilling, and any future oil exploration and drilling in this area and other areas within the boundaries of Washtenaw County; and

2. Respectfully requests that the Michigan Supervisor of Wells, as part of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, deny the permit application to drill the Wing 1-15 well as proposed; and

3. Hereby requests that the State of Michigan and federal legislators move to enact legislation and improve regulations to reduce the risks to public health, safety, welfare and the environment posed by the oil and gas industry, and re-commit to promoting and protecting quality of life, our economic well-being, and our environment through less reliance on non-renewable energy resources.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted as the County’s official comment on said oil drilling permit and application by the Clerk, to each elected official representing Washtenaw County in Lansing, the Office of the Governor, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a similar resolution opposing oil exploration in Scio Township.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The city is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners include Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

City council action came at its May 19, 2014 meeting.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the city is providing $1,244,629.

FY 15       Funding Source                                        
$1,244,629  City of Ann Arbor General Fund                    
$1,760,708  United Way of Washtenaw County                    
$1,015,000  Washtenaw County's General Fund                   
$  274,907  Washtenaw Urban County CDBG funds                 
$   26,250  Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation senior funds 
========== 
$4,321,494  TOTAL

-

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

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized by the city council at its Nov. 7, 2013 and by the Washtenaw County board on Nov. 6, 2013. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

The RNR Foundation funding will go toward the planning/coordination and capacity building components of the effort, so their funding is not listed among the items in the program operating component.

Here’s a breakdown of how the program operating component of the city of Ann Arbor’s share will be allocated:

   
   FY 2015  Agency
   $20,000  Barrier Busters 
   $30,000  Peace Neighborhood Center
   $35,069  Ozone House Inc.
   $54,168  Domestic Violence Project Inc. dba SafeHouse Center
   $56,396  UM Regents (Community Dental Center, Housing Bureau for Seniors)
   $85,500  Avalon Housing 
   $90,786  Child Care Network
  $102,156  Food Gatherers
  $115,558  The Salvation Army of Washtenaw County
  $122,095  Washtenaw Community Health Organization
  $160,761  Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
  $164,660  Community Action Network
  $207,480  Legal Services of South Central Michigan
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

That compares with the current fiscal year as follows:

 
  FY 2014   Agency
   $4,561   HIV/AIDS Resource Center     
  $12,772   Washtenaw Association for Community Advocacy     
  $14,282   Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan     
  $17,139   Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County
  $19,835   Barrier Busters     
  $23,719   UM Regents - Ann Arbor Meals on Wheels     
  $27,369   The Women's Center of Southeastern Michigan     
  $63,419   Home of New Vision
  $91,645   Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County     
  $94,490   Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw     
  $95,171   Food Gatherers     
 $104,944   Community Action Network
 $109,851   Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor     
 $142,851   Avalon Housing Inc.     
 $177,052   Services of South Central Michigan
 $245,529   Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

The coordinated funding approach sometimes results in the same programs being funded – but by different funders. This year, the city of Ann Arbor is funding a program for Peace Neighborhood Center; last year Washtenaw County provided funding ($19,995) for Peace Neighborhood Center. And last year, the city of Ann Arbor funded a University of Michigan meals-on-wheels program; this year, United Way is funding that program.

Recipients of funds in one year are not guaranteed funding the following year. An example of that is the Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan, which received $27,369 from the city of Ann Arbor last year for a mental health program, but is not receiving funds as part of the coordinated funding program this year.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

Results on the outcome on many individual agenda items can be found published as separate briefs in the Civic News Ticker section of the website. A summary of the FY 2015 budget deliberations will be available here, when its is published: [link]

The council’s second meeting in May is specified in the city charter as the occasion for the council to adopt the city administrator’s proposed budget with any amendments. If the council does not take action by its second meeting in May, the city administrator’s proposed budget is adopted by default. The Chronicle has previously reported a preview of some possible budget amendments: [here].

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

The council’s May 19 meeting agenda includes more than just the adoption of the budget.

Related to the setting of the annual budget are items like setting fees associated with the public services area (for example, site plan review) and the community services area (for example, farmers market stall fees), as well as rate increases for water, sewer and stormwater utilities.

Also related to the budget – and not just for this next year – is an agenda item that will revise the city’s policies for contributions to the city’s pension system and retiree health care. In broad strokes, those revisions are meant to accelerate contributions during a strong economy and maintain contributions at least at the level of the actuary-recommended amount during weaker economies.

Another budget-related item on the May 19 agenda is one related to the social infrastructure of the community – allocation of general fund money to nonprofits that provide human services. The city approaches this allocation through a process that is coordinated with Washtenaw County, the United Way, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and other partners. The total amount allocated for the operation of programs is about $4.3 million. The city of Ann Arbor’s general fund contribution is about $1.2 million, which is the same amount that has been contributed for the last several years.

Related to human services support is an agenda item that would accept a $113,154 planning grant from the Michigan Supreme Court to establish a specialized mental health court.

Along with social infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the harsh winter. The resolution that the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The council will also be asked to approve money for building new physical infrastructure – about $2.6 million for the reconstruction of a segment of Pontiac Trail. The segment stretches north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The street reconstruction project also includes water mains, sanitary sewer, and construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes.

Special assessments to pay for three other sidewalk projects also appear on the council’s agenda in various stages of the special assessment process. Those future projects are located on Barton Drive, Scio Church Road, and Newport Road.

The council will be asked to approve the city’s application for federal funding to support the acquisition of development rights in Superior Township for two pieces of property on either side of Vreeland Road. The properties are near other parcels already protected as part of the city’s greenbelt initiative.

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment to his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Fees and Rates

On the council’s agenda are rate increases for utilities (water, sewer and stormwater) as well as fee increases for the public services and community services area.

Fees and Rates: Water, Sewer, Stormwater

Water rates are proposed to increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates would increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

The utility rates are part of a city ordinance. So the council will be considering initial approval at its May 19 meeting, with final approval to come at its first meeting in June – on June 2.

Fees and Rates: Community and Public Services Area

Fee increases in the community services area and the public services area will be considered by the council at its May 19 meeting.

For community services, increases are being proposed for stall fees at the Ann Arbor public market (farmers market). Currently, the basic annual fee for rental of a stall is $300. It’s proposed to be increased to $450 – a 50% increase.

If approved by the council, the fee increase would be projected to generate $26,000 in additional revenue. However, this additional revenue has not been assumed in the proposed FY 2015 budget.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, “market fees were last increased in 2009 and have not kept pace with the overall increase of annual operating costs during this same time period.” A comparative analysis of Ann Arbor’s fees also showed that Ann Arbor’s fees are well below those of comparable markets.

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, including three in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, excluding those in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In the public services area, fees for a variety of services are being considered – for such items as site plan review, soil and sedimentation control. According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the increases consider labor, material and supplies, equipment, and overhead cost and are aimed at full cost recovery. The increases are generally in the range of 1% to 5%.

Pension and VEBA Funding Policy

The council will be considering policies for making contributions to the pension and retiree health care plan that is supposed to ensure that the plans are eventually fully funded. The policy would set the funding at the higher of two different figures: (1) the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) rate; or (2) the existing level of contributions adjusted for the change in general fund revenues. That would have an impact of establishing a minimum increase in funding of 2% per year.

The operative language in the policy is:

If the General Fund revenues are projected to increase less than 2%, the city’s contribution shall increase 2%; thereby establishing a minimum increase of 2% per year.

Social Infrastructure

The council’s agenda includes two items that can be characterized as funding social infrastructure: the annual general fund allocations to nonprofits that provide human services; and the acceptance of a planning grant for the 15th District Court to establish a mental health court.

Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding

The council will be asked at its May 19 meeting to approve funding allocations to nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders.

The city is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners include Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the city is providing $1,244,629.

FY 15       Funding Source                                        
$1,244,629  City of Ann Arbor General Fund                    
$1,760,708  United Way of Washtenaw County                    
$1,015,000  Washtenaw County's General Fund                   
$  274,907  Washtenaw Urban County CDBG funds                 
$   26,250  Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation senior funds 
========== 
$4,321,494  TOTAL

-

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

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized by the city council at its Nov. 7, 2013 and by the Washtenaw County board on Nov. 6, 2013. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

The RNR Foundation funding will go toward the planning/coordination and capacity building components of the effort, so their funding is not listed among the items in the program operating component.

Here’s a breakdown of how the program operating component of the city of Ann Arbor’s share will be allocated:

   
   FY 2015  Agency
   $20,000  Barrier Busters 
   $30,000  Peace Neighborhood Center
   $35,069  Ozone House Inc.
   $54,168  Domestic Violence Project Inc. dba SafeHouse Center
   $56,396  UM Regents (Community Dental Center, Housing Bureau for Seniors)
   $85,500  Avalon Housing 
   $90,786  Child Care Network
  $102,156  Food Gatherers
  $115,558  The Salvation Army of Washtenaw County
  $122,095  Washtenaw Community Health Organization
  $160,761  Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
  $164,660  Community Action Network
  $207,480  Legal Services of South Central Michigan
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

That compares with the current fiscal year as follows:

 
  FY 2014   Agency
   $4,561   HIV/AIDS Resource Center     
  $12,772   Washtenaw Association for Community Advocacy     
  $14,282   Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan     
  $17,139   Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County
  $19,835   Barrier Busters     
  $23,719   UM Regents - Ann Arbor Meals on Wheels     
  $27,369   The Women's Center of Southeastern Michigan     
  $63,419   Home of New Vision
  $91,645   Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County     
  $94,490   Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw     
  $95,171   Food Gatherers     
 $104,944   Community Action Network
 $109,851   Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor     
 $142,851   Avalon Housing Inc.     
 $177,052   Services of South Central Michigan
 $245,529   Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

The coordinated funding approach sometimes results in the same programs being funded – but by different funders. This year, the city of Ann Arbor is funding a program for Peace Neighborhood Center; last year Washtenaw County provided funding ($19,995) for Peace Neighborhood Center. And last year, the city of Ann Arbor funded a University of Michigan meals-on-wheels program; this year, United Way is funding that program.

Recipients of funds in one year are not guaranteed funding the following year. An example of that is the Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan, which received $27,369 from the city of Ann Arbor last year for a mental health program, but is not receiving funds as part of the coordinated funding program this year.

Social Infrastructure: Mental Health Court

The council is being asked to approve the receipt of a planning grant of $113,154 from the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) to fund the planning for a mental health court program.

According to the staff memo accompanying the item, mental health courts are problem-solving courts “that focus on therapeutic treatment for offenders with mental illnesses whose crimes are a result of their mental illness.”

The memo continues:

Eligible defendants are diverted into judicially supervised, community-based treatment to address the underlying problems. The program uses a team approach to address the participant’s needs for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment while also linking the participant with ancillary services such as education, housing, job skills or other individualized assistance. The goal is to assist participants in bettering their lives while also benefiting the community by reducing jail time, recidivism rates, and court docket congestion.

The 15th District Court already operates several specialized courts – a sobriety court, a homeless court, veterans court and domestic violence court. The mental health court would be operated in addition to those other specialized courts.

For background on the 15th District Court’s specialized “problem-solving” courts from last year’s Chronicle reporting, see: “Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court.”

Physical Infrastructure

Physical infrastructure appears on the council’s May 19 agenda in several forms: an allocation of money to deal with damage to systems from the harsh winter; a Pontiac Trail street reconstruction project; and several sidewalk projects.

Physical Infrastructure: Winter Damage

The council will be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the severe winter weather.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, compared to last year there was a 36% increase in water main breaks and a 950% increase of broken water services. Compared to the previous two years winters, the 2013-14 winter had 272% more snow and a 450% increase in required plowing. That meant additional use of materials like ice-control salt, sand, cold-patch, pipe, repair clamps and fittings – in addition to higher-than-anticipated work hours and overtime, and increased equipment costs.

The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The work will include frozen service line repairs, pavement marking, and road surface repair. The work is not anticipated to be completed until well after June 30, 2014 – the end of the current fiscal year.

At a May 12 city council work session, public services area administrator Craig Hupy presented the council with some data on the age of the city’s piping system, saying that for the water pipes, those that were constructed in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are more problematic than those built before and after that period. Still, he indicated that the city’s breakage rate was considered low for a system that is as old as Ann Arbor’s.

Ann Arbor Sanitary Sewer System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

Ann Arbor Water System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

City of Ann Arbor Water Main Breaks by Year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor Comprehensive Annual Financial Report)

Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail

The council will consider two resolutions in connection with a street reconstruction project on Pontiac Trail.

The first is a $2,605,190 contract with Evergreen Civil LLC for construction of the project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning north of Skydale Drive to south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The project also includes extending water mains and sewer pipes, as well as construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes. The memo also indicates the project will include stormwater infiltration trenches, edge drains, and the addition of a small section of curb and gutter. The project is expected to begin in June of 2014 and be completed by fall of 2014.

The other contract to be considered by the council in connection with the Pontiac Trail project is $46,879 for Professional Services Industries Inc. for materials testing.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, city project manager Nick Hutchinson indicated that the council would be presented at its June 16 meeting with the next in a series of resolutions on special assessment to help fund the sidewalk portion of the Pontiac Trail project. The council had voted at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting to direct the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project. The special assessment process requires the setting of an assessment roll and the holding of a public hearing before a special assessment can be imposed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks

Three other sidewalk projects that are further along in the special assessment process than Pontiac Trail are also on the council’s May 19 agenda: Barton Road, Scio Church and Newport Road.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Newport Road

A public hearing on the Newport Road sidewalk special assessment, which started on May 5, will continue at the council’s May 19 meeting. For the sidewalk segment on Newport Road, the council had approved at its April 21, 2014 meeting a resolution directing the city assessor to prepare a special assessment roll of properties to be assessed. The council took action to set the public hearing on the Newport Road special assessment for May 5.

The total amount to be special assessed for the Newport Road project is $49,746. But residents of the Newport Creek Site Condominium – who would not ordinarily be assessed, as their property isn’t adjacent to the sidewalk – have volunteered to contribute $10,228 to the project to help offset their neighbors’ assessments. Details of that arrangement are being finalized.

However, several residents spoke at the May 5 public hearing, opposing the special assessment.

Newport Road sidewalk stretch.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church

Again on the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and set a public hearing (to be held June 16) for the special assessment of a Scio Church Road sidewalk. Action on the Scio Church sidewalk project special assessment had been postponed at the council’s April 21, 2014 meeting until May 19.

For this sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626. It was the size of the total amount of special assessment that led to the postponement. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) argued at the April 21 meeting that the amount to be assessed was not worth the staff time to follow all the bureaucratic procedures involved in implementing the special assessment. He also called for 80% of any sidewalk project to be funded through non-special assessed funds.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

Physical Infrastructure Sidewalks – Barton Road

On the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and a public hearing (to be held on June 16) for the special assessment of a Barton Drive sidewalk. The sidewalk to be special assessed was part of an approval given at the council’s April 21 meeting: The council approved $177,100 of city funds for the construction of the Scio Church Road sidewalk and for an additional sidewalk on Barton Drive.

The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

By way of additional background, approval of the design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church Road stretches of new sidewalk had been approved by the city council at its March 3, 2014 meeting.

And at its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council had approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive. Even earlier – at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting – the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work. The design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church stretches of new sidewalk drew on the previously authorized funding.

The preliminary planning budget of $15,000 for the Newport Road sidewalk gap was approved over a year ago by the council at its Jan. 23, 2013 meeting.

Greenbelt

At its May 19 meeting, the city council will be asked to consider approval of application to the federal Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) program to protect 260 acres of farmland located in Superior Township. The ALE program now includes what was previously known as the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. Additional properties under the same ownership, adjacent to the farmland parcels, are also being considered for inclusion in the city’s greenbelt program, and the Vreeland Road properties are near other properties already protected as part of the greenbelt – the Meyer Preserve, the Jack R. Smiley Preserve and the Schultz conservation easement. Cherry Hill Nature Preserve is located just north of the property. [.jpg of greenbelt properties as of May 2014]

Here’s a dynamic map of properties outside the city already protected under the city’s greenbelt program. A 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003, funds both the greenbelt program as well as land acquisition for city parks. The border indicates the area where greenbelt funds can be spent to protect properties.

Appointments

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment for his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

Hollins is a staffer with the Great Lakes Commission. She’s being appointed because David Stead’s lengthy service on the commission – dating from 2000, when the commission was established – had generated opposition among some councilmembers. Nominations to the environmental commission are made by the council as a whole, not by the mayor. In offering the substitute nomination, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated in an email to other councilmembers that “David Stead has decided that his life is busy enough he cannot do justice to serving on the commission.”

White was appointed to the historic district commission for his first three-year term in 2005.

4:39 p.m. The staff’s written responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available: [.pdf of May 19, 2014 agenda responses]

4:55 p.m. The final versions of possible budget amendments are now available. [.pdf of possible amendments to FY 2015 budget]

6:53 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

6:54 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) have arrived. City administrator Steve Powers is also here.

6:56 p.m. McKinley CEO Al Berriz is in attendance. Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko is also here – as he’s signed up to address the council during public commentary. One possible budget amendment is to eliminate $75,000 of annual funding for SPARK in favor of allocating that sum to human services. Skip Simms from SPARK is also here.

6:57 p.m. Eaton is quizzing high school students who are here to satisfy a class requirement. He lobs a softball: Do we live in a democracy or under a dictatorship?

6:58 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) has now arrived.

6:58 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is also here, talking to people in the audience.

7:02 p.m. Remaining councilmembers are filtering in. Not yet spotted are Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

7:13 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:13 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:14 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:16 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wants to move the LDFA budget amendment to the start of the amendment sequence. Teall moves DS-12 after DS-2. DS-12 is the human services allocation.

7:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve its agenda.

7:17 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers notes that on Memorial Day there will be no garbage pickup. That’s also the day the city pools open.

7:17 p.m. INT-1 Volunteer of Month: First Martin. First Martin Corp is being recognized for the work it did on the roundabout garden at Huron Parkway and Nixon. First Martin also maintains Liberty Plaza downtown and Wheeler Park on Depot Street.

7:17 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Eight people are signed up to speak on the issue of the FY 2015 city budget: Ray Gholston, Greg Pratt, Zoltan Jung, James Billingslea, Marc Bleckmann, Diane Kreger, Paul Krutko, and Tim Marshall. Alan Haber is signed up as an alternate to talk about the budget. Kermit Schlansker is signed up to talk about global warming and poverty. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about the critical need for increased funding for human services and supporting Mark Schauer’s candidacy for governor of Michigan.

7:20 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a Ward 5 resident and a recent candidate for various public offices. He’s here to talk about the critical need for affordable housing and affordable transportation. The city has come up with a formula for dividing up money for human services, which is very complicated, he says. Overall there’s not a high enough regard for human services, affordable housing and transportation, education or health services for the most vulnerable residents of the city. He tells the council they need to go back and come up with a better formula to support expanded funding for human services.

7:23 p.m. Ray Gholston introduces himself as a local human rights activist. He thanks the council for its concern and consideration of a resolution that would support a warming center. He says the Delonis Center has been doing a good job for over a decade, but they should not have to shoulder the burden alone.

7:26 p.m. Greg Pratt says he’s excited about Amendment 15, which would mean a $75,000 jump in human services funding. He’s supporting that. There’s been a glut of “corporate” welfare, he says. He allows that subsequent speakers might have a different perspective. But it’s important to have a stream of funds that support those who need it. He also supports Amendment 9, which he describes as “seed money.”

7:28 p.m. Zoltan Jung lives on Barton Drive. He’s talking about traffic calming. He puts it in the context of livability. Many residents have seen their livability decrease due to speeders and reckless drivers. He lives on Northside Avenue where kids can’t play on the street, because people use it as a cut-through. Traffic calming isn’t an end unto itself, he says. On Wells Street, the measures aren’t integrated into the Burns Park Elementary situation, he says. If you put a bump somewhere, that can just displace the problem. So traffic calming can’t be done in isolation.

7:31 p.m. James Billingslea is a Ward 1 resident. He’s speaking on behalf of bicyclists and pedestrians, who use his street. Cars have lost control on nine occasions, he says. His neighbor Joyce had nine cars wind up on her yard in a two-month period this winter, he says. At 25 mph, it takes 23 seconds to go down the entire street. They have to be constantly vigilant. Simply deploying more police officers or deploying traffic calming solutions is not going to solve the problem, he says. Cars are currently designed to help cars travel quickly, he says, not for the benefit of the community.

7:34 p.m. Marc Bleckmann lives on Northside Avenue. His kids attend Northside Elementary, which is a 10-minute walk to the school. But unfortunately that walk can be dangerous. He says that commuters “fly down the hypotenuse” of Northside Avenue when they use it as a cut-through. It’s one of many dangerous pedestrian situations, he says. He calls on the council to improve the livability of Ann Arbor by addressing this kind of problem.

7:35 p.m. Diane Kreger hopes it’s not redundant for the council to hear again from a resident of Northside Avenue. But she supports the budget amendment that would put more money toward traffic calming. [The amendment would reduce public art administration from $80,000 to $40,000 and allocate $40,000 to traffic calming.] She calls for effective traffic calming measures.

7:38 p.m. Paul Krutko is CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK. He discourages the council from passing Amendment 1 and Amendment 15. He points to the partnership among various municipalities that supports SPARK. Last year, the council’s support resulted in $21 million worth of projects and created 752 jobs, he says. He points to the re-occupancy of the former Borders building in downtown Ann Arbor, he says. He’s proud of the business development work SPARK has done, he says.

7:39 p.m. Tim Marshall is not here.

7:41 p.m. Kermit Schlansker says that the conservative’s cure for poverty is to ignore it. The liberal’s solution is to get someone else to pay for it, he says. Neither is a good solution. He calls for land to be made available to poor people so that they can grow their own food. He calls for multi-purpose clusters of people. In the fall, city people should go out and help with the harvest, he says. He describes how the poor can eventually pay off their debt and own their own land. Land should belong to people who till it, not those who mow it, he says.

7:45 p.m. Alan Haber says he’s here to provide his usual alternative view. He’s going to be away for much of the summer, so he won’t be here to remind the council about the importance of the community. It’s important to have a human resource, he says. He feels like he’s not been getting through to the council. Haber is talking about the works of Peter Linebaugh. He wants the council to have a conversation about what a community commons is. It’s not just about the money, it’s about the human part, he says.

7:45 p.m. Communications from the council.

7:47 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thanks the city attorney’s office for issuing cease-and-desist letters to Uber and Lyft. There’s a meeting of the taxicab board this Thursday at 8:30 a.m., he says. He offers his condolences to the family that lost one of their own in a fire on Shady Lane last week.

7:48 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) highlights the fact that there are three vacancies on the environmental commission. She encourages people to apply. She also says that housing and human services advisory board also has some vacancies.

7:48 p.m. MC-1 appointments. The council is being asked to confirm the re-appointment of Bob White to the historic district commission for a fourth three-year term.

7:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm Bob White’s re-appointment to the historic district commission.

7:48 p.m. MC-2 nominations Larry Eiler is being nominated to the Economic Development Corporation, replacing Daniel Blakemore. Andy Baker-White and Amanda Carlisle are being nominated to the housing and human services advisory board. A vote on their confirmations will come at the council’s next meeting.

7:48 p.m. Public Hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Any action on the related items comes later in the meeting. There’s no action item associated with tonight’s only public hearing – on a special assessment to be levied to help pay for the a sidewalk along Newport Road. This public hearing is being continued from the council’s previous meeting, when several property owners spoke against it. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Newport Road above.]

7:50 p.m. PH-1 Newport Road sidewalk special assessment. Eric Preisner is a resident of Ward 1, representing the Riverwood subdivision homeowners association. As a group, they’re in support of the proposal. The affirmative vote was 75% in favor, he says.

7:55 p.m. Thomas Partridge says there should be consideration given to some of the property owners, including a church that will be special assessed, he says. Those who have special hardships or circumstances should not be pressed into a one-size-fits-all special assessment, he says.

7:55 p.m. A resident who spoke last time asks to speak. His question is going to be handled by public services area administrator Craig Hupy away from the podium.

7:55 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Approve contract for construction materials testing with Professional Services Industries Inc. for the Pontiac Trail improvements project ($46,879). [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail above.]
• CA-2 Street Closing: N. Fourth Avenue and E. Ann Street for the 19th Annual African-American Downtown Festival (Friday, June 6, 2014 to Saturday, June 7, 2014).
• CA-3 Approve April 24, 2014 recommendations of the board of insurance administration.

7:55 p.m. CA-1 Approve contract for construction materials testing with Professional Services Industries Inc. for the Pontiac Trail improvements project ($46,879).

7:56 p.m. Briere says she’s gotten a lot of questions about whether the city monitors the quality of the materials used for street improvement project. This resolution shows that the city does monitor material quality, she says.

7:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has completed its approval of the consent agenda.

7:57 p.m. C-1 Amend Sections 2:63, 2:64, and 2:69 of Chapter 29 (Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Rates). These are the annual rate increases for water, sewer and stormwater. [For background, see Fees and Rates: Water, Sewer, Stormwater above.]

7:59 p.m. Lumm says that the utility rates aren’t something that the council discusses a lot. These increases will increase city revenues by a total of $2.3 million, so it’s worth talking about, she says. There are significant capital needs, she says. She’s comfortable that the increases are needed, she says. Based on her experience on the board of insurance review, it’s clear that the city’s utility infrastructure is aging, she says. This kind of rate increase has been imposed in recent years in an attempt to level out the needed increases, she says.

7:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the increases in utility rates.

7:59 p.m. DC-1 Environmental commission appointment. This resolution would appoint Katherine Hollins to the environmental commission. Hollins is a staffer with the Great Lakes Commission.

8:00 p.m. Briere says she has little to add except that Hollins would begin her service on June 1.

8:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to appoint Hollins to the environmental commission.

8:00 p.m. DC-2 Authorization to join amicus brief in Deboer v Snyder and Schuette. This resolution follows on a resolution approved at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting to ask that Gov. Rick Snyder and attorney general Bill Schuette not appeal the ruling of judge Bernard Friedman on the Deboer et al v Richard Snyder et al case – that the Michigan statute on marriage impermissibly discriminates against same-sex couples in violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. This resolution authorizes adding the city of Ann Arbor to a list of municipalities supporting an amicus brief, as the case now is being heard before the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

8:02 p.m. Taylor reminds the public of the council’s previous resolution urging the dropping of the appeal. He says that it’s not surprising that Snyder and Schuette have gone ahead with the appeal. Even though the city is not a litigant, it’s common that parties who will be affected by a decision will weigh in with an amicus brief, he says.

8:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to authorize adding Ann Arbor to a list of municipalities supporting the finding that Michigan’s definition of marriage discriminates impermissibly against same-sex couples.

8:02 p.m. DC-3 Remove funding in CIP for city hall reskin. This resolution would recommend to the planning commission that the six-year capital improvement plan for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for the city hall re-skinning project. The planning commission is the body that approves the CIP. The council has budgetary discretion to fund projects in the CIP or not.

8:03 p.m. By way of background, the “reskin” would eliminate the stairstepped shape of the Larcom Building by dropping the exterior straight down from the top floor, thereby adding square footage to the lower stories.

8:04 p.m. Lumm is arguing that the reskin “might be nice” but that there are other more pressing capital needs.

8:06 p.m. Petersen characterizes the project as mostly cosmetic, although there are some energy efficiency components. She wants to retain those aspects of the project. Lumm says that the kind of amendment that Petersen is indicating isn’t possible because the amounts aren’t known. Hieftje says that this isn’t timely and that there’s a lot on tonight’s agenda. He thinks it should be postponed.

8:09 p.m. Briere notes that the resolution asks the planning commission to remove funding, which it’s not empowered to do. Teall moves for postponement until June 2.

Lumm is arguing for her proposal to remove the reskinning. Kunselman supports the postponement. He characterizes the CIP as a “wish list” and notes that the council controls the funding. He’s not worried about the fact that the reskinning project is in the CIP. The planning commission is putting the CIP together based on its statutory responsibilities, he says.

8:10 p.m. Kunselman says he’s willing to postpone it, but asking the planning commission to remove it doesn’t really do much.

8:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the item on the city hall reskinning until June 2.

8:10 p.m. Opposition to oil drilling. This resolution would oppose the oil exploration and drilling proposed by West Bay Exploration under MDEQ permit application #AI40053. The drilling would not take place inside the city limits, as the city is empowered by the state to prohibit drilling, which it does through the city code. However, the location in Scio Township is within two miles from the city limits and less than a mile from the Huron River, which is the source of the majority of the city’s drinking water.

The state zoning enabling act, as revised in 2006, deprives townships and counties of the ability to regulate drilling. Opposition to the drilling is grounded in concerns about the impact on the drinking water supply of the city, especially in the context of a 1,4 dioxane plume in the area of the proposed drilling activity.

In addition to expressing opposition to the proposed drilling in the shorter term and in the future, the text of the resolution requests that the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality require an environmental impact assessment, including impacts to surrounding natural resources and public health, before making a decision. Further, the resolution calls on state legislators to revise the state’s zoning enabling act to provide townships and counties with the power to regulate drilling activity.

8:11 p.m. Warpehoski, the resolution’s sponsor, is providing the context of this item. He has consulted with community activists and notes that city administrator Steve Powers has sent a letter to the MDEQ. He’s reviewing the specific content of the resolution.

8:13 p.m. Warpehoski notes that the city has language in its city code prohibiting drilling, but townships don’t have the power to enact such a prohibition. He says he considered putting off the resolution, given the full agenda tonight, but the time constraints of the permitting process were fairly tight, he said. Taylor offers remarks in support of the resolution.

8:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted approve the resolution in opposition to drilling.

8:13 p.m. DB-1 Approve grant applications for USDA support for purchase of development rights (PDR). This resolution would approve application to the federal Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) program to protect 260 acres of farmland located in Superior Township. The ALE program now includes what was previously known as the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. [For background, see Greenbelt above.]

8:15 p.m. Taylor, who serves on the greenbelt advisory commission, is describing the content of the resolution. He says it’s a very useful and important source of funds to help leverage the city’s greenbelt dollars. Lumm asks that a map be provided – which it turns out was added late. Lumm asks if the city anticipates other funding sources besides the federal grant and city greenbelt funds. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl says that Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and Superior Township might contribute funds.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the grant application to the USDA program for purchase of development rights in connection with the city’s greenbelt program and properties in Superior Township.

8:15 p.m. DS-1 Scio Church sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 2 ($1,626.00). This resolution would direct the preparation of the special assessment roll. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church above.]

8:17 p.m. Kunselman says this had been postponed so that the city attorney could provide some clarification on equity issues. He’s willing to support this, but says it’s foolish to be special assessing that small an amount. City attorney Stephen Postema says that that analysis was provided to the council. He says the de minimus issue Kunselman had asked about is not a recognized method of dealing with an exception.

8:20 p.m. Lumm says that even though it’s a small amount, the city needs to be consistent and the rules need to be followed. She doesn’t know what to do about situations where a federal grant is available for some cases and not others. Eaton says that the legal analysis was actually that there’s no case law that’s on point. He says that the houses that haven’t had a sidewalk for some time wouldn’t suffer a detriment. The whole neighborhood is getting a benefit, and the three properties that are being special assessed would not get a special benefit, he says.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct preparation of the assessment roll for the Scio Church sidewalk project, over the lone dissent of Eaton.

8:20 p.m. DS-2 Scio Church sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 3 (set public hearing). This resolution would set the public hearing on the Scio Church sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set a public hearing on the Scio Church sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:21 p.m. DS-12 Approve FY 2015 and FY 2016 allocations to non-profit entities for human services ($1,244,629). This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the city is providing $1,244,629. [For background, see Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding above.]

8:23 p.m. Lumm is thanking staff and everyone who worked so hard on this. There’s a very robust and through process in place to ensures that money flows to those in most need. Teall says it’s a very complex process and not everybody will end up happy. Mary Jo Callan and Andrea Plevek – staff with the county’s office of community and economic development – are at the podium to describe the process of coordinated funding.

8:24 p.m. Callan is noting that there was a little less funding this year, with a lot more requests for a lot more money.

8:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the human services allocations made through the coordinated funding process.

8:25 p.m. DS-3 Award contract to Evergreen LLC for Pontiac Trail Improvements Project ($2,605,190). According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning north of Skydale Drive to south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The project also includes extending water mains and sewer pipes, as well as construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes. The memo also indicates the project will include stormwater infiltration trenches, edge drains, and the addition of a small section of curb and gutter. The project is expected to begin in June of 2014 and be completed by fall of 2014. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail above.]

8:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to award the contract to Evergreen LLC for the Pontiac Trail improvement project.

8:26 p.m. DS-4 Appropriate funds from major street ($1,700,000), local street ($638,000), and water funds ($666,000) to address severe winter expenses and damage. This resolution would allocate money needed to pay for added expenses resulting from the severe winter. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, compared to last year there was a 36% increase in water main breaks and a 950% increase of broken water services.

Compared to the previous two years winters, the 2013-14 winter had 272% more snow and a 450% increase in required plowing. That meant additional use of materials like ice-control salt, sand, cold-patch, pipe, repair clamps and fittings – in addition to higher-than-anticipated work hours and overtime, and increased equipment costs. The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Winter Damage above.]

8:29 p.m. Briere says that her understanding is that this money comes from fund balance. City administrator Steve Powers tells Briere that over $400,000 came from the state of Michigan through an emergency appropriation. Craig Hupy says that there were more than 100 water main breaks but that still puts Ann Arbor in the better half of municipalities. Lumm says that the council knew this was coming but didn’t know what the price tag would be.

8:31 p.m. Kunselman says he appreciates the description of the water main breaks as “average” but he wants to know about the geographic distribution of those breaks. He wants to know if the breaks were in the areas where the mains were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Hupy says that analysis hasn’t been done. Kunselman says he wants to see the geographic distribution of the breaks.

8:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to allocate the additional funds from various sources to cover the expenses associated with the severe winter.

8:32 p.m. DS-5 Approve mental health court planning grant contract ($113,154). The council is being asked to approve the receipt of a planning grant of $113,154 from the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) to fund the planning for a mental health court program. According to the staff memo accompanying the item, mental health courts are problem-solving courts “that focus on therapeutic treatment for offenders with mental illnesses whose crimes are a result of their mental illness.” The 15th District Court already operates several specialized courts – a sobriety court, a homeless court, veterans court and domestic violence court. The mental health court would be operated in addition to those other specialized courts.

8:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the planning grant for a mental health court.

8:33 p.m. DS-6 Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 2 ($1,980). This resolution would set the special assessment roll for the Barton Drive sidewalk project. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure Sidewalks – Barton Road above.]

8:37 p.m. Briere wants to note that much of the cost is being borne by the city and federal government, but there’s a small assessment for owners on Barton Drive. This is something that people in the Northside neighborhood have been demanding for a long time, she says. Kunselman says he’s appreciative of the fact that the city and federal funds are covering much of the cost. The resulting amount of the special assessment is very small and it’s just a couple of parcels that are carrying the burden for a greater community benefit, he says. For the next meeting, he’ll be requesting that the city come back and pay for the Barton and the Scio Church special assessments.

8:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the setting of the assessment roll for the Barton Drive sidewalk project.

8:37 p.m. DS-7 Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 3 (set a public hearing). This resolution would set the public hearing on the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:38 p.m. Briere makes two points. She’d like to have a longer discussion about whether it’s rational for the city to special assess individual property owners for a larger community benefit. She also asks that the wording be corrected to fix a copy-paste error.

8:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set a public hearing on the Baron Drive sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:38 p.m. DS-8 Adopt revised funding policies for pension and VEBA. The council will be considering policies for making contributions to the pension and retiree health care plan that are supposed to ensure that the plans are eventually fully funded. The policy would set the funding at the higher of two different figures: (1) the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) rate; or (2) the existing level of contributions adjusted for the change in general fund revenues. That would have an impact of establishing a minimum increase in funding of 2% per year.

8:39 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the content of the resolution and how the minimum contribution is 2%. She says she supports this resolution 110%.

8:40 p.m. Kailasapathy notes that there’s about $100 million in unfunded pension liability and about $160 million in unfunded VEBA. So this is an important resolution, she says.

8:40 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt the revised funding policies for the pension and VEBA plans.

8:40 p.m. DS-9 Approve FY 2015 fee adjustments for public services area. These are the fees in the areas of project management, systems planning, field operations and customer service.

8:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the fee adjustments for the public services area.

8:41 p.m. DS-10 Approve FY 2015 fee adjustments for community services area. The proposed increase this year involves raising farmers market fees. [For background, see Fees and Rates: Community and Public Services Area above.]

8:43 p.m. Lumm focuses on the increases for the stall rental at the farmers market. She’s concerned about the impact on vendors. She calls the staff analysis of the comparative rates at other markets very helpful. She says that the process was followed correctly. She’ll support this, but still has some concerns, she says.

8:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the fee adjustments for the community services area.

8:43 p.m. Recess.

8:50 p.m. Here’s a number list of possible amendments the council will consider when the meeting resumes. [.pdf of possible FY 2015 budget amendments]

8:55 p.m. Jane Lumm is passing out Keebler cheese and crackers to colleagues during the break.

8:58 p.m. We’re back.

8:58 p.m. DS-11 Adopt FY 2015 city budget. For background on the budget and possible amendments, see: “Budget Debate Preview: Cops, Leaves.” For final versions of possible amendments to the budget – numbered in a way that councilmembers will likely reference during tonight’s deliberations – see: [.pdf of possible FY 2015 budget amendments]

9:01 p.m. Budget amendment: LDFA, Ann Arbor SPARK. This proposal would eliminate some increases in the budget of the local development finance authority (LDFA) – of $30,000 in incubator operating expense, $20,000 in direct staffing expense, and a $75,000 increase to Ann Arbor SPARK’s marketing plan. So the resolution would decrease the expenditure by $165,379 to the prior year’s level of $1,814,892. The unspent funds would instead be reserved for “future infrastructure improvements.” (Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin)

9:03 p.m. Kailasapathy is reviewing how the LDFA funding has increased as a result of the TIF (tax increment finance) capture. She says that SPARK has had a 70% increase in funding from the LDFA in the last few years.

9:04 p.m. For Kailasapathy, government is all about sharing, she says. When there’s additional windfall revenue, that should be shared, she says.

9:05 p.m. The money should be used for community-based development like high-speed telecommunications. She’s only asking that the budget be capped at $1.814 million, with the rest to be used for infrastructure that will benefit the community, including startups. She’s not taking all their money away, she says.

9:07 p.m. Eaton will support this. Setting aside some of the new TIF capture is consistent with the LDFA foundational documents, which highlight the possibility of adding infrastructure – in the form of high-speed fiber connections. If we want downtown to be a high-tech center, he says, it’s something that could be aimed for. This could be a good start, he says.

9:09 p.m. Petersen says she feels like this budget amendment misses the point. The revenue should be going up, if the LDFA is doing its job. The reason why the LDFA is getting more is because they are giving more, she says. With respect to the fund balance, it’s an incremental increase of $415,000, and the LDFA had decided only $165,000 would go to SPARK and the rest would go to the LDFA fund balance. If there’s a specific recommendation the council wants to make, she’d like to see that as a separate resolution.

9:10 p.m. Anglin notes that earlier in the meeting, utility fees went up for residents. The LDFA is being asked to support infrastructure improvements, he says.

9:12 p.m. Taylor says SPARK is an entity we’re fortunate to have, and SPARK does good things for entrepreneurs and growth. He doesn’t believe the proposal is wise and thinks that SPARK should be given as many resources that they can be legally provided to continue their work.

9:14 p.m. Hieftje gets clarification from Petersen that she’d like a resolution from the city council simply recommending that the LDFA pursue a high-speed fiber network. Petersen indicates that the LDFA board has not gotten to that level of granularity. High-speed fiber is one option, she says. She would love to see a resolution from the council directing the use of fund balance for high-speed fiber. [Petersen serves as the council representative to the LDFA board.]

9:15 p.m. Lumm thinks that the direction Petersen is talking about could be incorporated into this amendment. Lumm notes that the economic collaborative task force, which Petersen led, recommends investment in a high-speed fiber network.

9:15 p.m. Lumm is working on a possible revision to the amendment.

9:17 p.m. Eaton says that the language Lumm is trying to add is already in the last resolved clause – so he doesn’t think Lumm’s revision is necessary. Briere asks for someone from the LDFA to come forward.

9:20 p.m. Carrie Leahy, the chair of the LDFA board, and former councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, who’s a member of the LDFA board, are at the podium to field questions. They’re describing how the LDFA relies on SPARK to provide required reporting, that could be driven by the extension of the LDFA (by 5 or 15 years). SPARK had asked for additional marketing funding to market the message of the LDFA to the community.

9:21 p.m. Rapundalo says that the additional money is in response to growing demand. They’ve heard that the message is not getting out enough throughout the entrepreneurial community what the LDFA has to offer.

9:23 p.m. Rapundalo says the LDFA has considered infrastructure needs nearly every year. When the city was applying for the Google Fiber initiative, LDFA had promised $250,000 if the city had been awarded the Google grant. There has not been much demand for the infrastructure, he says, but rather on the programming side.

9:26 p.m. CFO Tom Crawford is clarifying that what the council can do is affect the bottom line of the budget, but not the individual expenditures. Briere ventures that about 60% of the “windfall” is already being reserved in the fund balance. Rapundalo says the board has been judicious over the years. He says that the LDFA has not always acceded to SPARK’s requests.

9:29 p.m. Eaton asks if there have been any infrastructure projects over the years. Rapundalo points to the possibility that the LDFA entertained with the Google Fiber initiative. He also characterizes incubator space as infrastructure, but Eaton appears not to accept that as “infrastructure” in the sense that it’s meant in the LDFA foundational documents.

9:31 p.m. Lumm is returning to the topic of the economic collaborative task force and the inclusion of high-speed fiber in the final report of that group.

9:32 p.m. Hieftje says that the council should follow Petersen’s suggestion to pass a resolution at the next meeting to ask the LDFA to work on a high-speed fiber network.

9:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on the LDFA by a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Eaton, Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Lumm, and Anglin.

9:35 p.m. Budget amendment: Human Services, SPARK. This proposal would eliminate the city general fund allocation of $75,000 to Ann Arbor SPARK and put that money toward human services. (Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin)

9:35 p.m. Eaton is arguing for this amendment, saying that the $75,000 is a pittance compared to the amount SPARK receives from the LDFA. He also points to increased funding SPARK has received from the county – through Act 88.

9:37 p.m. Kailasapathy is contrasting this amendment with a different one on the list that would form a warming center from money drawn from the affordable housing trust fund. She calls Briere’s approach a status quo approach – taking money from a needy population and giving it to a different needy population. So she prefers that this amendment on SPARK pass. She appeals to councilmembers to support this because it’s not a big amount for SPARK but is a big deal for a population that needs to be taken care of.

9:38 p.m. Anglin says that back in 2008, many nonprofits disappeared. SPARK should share some of what they have for those who are less fortunate, he says. Economic development goes with social development, he says.

9:42 p.m. Petersen has invited Tim Marshall – chair of SPARK’s board and CEO of the Bank of Ann Arbor – to the podium to explain the difference between the LDFA funding of SPARK and the city’s funding of SPARK. The difference, he says, is that the LDFA is funded through the state. That’s the entrepreneurial side. The $75,000 goes for attraction and retention, he says. Attraction and retention requires skilled people, he says. You can’t say that SPARK should lose on the general fund contribution because it won on the LDFA side. He claims that the return on the investment is about one job for every $100 of investment.

9:44 p.m. Petersen says that the $75,000 is the only line item in the budget that is solely dedicated to economic development, and given that the council has said that’s a priority, she doesn’t know why the council would eliminate that funding. She’s now reviewing what the scope of services is that SPARK provides.

9:46 p.m. Petersen says that the council has gotten 752 new jobs for its $75,000. SPARK does not just share the wealth, it creates wealth, Petersen says. When SPARK helps to occupy empty buildings, that increases the value of the property and that increases revenue to the city, Petersen says.

9:48 p.m. Prompted by Lumm, Marshall is explaining the difference between the city’s general fund contribution to SPARK and the LDFA funding of SPARK.

9:55 p.m. Kunselman goes back to the $250,000 that comes from the county, which Eaton had mentioned. Marshall acknowledges that contribution and calls it a wonderful private-public collaboration. He says there are about 35-40 private companies, including his own Bank of Ann Arbor, that contribute to SPARK.

SPARK CEO Paul Krutko says that Saline, Dexter, Chelsea, Ypsilanti, Superior Township and Ypsilanti Township all make contributions. Kunselman asks about expansion to other areas – to Livingston County. With all the contributors, how does the city of Ann Arbor know that Ann Arbor is priority one? Marshall says that you have to look at the report card every year. Are there winners and losers every year? Kunselman asks. Krutko says that it’s a regional issue – the boundaries are not important, he says. This region is in competition with the rest of the world, he says.

9:55 p.m. Eaton asks if SPARK has ever had an independent audit of its jobs claims.

9:59 p.m. No, says Krutko. But SPARK has had independent audits of it finances. Eaton says he’s troubled that SPARK only recently provided those financial audits. Why is it so hard to get information from SPARK – on finances or on audited jobs figures? Eaton asks. Krutko says that this region has outperformed every other region in the country.

10:00 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for the amounts that the other municipalities contribute. Krutko doesn’t have that information, but can get it to Kailasapathy later. She comes back with: “We vote today!”

10:04 p.m. Krutko is describing SPARK’s approach as creative – because it combines entrepreneurial support, with retention and attraction, and marketing. Petersen is now describing the activity of the economic development collaborative task force. That task force is done and the next step is to form a policy group, she says.

10:06 p.m. Kunselman suggests reducing the amount to $50,000, so that $25,000 would be available for human services. That’s the amendment that’s on the floor. Kunselman says he’s not an expert on economic development, but he’s a keen observer of his surroundings. He ventures that most of the growth in jobs is simply backfilling existing space. Most of the activity is driven by the University of Michigan, Kunselman says.

10:07 p.m. Kunselman is willing to support SPARK’s retention efforts and recognizes the importance of being a good partner. He appreciates the county’s contribution.

10:11 p.m. Petersen responds to Kunselman’s remark about backfilling commercial properties. When that happens outside the DDA district, that incremental revenue goes to the general fund. Kunselman responds by saying that’s a broad statement. When a commercial building becomes vacant, the taxes are not automatically decreased, he points out. To say that the development that backfills property space adds to taxable value isn’t necessarily true, Kunselman says. He ventures that the real property tax for the Borders property downtown did not decrease when it went vacant.

10:14 p.m. Taylor calls this an unwise proposal. The city needs to make sure that the city is supportive of SPARK. The city should not freeload, he says. To pull money out is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Warpehoski notes that it’s the Red Queen dilemma – the city needs to run as fast as it can just to stay in place. He shares some of Eaton’s concerns about SPARK’s transparency. For the $75,000, Warpehoski feels like it’s a worthwhile investment. So he’ll oppose the amendment.

10:17 p.m. Briere says that this particular amendment is emblematic about why she doesn’t like to defund one thing to fund another thing. She notes that the discussion so far has not focused at all on the need to increase funding for human services – because it’s focused only on SPARK. If human services is a value, that’s what the council should be talking about. She’d spoken to Kailasapathy about the need to have additional money for human services. The way the resolution reads now, she says, is that it would put $25,000 toward a warming center. That would not work, she says.

10:20 p.m. Briere says she can see a lot of positive impacts. She can’t attribute it all to SPARK, but she feels like SPARK plays a role in that. She feels like the human services part was like a poker chip, and that the real intent was to defund SPARK. Teall agrees that it’s all about defunding SPARK and not about human services. She’s frustrated that councilmembers don’t see the connection between the increased economic activity and the ability of the city to fund those things it wants to fund. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” she says. She also has an issue with the idea that Ann Arbor is competing with other communities and ventures that Kunselman has a very strong competitive nature.

10:23 p.m. Hieftje pleads with the council to move to a vote, saying that at this rate we’ll be here until breakfast. Lumm wants another turn. She says no one would be against economic development. Lumm wonders how much of the economic development SPARK is responsible for.

10:25 p.m. Eaton says it’s not an effort to defund SPARK, pointing out that SPARK is going to receive a lot of money. He points out that SPARK will still get the $50,000 from the general fund (as revised by Kunselman) and Ann Arbor residents pay the county’s Act 88 tax as well, he points out.

10:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on SPARK by a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Eaton, Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Lumm, and Anglin.

10:27 p.m. Budget amendment: Police staffing – decrease. This proposal would increase the number of sworn officers by two officers instead of three, with the savings allocated to human services for the purpose of drug treatment and prevention. (Chuck Warpehoski)

10:29 p.m. Warpehoski is recounting his conversation with Jim Balmer of Dawn Farms on the topic of opiate abuse. He’s relating a vignette about someone he knows who sought treatment and had no resources in the city to which he could appeal.

10:30 p.m. Teall asks for Mary Jo Callan, director of community & economic development for the county and city, to approach the podium. Teall wants Callan to talk about how the funds could be allocated for treatment. Callan indicates there’s definitely a need.

10:35 p.m. Eaton wants to know how many people could be housed with $95,000. Callan says that the money might also be used for staff. The AADL and PORT don’t have the staff to deal with all the people who are in need. So one option would be to have a robust presence at the library. One possibility is temporary housing in the form of hotel rooms as a bridge to something more permanent. Callan allows that $95,000 will not solve the problem. It could pay for some staffing and some treatment, and some hotel nights. It would need to be leveraged with other resources, she says.

10:37 p.m. Briere says that, for example, an additional $20,000 for Catholic Social Services could make a big impact – like it could for any of the human services nonprofits.

10:38 p.m. Lumm tells Callan she has huge respect and admiration for her. But she won’t support this amendment. She’s reviewing what the impact would be.

10:39 p.m. This amendment is 180 degrees opposite of the direction the city should be going, Lumm says.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman asks Callan how many people are seeking heroin addiction treatment voluntarily versus through a court order. Callan doesn’t know, but can get that information. Kunselman says he won’t support this resolution. He says that it’s naive to think that people will seek treatment just because someone is there at the library to do outreach.

10:43 p.m. Petersen says she’s struggling to support this. Substance abuse and mental health issues are important, but she’s reluctant to reduce the number of police officers to fund it.

10:45 p.m. Kailasapathy says there’s $235,000 in the fund balance that can be used for treatment and education. She allows that it’s campaign season again and as she talks to people at doors, they don’t talk about crime. They talk about other issues, like trucks speeding down their streets causing their foundations to rattle.

10:45 p.m. It’s hard to make these kinds of choices, Kailasapathy says. But she won’t support taking money from the “underfunded police.” She’s really sorry, though.

10:47 p.m. Teall says she’s going to address Petersen’s concerns. This amendment is going to help the police, she says. It will fund someone to do outreach work that a police officer can’t do, she says.

10:48 p.m. There’s need for outreach on a level that a beat cop can’t do, Teall says. There’s such a need in the community, she adds, and crime is down.

10:50 p.m. Eaton says his recollection was that police chief Seto’s request for additional police officers was not based on the increase in heroin cases. It was based on a broad community need for various kinds of community engagement, he says.

10:51 p.m. Hieftje pleads that the council move to a vote, saying that no one will say anything new on this topic.

10:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 2-9 vote. Voting for it were Warpehoski and Teall.

10:53 p.m. The council has suspended its rule on starting closed sessions before 11 p.m.

10:53 p.m. We’re now in recess.

10:58 p.m. Mayor Hieftje has been ill and his voice is not particularly strong tonight.

11:00 p.m. Hieftje is rounding people up.

11:00 p.m. We’re back.

11:01 p.m. Budget amendment: Community-facing climate action programs. Money for “community-facing” climate action programs would come in part from $50,000 allocated for the Ellsworth Road corridor study. (Taylor, Teall, Hieftje, Warpehoski)

11:03 p.m. Taylor says that Ann Arbor has an ambitious long-range climate action plan. It’s a present and immediate necessity. The energy commission has identified this as a need. The city administrator had been queried how much it would take to get things off the ground: about $125,000. We can’t stop climate change with action in Ann Arbor, Taylor says, but the city must do its part. This is a step in that direction, he says.

11:06 p.m. Briere says that she thinks she knows what “community-facing” means, but asks Taylor to explain that. He says that much of the effort to date has been inward facing towards the city itself and its own buildings and vehicles. This would involve talking to residents and business owners, he says. Kunselman ventures that this would involve hiring a contractor. Powers indicates that’s right: It would involve going out for an RFP (request for proposals) to specify deliverables.

Kunselman says he’s not interested in hiring a consultant at this time. Lumm also indicates that she’s not supporting this, either. She indicates that it basically amounts to an additional position of some fashion.

11:07 p.m. Kailasapathy echoes Lumm’s sentiments – that she’ll support a different amendment, to hire an additional forester. She talks about “consultant fatigue.” She allows that global warming is real, and trees are a good solution to reducing greenhouse gases.

11:08 p.m. Anglin also indicates that he’d rather support something that involves trees – in our immediate environment.

11:12 p.m. Eaton also says he’d prefer to support the amendment on adding a forester. Hieftje says that the climate action program would be far more than what a forester would do. He points to the PACE program, which might have an impact on multifamily housing energy efficiency. This amendment could make a big difference, Hieftje says.

11:14 p.m. Briere asks if additional support is anticipated to be needed next year, or if by next fiscal year it would be self-supporting. He figures that nobody expects the forester position to become self-supporting. Powers says the goal of the climate action programs would be that they’d be self-supporting.

11:15 p.m. Eaton asks what this amendment actually does. Taylor says that there’s no reference to the FTE in the resolution. It’s not to hire an FTE. It’s anticipated that it would be a contractor.

11:19 p.m. Eaton asks if the city would start charging fees to make the program self-supporting. Powers says that he doesn’t have that level of detail tonight. Taylor ventures that there would be grant funding. In the future, if the economic climate improves, he hopes to be able to transition from a contractor to an FTE.

11:19 p.m. Hieftje asks that it move to a vote.

11:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment on 6-5 vote. Voting for it were Warpehoski, Teall, Petersen, Briere, Taylor and Hieftje.

11:20 p.m. Teall floats the idea of recessing the meeting until Tuesday, splitting the meeting into two parts. Brief discussion ensues but councilmembers decide they’ll push through the rest of the amendments.

11:21 p.m. Budget amendment: Police staffing – increase. This proposal would increase the number of sworn police officers by five officers instead of an increase of three proposed by the city administrator. Funding would come in part from a reduction in the 15th District Court budget. The resolution would also reiterate a previous request made last year that the DDA fund three downtown beat cops. (Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

11:21 p.m. Lumm is reviewing her reasons for wanting to increase the number of police officers by more than the three that the proposed budget calls for.

11:24 p.m. Lumm is arguing that the 15th District Court has not been as fiscally responsible as other departments. She’s proposing to fund a portion of the increased cost through a reduction in the court’s budget. She’s also anticipating additional money from the state through state shared revenue.

11:24 p.m. Hieftje is commenting on the idea of comparing the size of police departments in the 1980s and 1990s to current levels. He points to the 55 sworn officers that the University of Michigan now employs that did not previously exist.

11:27 p.m. Police departments were built up to respond in the past to increased levels of crime, he says. But now those levels have decreased. When police officer time is measured, Hieftje points out, they do have a lot of time available for proactive policing. He doesn’t want to put the budget under strain based on revenues that have not yet materialized. He returns to the point of decreasing crime numbers. He doesn’t understand why the goal would be to have a police force at the same level that the city did in a previous era.

11:29 p.m. Eaton says the city is fortunate to have police chief John Seto. Seto is not telling the council that the city has a crime problem, Eaton says. Seto has said the additional three officers are a “good start” toward accomplishing what Seto wants to do in terms of traffic enforcement and community engagement. Adding three officers does not take staffing levels back to the levels of the 1990s or even 2009, Eaton says. It’s an incremental step in the right direction.

11:32 p.m. Teall says she didn’t hear Seto say there were more police officers needed, but rather it was true that more could always be done. She won’t support this. Taylor says he won’t support this amendment, either. He’ll support the additional three police officers, but he rejects the idea that failing to support an additional two officers means a lack of priority on public safety. He points out that after pass-throughs, 57% of the city’s general fund goes to public safety.

11:35 p.m. Taylor is referring to an email from chief judge Libby Hines that rejected the idea that the 15th District Court was not a good steward of public money. The court administrator, Shryl Samborn, is at the podium. She’s talking about the ways the 15th District Court has reduced costs. More police officers means more citations, which would require more court clerks, she points out.

11:38 p.m. Lumm is responding to the court’s cost cutting, tracing the 7% and 9% and 4% general fund increases the court has shown. The court had authorized significant pay increases well above what other city employees had received, she says. Responding to the idea that UM officers should be factored into the equation, Lumm says the UM officers don’t see their job as policing the broader community. “They are not our backup,” she says.

11:41 p.m. Kunselman says that as much as he’d like to support it, he won’t support it. It’s important to work within the city administrator’s budget as much as possible. He’s not confident that the recurring revenues will actually be there, so he feels a little “queasy” about adding police officers. He says he had proposed no amendments, because he was very happy with the city administrator’s budget – because Powers had listened to the council about what it wanted to see.

11:44 p.m. Anglin says that there will be more police required as more people use public transportation. Warpehoski tries to move the council to a vote.

11:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 4-7 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

11:48 p.m. Budget amendment: Compost/leaf program – restore. This proposal would restore loose leaf collection in the fall and holiday tree pickup in the winter. This would require roughly $406,000 in capital investment and $319,500 in recurring expenses from the millage-supported solid waste fund. (Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

11:48 p.m. Lumm notes that she’s brought forward this amendment the last two years and allows that people might be wondering: When will she give up? She says that she’d give up if she did not hear continually from residents that this is a service that they really use and expect the city to provide. She’s reciting the standard arguments in favor.

Petersen says that as much as she’d like to support this, she thinks that the city should not go back to the old way of doing things, because it was too inefficient. That’s not an appropriate way to restore the service. She mentions vacuum trucks as a possibility.

11:49 p.m. Hieftje says that leaves don’t come down on schedule. Cities across the state have moved away from the old way, he says. The current approach using containers is not perfect but it does work ok, he says.

11:53 p.m. Briere won’t support this restoration of fall leaf collection. She’s advocated for year-round composting because she thinks there are some years when leaves need to be set out after the first of December. Briere is recycling familiar arguments.

11:55 p.m. Lumm is arguing environmental points.

11:56 p.m. Lumm is using the Ann Arbor Newshawks in support of her argument for loose collection. She describes following a truck on its collection route.

11:58 p.m. Warpehoski raises a point of order on the length of Lumm’s speaking time.

12:00 a.m. Kunselman says he won’t support this. He’s not sure the solid waste fund reserve won’t be needed in the future. The last thing he wants to see is the solid waste millage go up. He doesn’t want to tinker with the city administrator’s budget.

12:01 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 4-7 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

12:01 a.m. Budget amendment: Retirement plan. This proposal directs the city administrator to develop a revised retirement plan design for new hires that “includes a defined contribution element and results in lower costs to the city.” The new plan design would be presented to the council by Dec. 31, 2014, with the intent that the revised plan would be applied to all employees hired after Dec. 31, 2015. (Lumm, Kailasapathy)

12:02 a.m. Lumm is describing what this resolution does. She allows that she’s brought this up previously. But she laments the lack of progress. So she wants the council to give some direction that it supports this approach.

12:04 a.m. Kailasapathy is explaining the problem with defined benefit plans is that demographics have changed – life expectancy has increased.

12:08 a.m. Warpehoski says he’s voting against the resolution, but doesn’t want that vote to be understood as being against defined contribution plans. He says that the right venue for this kind of thing is negotiated at the table as labor contracts are developed. Lumm responds by saying it’s not a collective bargaining strategy. Nothing has happened in two years, she says. She says the council should provide direction as a council.

12:08 a.m. Teall says she doesn’t support this and so she’s not going to vote to it.

12:10 a.m. Warpehoski references a staff memo that supports his contention that this would impede the city’s general labor strategy. Staff had expressed their concerns about this approach. He’s chaffing under the implication from Lumm that he had not read the resolution, noting that he did read it.

12:13 a.m. Petersen and Powers are discussing how the council best should supply direction on this topic. They’re discussing closed sessions versus open sessions. Anglin says this doesn’t even seem like a budget amendment. It’s more like a general direction.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 3-8 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, and Kailasapathy.

12:13 a.m. Policy direction: This proposal would not alter the budget but would ask the city administrator to “study alternatives to increase street funding and present to Council by Sept. 30, 2014 a report outlining options, their financial impact, and the pros and cons of each.” (Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

12:16 a.m. Lumm is reviewing the content of the resolution.

12:16 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment on a unanimous vote. This prompts an “Oh, my god!” from Lumm.

12:16 a.m. Budget amendment: Animal control. The proposal would eliminate funding for an inventory of commercial signs in favor of animal control for the Human Society of Huron Valley and for deer herd management costs. (Petersen, Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin)

12:18 a.m. Petersen recites the content of the resolution. Lumm says she’ll support this amendment as a short-term solution. She’s prepared another amendment involving dog licenses that is meant to address the long-term issue.

12:18 a.m. Kunselman is getting clarification about the total amount that would wind up allocated for animal control – about $100,000.

12:22 a.m. Warpehoski says that when the city was dealing with the digital billboard ordinance, having an inventory of signs was noted as something that was important. So he’s torn about this amendment. Powers is explaining that the sign inventory is important and that’s why it’s in the budget. He can’t say exactly how urgent the work might be. Can it be deferred? Yes, says Powers. Warpehoski says he’ll support the amendment this year, but does want to see the inventory done.

Kunselman draws out the fact that the $75,000 would have been spent on a consultant. He’s not interested in supporting consultants.

12:24 a.m. Petersen, Lumm and Kunselman are doing some wordsmithing about what HSHV will be doing.

12:30 a.m. Hieftje wants to move along to a vote.

12:30 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment on a unanimous vote.

12:31 a.m. Budget amendment: Warming center. This proposal would allocate $100,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to provide assistance for a warming center. (Lumm, Briere)

12:33 a.m. Briere says that she can find past uses of the affordable housing fund that are consistent with this one. This does not cover 100% of the anticipated cost, but she wants to bring it forward now instead of waiting until October, because it’s possible to anticipate that there will be a winter.

12:34 a.m. Kunselman asks if the source of the funds is all general fund money. Briere explains that there were general fund transfers as well as proceeds from the sale of the former Y lot.

12:37 a.m. Kunselman says he’s not comfortable using money from an affordable housing fund. He’d support a general fund expenditure for that purpose. But he doesn’t think it’s wise to raid the fund for purposes other than providing affordable housing. Eaton says he’s also voting against it. When the council voted to put the net proceeds of the Y lot into the affordable housing fund, he’d been concerned that there weren’t clear criteria for use of the affordable housing trust fund. He calls for development of guidelines for use of funds from the affordable housing trust fund. He’s voting against this.

12:38 a.m. Hieftje says he’s torn on this. He’s concerned about the demand for warming shelter services for people who are not from Washtenaw County. The city needs to work with its partners to figure out how to continue to provide services to people from Washtenaw County. It’s premature to make a decision tonight, he says, because it should be based on a strategy worked out with partners.

12:39 a.m. Lumm is supporting this, and notes that Briere has worked with Mary Jo Callan and Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. There’s a need for additional capacity for a warming center.

12:41 a.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the amendment, but with the same reservations that others have expressed. His understanding, however, is that allocations from the affordable housing trust fund need a recommendation from the housing & human services advisory board (HHSAB). Briere says that it’s legitimate for the council to take this action without the HHSAB recommendation. She believes that HHSAB would support it.

12:43 a.m. Taylor says that much of our services go to folks “who are not of us,” which leads to a slippery slope of not being able to serve the “local homeless.”

12:48 a.m. Taylor says that this is an issue that’s more complicated than what can be solved tonight.

12:48 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Kailasapathy, Briere, Petersen, Lumm, and Warpehoski.

12:48 a.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

12:55 a.m. Teall is sitting in the mayor’s seat. Not clear if she’s going to take over for Hieftje when we resume. She’s fortifying herself with peanut M&Ms.

12:55 a.m. “Come on folks, let’s go!” says Teall.

12:56 a.m. Teall says we’re on schedule to be out by 4:15 a.m.

12:56 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition – pedestrian safety. This proposal would use some of the $300,000 in the general fund budget that’s designated for demolition of the city-owned 415 W. Washington property to fund the pedestrian safety and access task force. (Briere, Warpehoski)

12:59 a.m. Briere says that the pedestrian task force would be funded in two ways – from the $75,000 set aside for a sidewalk gap elimination study and from part of the $300,000 set aside for the 415 W. Washington demolition. Powers confirms that Briere’s description of the way that project management staff are paid is accurate – in that they’re paid by project.

1:00 a.m. Eaton expresses puzzlement, saying he thought this pedestrian safety task force funding had been in front of the council and they’d postponed it, and that staff had identified all the required funding.

1:05 a.m. Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, is at the podium fielding questions from Kailasapathy. The $77,320 in the resolution is for the consultant on the pedestrian safety task force. Warpehoski reviews the history of how the consultant was selected. The task force is eager to have a positive impact on the community, he says. Current staff don’t have capacity to provide the task force support, he says. The task force has participated in the selection of the consultant (The Greenway Collaborative), he says.

1:05 a.m. Lumm is now commenting on the amendment. She’s reviewing how the funding works.

1:06 a.m. Mayor John Hieftje has departed the meeting, and Teall has been presiding over the meeting as mayor pro tem since returning from recess.

1:09 a.m. Kunselman says it seems like the council is picking on the 415 W. Washington demolition funds, when it’s been put of for several years. Powers says that there would need additional preparatory work to make an application to the historic district commission for the demolition.

1:11 a.m. “The building needs to come down,” Kunselman says. “This building is not going to be saved,” because it’s going to cost too much. In the meantime, it’s a blight in the neighborhood, across from the new Y building. It needs to be torn down and the city has been dragging its feet, he says. Now the council is stalling that effort, so he won’t support it.

1:12 a.m. Kailasapathy asks if the amendment can be split into two parts so that the $75,000 portion could be dragged forward from last year’s budget.

1:15 a.m. Briere says that the pedestrian task force was established through a unanimous vote of the council and now there’s an obligation to fund it. She’s continuing to argue by saying it’s important not to just give it lip service.

1:16 a.m. Teall agrees with Briere, saying the council has to support task forces that it establishes.

1:19 a.m. Kailasapathy cautions that she did not vote to sign a blank check when she voted for the establishment of the task force.

1:19 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment. [We are tentatively recording this as a 5-5 vote. Hieftje has left the meeting.]

1:20 a.m. Budget amendment: Compost/leaf program – extend. This proposal would extend the curbside compostables pickup from seasonal to year-round so that food waste could be kept out of the garbage stream year-round, at an increased annual cost of $300,000. (Briere)

1:21 a.m. Briere is arguing for her proposal.

1:25 a.m. Petersen and Lumm question whether a reduction in tipping fees would actually be realized. Lumm says that if the city is going to spend $300,000 a year from the solid waste fund, it should be to pick up loose leaves.

1:25 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on a 3-7 vote. It got support from Taylor, Teall and Briere.

1:25 a.m. Budget amendment: Art administration, traffic calming efforts. The proposal is to reduce the amount allocated in the recommended budget for transitional costs associated with the public art program from $80,000 to $40,000. The $40,000 in savings would be used for traffic calming projects in neighborhoods, including but not limited to speed bumps. (Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

1:28 a.m. Kailasapathy says she’d like to dedicate all $80,000 to traffic calming, but she acknowledges that some councilmembers wanted to fund a transition for art. She’s hearing from her constituents that they want to see traffic calming but not transitional art administration funding. The art administrator can be hired for $40,000 and put efforts into private fund raising, she says.

1:29 a.m. Briere says that last year when she put forward additional money for traffic calming, she had been able to identify exactly what projects would be funded. This proposal is more conceptual, she says. She’d be more comfortable with it if it were more precise.

1:32 a.m. Briere questions whether this amendment is about adding money to traffic calming or “because it looks good.”

1:32 a.m. Lumm is supporting this.

1:35 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on a 4-6 vote. It got support from Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, and Anglin.

1:35 a.m. Budget amendment: Streets – Alt Transportation. The proposal would, for this year, bump the Act 51 allocation for alternative transportation from 2.5% to 5% – which translates to $180,000. The amendment would ask the city administrator to provide information that would help the council determine the appropriate percentage to allocate to alternative transportation. (Briere)

1:36 a.m. Briere had to be encouraged to bring this forward by Eaton, after she said she thought the council was by now going to split 5-5 on everything else (because Hieftje is no longer here). She summarizes why she wants to increase alternative transportation funding.

1:39 a.m. Lumm says she won’t support this because it draws down the general fund. Other councilmembers correct her.

1:39 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman.

1:40 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition. This proposal would simply eliminate general fund support for demolition of the city-owned buildings at 415 W. Washington. (Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin)

1:42 a.m. Kailasapathy says that she had proposed this in response to CFO Tom Crawford’s cautionary remarks from the May 12 work session about the level of the general fund reserves. She says that the money for demolition could be found in the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage, if the property is added to the PROS plan.

1:45 a.m. Briere talks about the amount of process that would need to be engaged in before deciding that it would become a park. She didn’t think it was realistic to demolish the building before the spring of next year. Lumm says this “hits pause” on the demolition of 415 W. Washington to see if alternatives to the general fund can be found to pay for it.

1:48 a.m. Lumm is noting that the open space preservation millage might be a source of funds. Kunselman says he doesn’t support using parks money for a general fund type building. The building needs to come down, he says. It might not come down until next spring, but the money needs to be appropriated at this meeting. The building is an eyesore and is not in any way historic, he says. He won’t support the amendment. He’ll encourage the staff to move ahead in the coming months on getting the building torn down.

1:50 a.m. Anglin is talking about the costs that would be involved in preserving the building. Artists had talked about possibly using it as an art center. It had been studied, he says, and he doesn’t know where the idea came from to demolish the building. The council had not yet heard from the historic district commission, he says.

1:54 a.m. Anglin says there’s an opportunity in this building to make the art community feel welcome. Teall also questions where the idea came from to demolish the building. Briere says that the council had directed the study of the feasibility of preserving the building and the final report had come back. The result of that report was a conclusion that it would take about $3 million to stabilize the building and another $3 million to renovate it. That’s where the notion of demolishing the building came from.

1:54 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman, Taylor and Warpehoski.

1:55 a.m. Budget amendment: Dog licenses. This proposal would encourage educational and enforcement efforts to increase the 7% compliance rate for dog licenses, which currently generates $15,000 in revenue. The resolution states that Ann Arbor is home to 30,000 dogs and that a 50% license compliance rate would result in $105,000 in revenue. But the resolution targets a 30% compliance rate for the shorter term, which would bring in a total of about $63,000. The resolution alters the revenue budget to reflect that amount. The resolution indicates that at least a portion of the additional $48,000 would go toward payment for animal services provided to the city by the Humane Society of Huron Valley.

1:57 a.m. Lumm characterizes this as an effort to identify a recurring source of revenue for animal control. “We have a lot of dogs in Ann Arbor,” she says. It’s thought that Ann Arbor is home to about 30,000 dogs, she says. A 50% compliance rate would generate about $120,000 annually, she says. Currently the compliance rate is only about 7%, she says.

2:01 a.m. Teall asks about increased enforcement and how that would be done. Powers indicated that it would initially be a matter of raising awareness of the requirement. Only about 2,000 dogs are licensed in Ann Arbor. One of the benefits of having a license for your dog is being able to use the city’s dog parks.

2:02 a.m. Briere has no problem with the idea of focusing on enforcement, but is uncomfortable with making it a budget amendment, because it might assume revenues that might not materialize.

2:03 a.m. Briere wonders if it might be possible not to include such a “confident” allocation.

2:05 a.m. Powers says he’ll likely be bringing an agreement between the county and the city that would be the conduit by which HSHV would be paid. Briere says the 30% compliance rate seems ambitious. Petersen asks about a dog census to help compliance. Powers indicates there’s a statutory requirement for a dog census.

2:06 a.m. Warpehoski wants to vote.

2:07 a.m. Lumm reports that she’s talked to the director of the HSHV, and HSHV sees this as a baby step. She says having 23% greater compliance does not set the bar too high. It’s good for pets and pet owners, she says.

2:09 a.m. Taylor says he’d observed that the council was talking about police officers enforcing dog licenses, when previously some councilmembers had objected to the idea of police officers enforcing an outdoor smoking ordinance. Taylor doesn’t object to either kind of enforcement.

2:11 a.m. Kunselman asks police chief Seto if an animal control officer is needed. Kunselman says there’ve been problems in his neighborhood. Seto notes that every police officer is authorized as an animal control officer. That service is probably not provided as well as when there was a dedicated animal control officer, he says. He notes that the city now works with the county on animal control.

2:12 a.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved this amendment.

2:12 a.m. Budget amendment: Parks fairness. This is a standard amendment every year to ensure that the parks budget is increased to match any increase in general fund expenditures in other areas.

2:14 a.m. The parks budget needs to be increased by $23,577 as a result of the budget amendments that were previously approved.

2:15 a.m. Teall says she has reservations about it as a practical matter, but wants to go ahead and vote.

2:15 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment over the sole dissent from Teall.

2:16 a.m. The council is now on the main question of the FY 2015 budget.

2:17 a.m. Lumm says that she didn’t support last year’s budget because it didn’t make progress toward public safety as an area of priority. But this year’s budget does that with the addition of three police officers, she says. So she’s supporting the budget.

2:17 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to adopt the FY 2015 budget as amended.

2:18 a.m. Clerk’s report of communications, petitions and referrals. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the clerk’s report.

2:18 a.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

2:24 a.m. Seth Best is addressing the council. He thanks Anglin for mentioning Camp Take Notice. He invites people to drop by 3501 Stone School Road to visit. He was disappointed with the outcome on the warming center resolution. He was also troubled about the distinction between county residents and non-county residents with respect to the provision of services. He reminds the council of the inscription from the Statue of Liberty.

2:24 a.m. Kai Petainen says he’s not upset about the SPARK amendments, but he’s kind of annoyed by SPARK. They’d shown up to the meeting without answers to the council’s questions, he says. His complaint is about how SPARK treated the council and the public. They weren’t prepared for tonight’s meeting, he says, and thereby demonstrated arrogance and ignorance. He said he doubted that if SPARK didn’t get the $75,000 it would cause companies to leave town.

2:24 a.m. Closed session. Outcome: The council has voted to go into closed session to consider pending litigation.

2:32 a.m. They’re back in open session.

2:32 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the May 19, 2014 meeting agenda.

A preview of some possible budget amendments will be reported separately.

The council’s May 19, 2014 meeting agenda includes more than just the adoption of the budget.

Related to the setting of the annual budget are items like setting fees associated with the public services area (for example, site plan review) and the community services area (for example, farmers market stall fees), as well as rate increases for water, sewer and stormwater utilities.

Also related to the budget – and not just for this next year – is an agenda item that will revise the city’s policies for contributions to the city’s pension system and retiree health care. In broad strokes, those revisions are meant to accelerate contributions during a strong economy and maintain contributions at least at the level of the actuary-recommended amount during weaker economies.

Another budget-related item on the May 19 agenda is one related to the social infrastructure of the community – allocation of general fund money to nonprofits that provide human services. The city approaches this allocation through a process that is coordinated with Washtenaw County, the United Way, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and other partners. The total amount allocated for operation of programs is about $4.3 million. The city of Ann Arbor’s general fund contribution is about $1.2 million, which is the same amount that has been contributed for the last several years.

Related to human services support is an agenda item that would accept a $113,154 planning grant from the Michigan Supreme Court to establish a specialized mental health court.

Along with social infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the harsh winter. The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The council will also be asked to approve money for building new physical infrastructure – about $2.6 million for the reconstruction of a segment of Pontiac Trail. The segment stretches north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The street reconstruction project also includes water mains, sanitary sewer, and construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes.

Special assessments to pay for three other sidewalk projects also appear on the council’s agenda in various stages of the special assessment process. Those future projects are located on Barton Drive, Scio Church Road, and Newport Road.

The council will be asked to approve the city’s application for federal funding to support the acquisition of development rights in Superior Township for two pieces of property on either side of Vreeland Road. The properties are near other parcels already protected as part of the city’s greenbelt initiative.

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment to his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Fees and Rates

On the council’s agenda are rate increases for utilities (water, sewer and stormwater) as well as fee increases for the public services and community services area.

Fees and Rates: Water, Sewer, Stormwater

Water rates are proposed to increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates would increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

The utility rates are part of a city ordinance. So the council will be considering initial approval at its May 19 meeting, with final approval to come at its first meeting in June – on June 2.

Fees and Rates: Community and Public Services Area

Fee increases in the community services area and the public services area will be considered by the council at its May 19 meeting.

For community services, increases are being proposed for stall fees at the Ann Arbor public market (farmers market). Currently, the basic annual fee for rental of a stall is $300. It’s proposed to be increased to $450 – a 50% increase.

If approved by the council, the fee increase would be projected to generate $26,000 in additional revenue. However, this additional revenue has not been assumed in the proposed FY 2015 budget.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, “market fees were last increased in 2009 and have not kept pace with the overall increase of annual operating costs during this same time period.” A comparative analysis of Ann Arbor’s fees also showed that Ann Arbor’s fees are well below those of comparable markets.

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, including three in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, excluding those in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In the public services area, fees for a variety of services are being considered – for such items as site plan review, soil and sedimentation control. According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the increases consider labor, material and supplies, equipment, and overhead cost and are aimed at full cost recovery. The increases are generally in the range of 1% to 5%.

Pension and VEBA Funding Policy

The council will be considering policies for making contributions to the pension and retiree health care plan that is supposed to ensure that the plans are eventually fully funded. The policy would set the funding at the higher of two different figures: (1) the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) rate; or (2) the existing level of contributions adjusted for the change in general fund revenues. That would have an impact of establishing a minimum increase in funding of 2% per year.

The operative language in the policy is:

If the General Fund revenues are projected to increase less than 2%, the city’s contribution shall increase 2%; thereby establishing a minimum increase of 2% per year.

Social Infrastructure

The council’s agenda includes two items that can be characterized as funding social infrastructure: the annual general fund allocations to nonprofits that provide human services; and the acceptance of a planning grant for the 15th District Court to establish a mental health court.

Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding

The council will be asked at its May 19 meeting to approve funding allocations to nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders.

The city is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners include Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the city is providing $1,244,629.

FY 15       Funding Source                                        
$1,244,629  City of Ann Arbor General Fund                    
$1,760,708  United Way of Washtenaw County                    
$1,015,000  Washtenaw County's General Fund                   
$  274,907  Washtenaw Urban County CDBG funds                 
$   26,250  Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation senior funds 
========== 
$4,321,494  TOTAL

-

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

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized by the city council at its Nov. 7, 2013 and by the Washtenaw County board on Nov. 6, 2013. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

The RNR Foundation funding will go toward the planning/coordination and capacity building components of the effort, so their funding is not listed among the items in the  program operating component.

Here’s a breakdown of how the program operating component of the city of Ann Arbor’s share will be allocated:

   
   FY 2015  Agency
   $20,000  Barrier Busters 
   $30,000  Peace Neighborhood Center
   $35,069  Ozone House Inc.
   $54,168  Domestic Violence Project Inc. dba SafeHouse Center
   $56,396  UM Regents (Community Dental Center, Housing Bureau for Seniors)
   $85,500  Avalon Housing 
   $90,786  Child Care Network
  $102,156  Food Gatherers
  $115,558  The Salvation Army of Washtenaw County
  $122,095  Washtenaw Community Health Organization
  $160,761  Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
  $164,660  Community Action Network
  $207,480  Legal Services of South Central Michigan
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

That compares with the current fiscal year as follows:

 
  FY 2014   Agency
   $4,561   HIV/AIDS Resource Center     
  $12,772   Washtenaw Association for Community Advocacy     
  $14,282   Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan     
  $17,139   Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County
  $19,835   Barrier Busters     
  $23,719   UM Regents - Ann Arbor Meals on Wheels     
  $27,369   The Women's Center of Southeastern Michigan     
  $63,419   Home of New Vision
  $91,645   Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County     
  $94,490   Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw     
  $95,171   Food Gatherers     
 $104,944   Community Action Network
 $109,851   Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor     
 $142,851   Avalon Housing Inc.     
 $177,052   Services of South Central Michigan
 $245,529   Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

The coordinated funding approach sometimes results in the same programs being funded – but by different funders. This year, the city of Ann Arbor is funding a program for Peace Neighborhood Center; last year Washtenaw County provided funding ($19,995) for Peace Neighborhood Center. And last year, the city of Ann Arbor funded a University of Michigan meals-on-wheels program; this year, United Way is funding that program.

Recipients of funds in one year are not guaranteed funding the following year. An example of that is the Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan, which received $27,369 from the city of Ann Arbor last year for a mental health program, but is not receiving funds as part of the coordinated funding program this year.

Social Infrastructure: Mental Health Court

The council is being asked to approve the receipt of a planning grant of $113,154 from the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) to fund the planning for a mental health court program.

According to the staff memo accompanying the item, mental health courts are problem-solving courts “that focus on therapeutic treatment for offenders with mental illnesses whose crimes are a result of their mental illness.”

The memo continues:

Eligible defendants are diverted into judicially supervised, community-based treatment to address the underlying problems. The program uses a team approach to address the participant’s needs for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment while also linking the participant with ancillary services such as education, housing, job skills or other individualized assistance. The goal is to assist participants in bettering their lives while also benefiting the community by reducing jail time, recidivism rates, and court docket congestion.

The 15th District Court already operates several specialized courts – a sobriety court, a homeless court, veterans court and domestic violence court. The mental health court would be operated in addition to those other specialized courts.

For background on the 15th District Court’s specialized “problem-solving” courts from last year’s Chronicle reporting, see: “Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court.”

Physical Infrastructure

Physical infrastructure appears on the council’s May 19 agenda in several forms: an allocation of money to deal with damage to systems from the harsh winter; a Pontiac Trail street reconstruction project; and several sidewalk projects.

Physical Infrastructure: Winter Damage

The council will be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the severe winter weather.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, compared to last year there was a 36% increase in water main breaks and a 950% increase of broken water services. Compared to the previous two years winters, the 2013-14 winter had 272% more snow and a 450% increase in required plowing. That meant additional use of materials like ice-control salt, sand, cold-patch, pipe, repair clamps and fittings – in addition to higher-than-anticipated work hours and overtime, and increased equipment costs.

The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The work will include frozen service line repairs, pavement marking, and road surface repair. The work is not anticipated to be completed until well after June 30, 2014 – the end of the current fiscal year.

At a May 12 city council work session, public services area administrator Craig Hupy presented the council with some data on the age of the city’s piping system, saying that for the water pipes, those that were constructed in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are more problematic than those built before and after that period. Still, he indicated that the city’s breakage rate was considered low for a system that is as old as Ann Arbor’s.

Ann Arbor Sanitary Sewer System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

Ann Arbor Water System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

City of Ann Arbor Water Main Breaks by Year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor Comprehensive Annual Financial Report)

Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail

The council will consider two resolutions in connection with a street reconstruction project on Pontiac Trail.

The first is a $2,605,190 contract with Evergreen Civil LLC for construction of the project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning north of Skydale Drive to south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The project also includes extending water mains and sewer pipes, as well as construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes. The memo also indicates the project will include stormwater infiltration trenches, edge drains, and the addition of a small section of curb and gutter. The project is expected to begin in June of 2014 and be completed by fall of 2014.

The other contract to be considered by the council in connection with the Pontiac Trail project is $46,879 for Professional Services Industries Inc. for materials testing.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, city project manager Nick Hutchinson indicated that the council would be presented at its June 16 meeting with the next in a series of resolutions on special assessment to help fund the sidewalk portion of the Pontiac Trail project. The council had voted at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting to direct the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project. The special assessment process requires the setting of an assessment roll and the holding of a public hearing before a special assessment can be imposed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks

Three other sidewalk projects that are further along in the special assessment process than Pontiac Trail are also on the council’s May 19 agenda: Barton Road, Scio Church and Newport Road.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Newport Road

A public hearing on the Newport Road sidewalk special assessment, which started on May 5, will continue at the council’s May 19 meeting. For the sidewalk segment on Newport Road, the council had approved at its April 21, 2014 meeting a resolution directing the city assessor to prepare a special assessment roll of properties to be assessed. The council took action to set the public hearing on the Newport Road special assessment for May 5.

The total amount to be special assessed for the Newport Road project is $49,746. But residents of the Newport Creek Site Condominium – who would not ordinarily be assessed, as their property isn’t adjacent to the sidewalk – have volunteered to contribute $10,228 to the project to help offset their neighbors’ assessments. Details of that arrangement are being finalized.

However, several residents spoke at the May 5 public hearing, opposing the special assessment.

Newport Road sidewalk stretch.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church

Again on the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and set a public hearing (to be held June 16) for the special assessment of a Scio Church Road sidewalk. Action on the Scio Church sidewalk project special assessment had been postponed at the council’s April 21, 2014 meeting until May 19.

For this sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626. It was the size of the total amount of special assessment that led to the postponement. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) argued at the April 21 meeting that the amount to be assessed was not worth the staff time to follow all the bureaucratic procedures involved in implementing the special assessment. He also called for 80% of any sidewalk project to be funded through non-special assessed funds.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

Physical Infrastructure Sidewalks – Barton Road

On the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and a public hearing (to be held on June 16) for the special assessment of a Barton Drive sidewalk. The sidewalk to be special assessed was part of an approval given at the council’s April 21 meeting: The council approved $177,100 of city funds for the construction of the Scio Church Road sidewalk and for an additional sidewalk on Barton Drive.

The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

By way of additional background, approval of the design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church Road stretches of new sidewalk had been approved by the city council at its March 3, 2014 meeting.

And at its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council had approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive. Even earlier – at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting – the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work. The design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church stretches of new sidewalk drew on the previously authorized funding.

The preliminary planning budget of $15,000 for the Newport Road sidewalk gap was approved over a year ago by the council at its Jan. 23, 2013 meeting.

Greenbelt

At its May 19 meeting, the city council will be asked to consider approval of application to the federal Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) program to protect 260 acres of farmland located in Superior Township. The ALE program now includes what was previously known as the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. Additional properties under the same ownership, adjacent to the farmland parcels, are also being considered for inclusion in the city’s greenbelt program, and the Vreeland Road properties are near other properties already protected as part of the greenbelt – the Meyer Preserve, the Jack R. Smiley Preserve and the Schultz conservation easement. Cherry Hill Nature Preserve is located just north of the property. [.jpg of greenbelt properties as of May 2014]

Here’s a dynamic map of properties outside the city already protected under the city’s greenbelt program. A 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003, funds both the greenbelt program as well as land acquisition for city parks. The border indicates the area where greenbelt funds can be spent to protect properties.

Appointments

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment for his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

Hollins is a staffer with the Great Lakes Commission. She’s being appointed because David Stead’s lengthy service on the commission – dating from 2000, when the commission was established – had generated opposition among some councilmembers. Nominations to the environmental commission are made by the council as a whole, not by the mayor. In offering the substitute nomination, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated in an email to other councilmembers that “David Stead has decided that his life is busy enough he cannot do justice to serving on the commission.”

White was appointed to the historic district commission for his first three-year term in 2005.

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

The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. [.pdf of staff memo and list of funding allocations]

Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers. He noted that the city council would be voting on its share of the allocation – $1,244,629 – at its May 19 meeting, as part of its budget approval process.

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

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized as part of the county board’s overall coordinated funding resolution, passed on Nov. 6, 2013. The changes were described in a staff memo:

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

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

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

The county board is expected to take a final vote to allocate funding on May 21.

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

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). (Photos by the writer.)

Following about three hours of debate and some minor amendments, commissioners gave initial approval to the proposed four-year general fund budget, for the years 2014-2017. The 7-2 vote came over the dissent of Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), who cited concerns over a budget cycle extending for four years rather than two.

Much of the budget discussion focused on the sheriff’s operations. No layoffs are proposed, but 8.47 FTE positions would be kept unfilled. Most of those are in the sheriff’s office, which has a targeted budget reduction of $1.34 million. Sheriff Jerry Clayton, an elected official, attended the Nov. 6 meeting and addressed the board, telling commissioners that his office can’t continue to absorb budget cuts without affecting services. “For me not to tell you what I believe the impact on public safety is, if you make those cuts, would be negligent in my responsibility as the county sheriff.”

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) countered that every department head could make arguments against budget cuts. Noting that more revenues are needed, Rabhi said he hoped commissioners would support putting a countywide public safety millage on the ballot.

During public commentary after the budget debate, county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie told commissioners that they had a difficult job, but that they were making it harder than it needed to be. He suggested looking for guidance in the state constitution, and relying on the experience of county administrator Verna McDaniel. Mackie also questioned whether commissioners were truly committed to public safety as a priority. He praised Clayton, noting that the sheriff is a respected figure with a national reputation. “He might know more about safety and criminal justice than you do,” Mackie said.

The budget must be given final approval by the end of the year, and only two more board meetings scheduled: On Nov. 20 and Dec. 4. The board will also hold a second public hearing on the budget on Nov. 20.

Several other agenda items related directly or indirectly to the county’s budget. On a 7-1 vote, the board gave final approval to an increase in the levy of the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills. Dan Smith (R-District 2) dissented and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting by the time the vote occurred, just after midnight. Smith questioned the constitutionality of the county levying this tax, as well as the legality of how the revenues are spent.

During public commentary, the board also heard from two people who objected to the tax levy, including Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United. McMaster, who helped lead the statewide campaign that resulted in passage of the Headlee Amendment in 1978, noted during public commentary that there’s a provision in the law allowing for legal action if taxes are raised without voter approval. It’s an action “which we will pursue,” he said.

The board also unanimously approved a tax-sharing agreement to allow a portion of county taxes to be captured by Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA). Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal addressed commissioners during public commentary, thanking them for their support of the CIA. One opponent to the CIA – former township official Christina Lirones – spoke during two opportunities for public commentary, urging the board to opt out of the CIA.

Other items handled during the Nov. 6 meeting included (1) final approval to extend the coordinated funding approach for human services, as well as to authorize some changes in that funding model; (2) appointment of an advisory committee to propose options for county property on Platt Road; (3) final approval of a brownfield plan for Chelsea Milling Co. (Jiffy Mix); and (4) appointment of Ellen Rabinowitz as temporary health officer to replace Dick Fleece, who’s retiring at the end of 2013.

Communications during the meeting included public commentary from supporters of the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor, and concerns about state standards for permissible levels of 1,4-dioxane.

2014-2017 County Budget

The proposed four-year general fund budget, for the years 2014-2017, was on the agenda for initial approval.

County administrator Verna McDaniel had presented the budget to the board on Oct. 2, 2013. The $103,005,127 million budget for 2014 – which represents a slight decrease from the 2013 expenditures of $103,218,903 – includes putting a net total of 8.47 full-time-equivalent jobs on “hold vacant” status, as well as the net reduction of a 0.3 FTE position. The recommended budgets for the following years are $103,977,306 in 2015, $105,052,579 in 2016, and $106,590,681 in 2017. The budgets are based on an estimated 1% annual increase in property tax revenues. [.pdf of draft budget summary]

Most of the 8.47 FTEs that are proposed to be kept unfilled are in the sheriff’s office. Sheriff Jerry Clayton attended the Nov. 6 meeting and addressed the board, telling commissioners that his office can’t continue to absorb budget cuts without affecting services.

Aside from discussing the sheriff’s concerns, much of the board’s discussion focused on the issue of a four-year budget, which is being proposed for the first time as a way to improve long-term planning and stability. Ronnie Peterson in particular objected strongly to that approach, and prefers to maintain the current two-year budget process.

A public hearing was held on Oct. 15, 2013 but it was held after midnight and no one spoke. In a separate resolution on Nov. 6, the board set a second budget hearing for Nov. 20.

2014-2017 County Budget: Initial Public Commentary

During the first opportunity for public commentary, Doug Smith told commissioners that he’d asked them about a month ago to pass a resolution stating that no vacant county position would be filled until Jan. 1, 2014 unless approved by the board. Commissioners haven’t passed such a resolution, he noted. His suggestion was made so that the county would save money in the already-underfunded retirement accounts, Smith said. Every employee added to the current defined benefit pension plan will cost the county money for about 30 years, he noted.

In January 2014, Smith said, he plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to find out how many employees have been hired in the last quarter of 2013. He then plans to calculate the money that’s been wasted, and post that information on the Washtenaw Watchdogs website, for all constituents to see. The website has had more than 100,000 visits in its first four months, he said, and some of the most popular posts are ones about the county board wasting taxpayers’ money. He again urged commissioners to reconsider hiring anyone until the county’s defined contribution plan takes effect on Jan. 1.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Four-Year Budget

Conan Smith (D-District 9) began by saying he’s been getting a “full-court press” from the board leadership about the four-year budget, and he’s had some really intriguing conversations about it. He said he’s not been supportive of a four-year budget because the board hadn’t developed community impacts and outcomes to guide their budget decisions. The transition from an investment in activities to an investment in outcomes is the right direction, he said, and it needs to be clearly articulated with an achievable set of metrics.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The board doesn’t have a process by tradition or policy for continual engagement in the budget, he noted, so without having that process in place, he said, a four-year budget compromises future boards and doesn’t help achieve the community outcomes. So Smith wanted to see language about that community outcomes process in the budget document, to ensure that future boards will have clearly articulated ways for engaging in the county’s investment strategy.

Smith noted that it’s a long process to engage the county’s staff in implementing the board’s desired outcomes. He indicated he’s been criticized for wanting everything to happen right away, “which is absolutely true.” But he acknowledged that it might not be possible or healthy for the organization to implement this process quickly. A longer-term budget process would offer stability and predictability, and working on these other issues in a more incremental way might be less threatening and more palatable to staff who provide services to residents and who need to be engaged in the strategic planning process, which takes a lot of emotional and intellectual energy, he said.

In that context, C. Smith said he was being persuaded about the value of a longer-term budget.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) noted that setting the budget is the most important job of the board, and he apologized to people who were attending the meeting for other reasons if he took more time talking about it. He agreed with C. Smith about concerns over the four-year budget, saying that he thought Washtenaw County would be the only one in the country to have such a long-term budget. The board had been surprised about the cost of the pension and retiree health care liabilities earlier this year, he said. He wondered what would happen to the four-year budget if they discovered there was additional debt that they don’t know about yet. [For background on the retiree liability issue, see Chronicle coverage: "County to Push Back Vote on Bond Proposal."]

Peterson noted that the county’s equalization office had reported that it’s not possible to know what the revenues are until several months into each year. So the county is spending money before it knows how much there is to spend, he said. The board has made some major changes over the years during the economic downturn, he noted, and they’ve asked employees to take unpaid furlough days to help cut costs. That was unprecedented, he said. He was concerned that potential furlough days were part of the proposed budget.

County administrator Verna McDaniel clarified that the furlough days remain in the previously approved labor contracts, but the proposed budget does not assume that those furlough days will be used.

Peterson also noted that revenues from Act 88 and the veterans relief millage are included in each of the four years of the budget. Those millages have to be approved by the board each year, he said, so he didn’t know how it was possible to base the budget on that. If any new board decides not to support those millages, it would impact the budget. He indicated that programs and services that are supported by those millages should be funded through general fund revenues.

Regarding the sheriff’s budget, Peterson asked for clarification about the labor contracts that are currently being negotiated. He also wondered about the contracts with local municipalities that pay the sheriff’s office for deputy services, and how the four-year budget would be affected by that.

McDaniel reported that the contracts with townships for sheriff deputies are part of the budget, under the revenue line item for fees. Those contracts bring in about $12 million in revenue annually, she said.

For the labor agreements, McDaniel said the current contracts for the Police Officers Association of Michigan union (POAM) expire at the end of 2014. The contracts for the Command Officers Association of Michigan union (COAM) expire at the end of 2015. Peterson wondered how the budget can account for the labor costs in the county’s contracts with the townships, if the labor agreements for POAM and COAM haven’t been settled. McDaniel said the labor costs have been projected, based on salary estimates and trends for fringe benefits. There’s been a 1% annual increase through 2016 calculated into the agreements with local municipalities who contract for sheriff deputy services.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Peterson wondered what would happen if those labor costs increase by more than 1%. McDaniel said that a police services steering committee, which includes representatives from the contracting municipalities, discusses this issue. The committee’s projections are aligned with the county’s budget projections, she said. Peterson was concerned that the amount could increase, and he cautioned that local communities might not have the budget flexibility to absorb the increases. There’s a lot of uncertainty over what the costs will be, he said, but he’s sure the increases would be higher than 1%.

Peterson then asked about what the county’s potential loss would be if voters don’t approve a replacement to the personal property tax next year. McDaniel acknowledged some uncertainty from the state on this issue, so that’s something to monitor. Budget projections include personal property tax revenue of $5.5 million in 2014, although there’s some uncertainty beyond that, because the tax will be phased out through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for August 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources. It’s unclear what will happen if that voter referendum fails.

McDaniel also said the budget assumes that the state will maintain the incentive program that replaced state-revenue sharing, for $5.5 million annually. This approach requires the county to meet certain state requirements. Under the previous state revenue-sharing approach, the county received about $6.8 million annually.

Peterson argued that there was too much uncertainty in a four-year budget, because it was too difficult to project how much revenue the county would receive. He was concerned about the amount of unfunded retiree liabilities. Commissioners are only elected to two-year terms – and that’s another factor, he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he took Peterson’s concerns seriously, saying that Peterson has a track record of fighting for his constituents and all residents of the county. LaBarre also agreed with C. Smith’s call to make the budget focused on outcomes – that’s critical. Being pro-active is one of the reasons why he ran for office, LaBarre said.

For the last six years, the county was forced to steer from iceberg to iceberg, LaBarre said, “and we hit each one.” He worries that the two-year budget process doesn’t provide enough time to plan for things that come up, anything from large economic forces to changes in state policy. He said he was excited to try something new, to set a four-year course. Each year, the board would meet its constitutional requirement to approve the next year’s budget and make adjustments – that provides a safety valve for the four-year budget framework. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction, he said. The four-year budget helps focus on outcomes, not just spending money.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded to some of the previous comments. He was excited about changes that will allow for fiscal stability and staff security, resulting in programs and services that residents can count on. “It’s an opportunity to revolutionize the way county government is done,” he said. He wants the board to be engaged in the budget every year, calling it a “living document.” It’s important that commissioners develop a calendar of events for each year of the four-year budget, he said, focusing on board priorities and community outcomes. He offered to work with administration to build that into the budget resolution.

From left: Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the board’s ways & means committee.

Rabhi also pointed out that commissioners are part-time, and they need additional support staff to help them focus on these community outcomes. They can’t do it alone.

Already, the board has to adjust the budget every year based on the outcome of the equalization report, Rabhi noted. Why not have a process in place so that the board is better engaged in that process? He believed a four-year budget can be transformative. Washtenaw County government and residents believe in innovation and in being cutting edge. “That’s what this four-year budget is all about,” he said. Rabhi alluded to an interview he’d recently heard with California governor Jerry Brown, who said that society is like an organism with a certain kind of DNA. Washtenaw County needs to build the DNA for change to happen – that’s the potential that a four-year budget represents, he said.

Conan Smith referred to Peterson’s remarks about the uncertainty of Act 88 and veterans relief millages, and advocated to see whether the staff who are currently supported by those millage revenues could be funded through other sources instead. He wasn’t sure it was possible, but he wanted to look into it. The current approach puts undue stress on staff, he said.

C. Smith added that he hadn’t anticipated voting on the budget that night, but he had some issues he wanted to bring forward for discussion.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) also expressed concerns about a four-year budget. His preference is to adopt a two-year budget, then call the next two years a proposal or projection. He was interested in hearing C. Smith’s ideas for being more actively engaged in the budget process, although he didn’t support making dramatic changes to the budget after it’s adopted. If the budget is not relatively stable, he noted, there’s no point in doing longer-term budgets.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Employees Per Capita)

The budget document, in a section on financial trends, included an indicator of employees per capita. C. Smith noted that the document indicates that the trend is positive if there are fewer employees per capita. “I don’t believe that that’s necessarily the case,” he said. In delivering services to residents, having fewer people to do that doesn’t make sense, he said. This data has been in the budget document for years, he noted, but it doesn’t relate to the way the county does business. The administration has indicated that this indicator not used to determine staffing levels. He wanted to see it removed from the budget book, and he made a motion to do that.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said it’s one of many trends that’s recommended by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), but only if an organization finds it useful. She said that C. Smith was correct – the administration doesn’t use it to determine staffing levels.

C. Smith said that including it sends the wrong message to the community.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to remove the employees-per-capita section from the budget document.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Organizational Survey)

C. Smith noted that the county previously used an organizational capabilities survey to gauge employee attitudes. The survey was perviously done every two years, but for budgetary reasons it hasn’t been done since 2008. He called it a fantastic tool that wasn’t too expensive to implement – between $10,000 and $50,000 each year.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, indicated the cost had been about $50,000 for the first year, and about $35,000 each time after that. She wasn’t sure how much work it would take to restart the survey, or what the current costs would be.

C. Smith thought it was a manageable amount, and he wanted to add a line in the budget document that stated the county would do these surveys again. After some additional back-and-forth with administration, he suggested waiting until the Nov. 20 meeting to figure out how this might be incorporated into the budget.

Outcome: No formal action was taken on this proposal.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Affordable Care Act)

Yousef Rabhi said he still wasn’t comfortable with an item added to the budget policy regarding the Affordable Care Act. He was referring to this item, which had also been discussed at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting:

16. To be in compliance with federal health care reform and the Affordable Care Act effective 1-1-14, the Board of Commissioners reaffirms Resolution #13-TBD that part time employees are not permitted to work more than 25 hours per week. Any part time employee hired, shall not work more than 25 hours per week.

Rabhi didn’t feel this approach was in the spirit of the federal legislation, nor was it the right thing to do for county employees. Conan Smith agreed, noting that the board has discussed issues like a living wage and having health insurance as a right. Health care is important, he said, and the county shouldn’t be trying to figure out how not to give people health insurance.

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said the intent is to alert departments about this potential issue as a liability that could affect their budgets, if employees work more than 30 hours per week. Starting in 2015, the Affordable Care Act will require the county to offer health insurance to anyone who works 30 hours or more per week during a specified period. It doesn’t mean that the employee has to buy the health insurance, Heidt explained, but the county must offer it. This will affect primarily the parks & recreation staff, sheriff’s office, the water resources commissioner, and the community support & treatment services (CSTS) unit – units that use more part-time employees.

After additional discussion, C. Smith moved to delete this item from the budget document, noting that it wouldn’t be an issue until 2015. That will give the county more time to figure out how to address it, he said.

Rabhi said he wanted to have a broader conversation about the county’s part-time employees, not just focusing on health care.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to eliminate the policy item regarding the Affordable Care Act.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Fund Balance Reserves

Conan Smith alerted commissioners that he plans to bring an amendment forward at the Nov. 20 meeting regarding the fund balance reserves. He referred to this item in the budget document:

12. The Board of Commissioners commits to long-term budget flexibility and sustainability, and an adequate level of cash flow with its attention to fund balance. A healthy fund balance is an essential ingredient and the following was considered to determine an appropriate level as a target: an appropriate level to fund at least 60 days of operations, to help offset negative cash flow (primarily from the seven month delay in property tax collections after incurred expenses), and to assist buffering any unexpected downturns. Therefore, the Board shall plan future budgets to meet the goal of a Reserve for Subsequent Years representing at least 20.0% of General Fund expenditures, net of indirect costs. To accomplish this any excess property tax revenue above projected budget (assumptions), but excluding the fiscal years that have structural salary increases tied to property tax revenue growth per labor agreements, as well as any year-end surplus of which 70% will be contributed to fund balance until the reserve goal is met and 30% to be determined by Board of Commissioner authorization.

He said he’s talked with the administration about this, and has come to agree with them about the 20% target. [The existing target is 8%.] One strategy for dealing with the county’s annual cash flow challenge is to increase fund reserves, he noted. Another strategy is to borrow internally from other county funds, and a third strategy is to issue tax anticipation notes, which results in an additional borrowing cost.

The easiest approach by far is to increase the fund reserves, he said. However, he’s reluctant to lock in a formula of allocating funds to that. He thought the allocation of surplus revenue should happen through a process with a thorough board debate.

C. Smith said he planned to work with administration to bring forward a proposal on Nov. 20.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Revenue Increase)

Dan Smith proposed adjusting the revenue line item for general fund taxes and penalties to increase the projected revenues by $449,813 over the four-year period from 2014-2017.

Chart by Dan Smith showing his budget amendment to increase projected revenues.

He further proposed allocating the increased revenues in this way: (1) $100,000 each year to the sheriff’s office; (2) change the “Other Services & Charges for the Board of Commissioners” to add $26,230 for dues to the Michigan Association of Counties (MAC) and to cut the convention and conferences line item by half – to $12,275.

D. Smith explained that he had tried to come up with a way to address concerns about the public safety budget, as well as some interest by other commissioners in restoring the county’s membership in MAC. The projected increases in revenues are tweaked slightly to achieve the extra revenues that can then be allocated toward the sheriff’s budget and MAC.

From left: Commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Conan Smith called the proposed increase in projected revenues “negligible,” saying that it isn’t any more or less accurate than what’s currently projected. That’s not the issue. But he worried about the precedent of the board making this kind of change, rather than the professional finance staff. C. Smith also said he didn’t support joining MAC, saying he didn’t think the county got $26,230 worth of good service out of that organization. He didn’t think MAC was an effective advocate or an articulate representative for the values of Washtenaw County.

In response to a question from C. Smith, D. Smith said he’s previously mentioned concerns about a reduction to the sheriff’s department budget. That reduction makes it difficult for pro-active policing to be done, he said. The sheriff’s office has already been cut in previous budget cycles, he noted, and the proposed cuts will have a very adverse effect on public safety across the county.

D. Smith indicated that he’d be receptive if C. Smith wanted to propose an amendment to his amendment, eliminating the proposed restoration of MAC dues.

C. Smith said he was intrigued by D. Smith’s proposal, but wanted to postpone it until Nov. 20 in order to have time to talk with the sheriff.

Outcome: On a voice vote, the board voted to postpone action on D. Smith’s proposed amendment until the Nov. 20 meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) voted against postponement.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Coordinated Funding)

Dan Smith put forward an amendment to decrease funding to the line item for coordinated funding from $1.015 million annually to $915,000. The $100,000 cut would be allocated to the sheriff’s office. Coordinated funding supports local nonprofits that provide human services, through a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw Urban County, United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The program is administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

In introducing this amendment, D. Smith said he hears from people that public safety is one of the top concerns, and the board has also stated that public safety is a priority. He has great concerns about the proposed reductions to the sheriff’s department.

Outcome: D. Smith’s motion did not receive a second, so it died for lack of support.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Sheriff’s Office

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) asked county administrator Verna McDaniel if it was true that the sheriff’s department has a $500,000 automatic budget reduction each year. McDaniel said that during the first year that sheriff Jerry Clayton was in office (2009), his budget was cut by $500,000. But she contended it hasn’t been reduced by that amount in subsequent years.

Sizemore noted that the initial $500,000 cut occurred under the previous county administrator (Bob Guenzel). He wondered if that same amount was cut each year. McDaniel described that initial $500,000 as a structural cut. She noted that since 2008, the county has needed to cut budgets and the sheriff has cooperated. Because the $500,000 was structural, it carries through to subsequent years, she said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel and board chair Yousef Rabhi.

McDaniel confirmed that the administration is asking for a reduction in eight positions from the sheriff’s department, but she stated that those positions are currently vacant. Sizemore said he wouldn’t support that reduction.

Ronnie Peterson wondered what the effect would be on cutting those positions, and the impact it would have on public safety. He said he’d be interested in hearing from the sheriff.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton told commissioners that a couple of things about the budget deeply concerned him. He said he understands the broader budget context, and the role that his office plays. They’ve stepped up in finding reductions and increasing revenue. But at this point, continued cuts will greatly impact the ability of his office to provide services and to manage the police services contracts with other municipalities.

The administration’s assertion that the proposed cut of eight positions won’t have an impact is not true, Clayton said. It’s true that the positions are currently vacant, for a variety of reasons – including retirements and people quitting – but there are plans to fill those spots. He noted that a previous board of commissioners had approved a jail expansion. His office had been asked to conduct a staffing study, which determined that it would take 36 correction officers to staff the facility. The county board had approved that, and a hiring process has been ongoing. The sheriff’s office has over 420 employees, Clayton said, including full-time, part-time and seasonal workers. Given that number, there will always be a certain amount of turnover. There will always be vacant positions, he said. When the office is fully staffed, they can realize the level of services that are needed, Clayton said.

Clayton also addressed the question of the $500,000 annual reduction. He said when he came into office, he had agreed to it with the prior county administrator. But there was no agreement that it would be in perpetuity, Clayton said, “at least not in my mind. My mistake was in not getting it in writing.” At this point, his office can’t meet the proposed expenditure target, he said, so that puts them in a position of being over budget or reducing the services they provide.

Clayton referred to a letter he’d written to McDaniel, and cc-ed to the board leadership, in response to the budget proposal. The proposed budget reduction of $1.34 million for the sheriff’s office would significantly compromise public safety, he said. Although he could “grudgingly” agree to putting the eight positions on hold vacant status, he said, in exchange he wanted the administration to start eliminating the $500,000 automatic lump sum reduction that’s built into the sheriff’s office budget. He also hoped to be able to fill those vacant positions, if the county’s economic circumstances improve.

Clayton noted that some parts of the county government have been “held harmless” or have even seen increases. It’s not for him to judge whether that’s appropriate, he said, but it is his role to ask how the board can agree to reductions that will impact public safety, while stating that public safety is a priority.

Even local governments that have their own public safety departments still rely on the sheriff’s office as an additional public safety net, he said. As an example, he cited the recent murder of an Eastern Michigan University student. The sheriff’s office is involved in providing increased security in that area, and in helping coordinate other public safety entities. He gave another example of assisting a recent Ann Arbor investigation. “Because we’re a countywide jurisdiction, we’re able to connect the dots.” Criminals and crime don’t have jurisdictional boundaries, so public safety in Washtenaw County affects everyone, Clayton said. The county has a well-deserved reputation as a great place to live, in part because it’s a very safe and secure community. “That does not happen by accident,” he said. It requires a commitment to public safety.

Jerry Clayton, Washtenaw County sheriff.

As a countywide elected official, Clayton said it’s his responsibility to inform the board – which makes budget decisions – that if they continue along this path, they won’t be able to sustain public safety in a manner that residents are used to, and Washtenaw County might become a community that’s considered unsafe. There might be some areas that are insulated, “but we all know if there’s a part of Washtenaw County that’s considered unsafe, it affects us all.”

Yousef Rabhi thanked Clayton, but said he wanted to push back a little. He said he prioritized public safety and thinks it’s important. But he thinks a lot of things that the county does are important. The county doesn’t have the funding to do everything it used to do, he said, and there are tough decisions to make. If every department head had the chance to come forward, they’d give the same impassioned plea that the sheriff gave, Rabhi said, and the board needs to understand that fully.

The only way to sustain services in all areas is to get more revenue, Rabhi said. If the county prioritizes public safety, as it should, then residents should support a public safety millage to support the sheriff’s operations, he said. The county government has its hands tied by the state, Rabhi noted, and revenue streams are declining. There are few options, so he hoped commissioners would support putting a new millage on the ballot. Meanwhile, the board needs to make responsible budget cuts to balance its budget.

Clayton responded, saying it’s the board’s prerogative whether to invite every department head to talk with them. As for his own remarks, “it’s not an impassioned plea – I’m just stating the facts,” he said. Oftentimes the board doesn’t hear from people who are affected by budget cuts. It’s not possible to gauge the impact of budget cuts and outcomes if the board doesn’t have all the information from people who are affected, Clayton said. Nonprofit leaders come to the board and make those impassioned pleas, he added, “and you make decisions based on that. So don’t single me out. You asked me. I’m telling you what the impact is. For me not to tell you what I believe the impact on public safety is, if you make those cuts, would be negligent in my responsibility as the county sheriff.”

Sizemore thanked Clayton for coming, and said he’d like to be included in any future communication about the sheriff’s office budget.

Conan Smith said he was glad they were having this conversation, but was sorry that it’s happening in November. The board couldn’t have a better partner than the sheriff’s office in thinking through how to invest strategically. Clayton had actually inspired a lot of the processes that the board is now going through, Smith said, and Clayton’s team has played a leadership role. But Rabhi is right, Smith added, in that any department head could make a case for why their activities are important, and the county doesn’t have a rubric for evaluating why one activity is more important than another. “We’re trying to get there,” he said.

Clayton replied that he didn’t say public safety was more important than anything else – as he wasn’t making comparisons. His point was that it’s a priority to the county, but it’s still up to the board to decide how to prioritize the value of public safety, in terms of budgeting. If the board ends up cutting the sheriff’s budget, “we’ll live with it,” Clayton said. But he wanted the board and the public to know what’s likely to happen if cuts are made.

Clayton then gave some examples of how the sheriff’s office has collaborated to reduce expenses. Four SWAT teams supported by different governmental units were combined into one team, which reduced costs. Partnering with the city of Ann Arbor on dispatch operations saved the city almost $500,000, he said. He noted that previous discussions have connected economic development to the community’s sense of safety.

Conan Smith asked whether Clayton had talked to the administration about how the county can reduce expenses by decreasing the demand for the sheriff’s office services. Has the discussion occurred about where the county should be strategically investing to make that happen? Clayton said they’re working on that, but it’s a long-term approach that requires resources to achieve. Part of the office’s community engagement strategy is getting into the neighborhoods and working with residents to address root cause problems that change the dynamics of the community. That includes partnering with schools and human service agencies of all kinds, he said. Short of not getting re-elected, Clayton joked, he said he’d love to work himself out of a job.

Conan Smith then shifted to the issue of labor contract negotiations with POAM and COAM. The last contract with the sheriff’s deputies was “more lucrative” than what was implemented with other labor units, C. Smith said. Does this budget anticipate parity with other labor unions? he asked.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Clayton reminded the board that the POAM and COAM agreements were negotiated first, before other units. He assumed that the administration had an overall target of concessions for all units. The POAM came to the table seeing what they could get, and they reached an agreement that was ratified by the board. As subsequent negotiations took place, it’s not fair to tell POAM that they didn’t step up, Clayton said. “They stepped up to what you asked. If you’d asked for more, then they could have had those negotiations.”

That said, Clayton reported that POAM and COAM are aware that all of these things are connected, including the impact on police services contracts with other municipalities. They understand that there’s a balance, he said.

Regarding the police services contracts, C. Smith wondered if the county has optimized that delivery of service, in terms of reducing the impact of those contracts on general fund allocations to public safety. The price point to municipalities can’t be so high that it’s unaffordable, he said, but he indicated there’s more that could be done – like multi-jurisdictional contracting, and innovative policing approaches.

Clayton said that multi-jurisdictional contracting is not something that the sheriff’s office can decide – that’s up to the different local governments. In terms of optimizing staffing, he noted that there’s been a lot of consolidation already. He addressed a complaint he’s heard about the sheriff’s office being top-heavy with management. When he took office, he was asked whether the sheriff’s office could assume responsibility for community corrections. It made sense so that happened, but a manager came with it. The same thing happened with emergency services, and a director came with that transition.

Clayton also said he’s had some conversations with local government officials who pay for police services, and he’d told them that the contract language might have to be revisited. That’s because if staffing is reduced, he’s not sure his office can meet the staffing levels that are laid out in the police services contracts. He didn’t want to set expectations at a level that he couldn’t meet.

Conan Smith said he was very supportive of a public safety millage. It would address the financial challenge as well as the policy tension that exists. Speaking as an Ann Arbor resident, C. Smith said he knows the sheriff’s office works with the city, but it’s much more palatable to invest in other communities’ public safety using the county’s general fund if there’s been a vote by residents to do that.

C. Smith noted that Dan Smith had raised the possibility of allocating an additional $100,000 to the sheriff’s department. How would Clayton use those funds, if available? Clayton replied that he’d restore the lost FTEs to put boots on the ground and staff in the jail. When staffing levels are lowered, his office becomes a reactive organization, he said.

Andy LaBarre asked Clayton how the board can deal with the disparity of views regarding the $500,000 budget cut that began in 2009. LaBarre didn’t think it was good to have a countywide elected sheriff and the county administrator on different pages regarding that issue. Clayton reiterated that it was an agreement made with the previous administrator, and that his assumption had been that it was just for a single two-year budget cycle – saying that’s how it had been presented to him. It was never his understanding that the cut was structural, so his question is whether the office can sustain that ongoing cut as well as additional reductions that are being requested.

The options are to reduce services, Clayton said, or to work with the administration over the next four years and restore that $500,000 to the budget – $125,000 each year. He realized that it couldn’t happen immediately.

LaBarre agreed with C. Smith about the importance of social services and human services, and he acknowledged that the sheriff’s office has worked on these issues – in particular, Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff’s office, has been integral for that, LaBarre noted. He hoped a solution could be worked out as quickly as possible regarding the structural budget question.

Clayton replied that his office will always remain a partner in this process, even if they don’t agree on the outcome.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Legal Fees)

Dan Smith pointed to an appropriation in the budget document of $100,000 to cover “litigation matters involving the County as Plaintiff, to be overseen by the County Administrator.” He said he’s not a fan of lawsuits, noting the only people who really come out ahead are lawyers on both sides.

Curtis Hedger, Washtenaw County’s corporation counsel.

He didn’t want to see a recurrence of a recent situation when taxpayer dollars were spent on outside counsel. [This was likely an allusion to the county engaging outside legal counsel after being sued over the board's resolution opposing the state's Stand Your Ground law.]

D. Smith thought the county board meets regularly enough to appropriate funds when necessary, and the corporation counsel is competent to deal with matters until the board can act. He moved for that item to be stricken from the budget document.

Responding to a question from Conan Smith, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said the need to use these funds doesn’t occur frequently. The item gives the administration some flexibility.

C. Smith thought that if the county is the plaintiff, that it ought to be a board discussion about whether to sue, or it should at least be a discussion for the board leadership.

Hedger said if something came up during the summer months when the board meets less frequently, this item would allow the administration to address it. Generally the cases are enforcement-related, tied to building code or soil erosion violations, for example. The intent is to give the administration some flexibility, Hedger said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked why enforcement couldn’t be handled through civil infractions. Hedger reminded the board that they just recently passed an ordinance allowing for civil infractions, but the ability to issue civil infractions for specific violations isn’t yet in place. In the future, having the ability to issue civil infractions will likely allow the county to avoid suing, he said.

Responding to a query from C. Smith, county administrator Verna McDaniel noted that she is authorized to make expenditures up to $100,000 for contracts without board approval.

In that case, C. Smith felt this item was already taken care of in the county’s existing policies.

Yousef Rabhi didn’t understand why they would remove the item, if it doesn’t matter one way or another. Why not just leave it in? He asked Hedger about the policy and process for litigating. Hedger replied that the county sues so infrequently that there isn’t a policy. Usually, the county is the defendant.

Rabhi then said he felt it was important to keep the item in place, to show that the board approves spending up to that amount on litigation. He thought that removing the language would hamstring the county’s ability to be legally nimble. He didn’t think the amendment was productive or made sense.

Rabhi noted that being a plaintiff doesn’t just mean the county is suing. It could also mean that the county joins in with other entities to take legal action, for public health and environmental protection – for example, seeking reparations for an oil spill on the Huron River. The board could still allocate money to fight it, he acknowledged, but it’s harder to stomach doing that if there isn’t a line item for it. “Things come up, folks, and we need to have the dollars budgeted to help to bring justice to people of Washtenaw County,” Rabhi said.

C. Smith said he looked at it as an encumbrance that gets baked into the budget. It’s money that’s not being allocated somewhere else. He noted that the office of corporation counsel has a $2.4 million budget. Was the $100,000 part of that amount? Financial analyst Tina Gavalier clarified that there actually is no line item encumbering these funds. If used, the amount would be taken from the general fund reserves. “In which case, I’m agnostic,” C. Smith said.

From left: Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

Andy LaBarre wondered why it couldn’t be made a smaller amount, like $10,000. Hedger replied that it’s just been part of the budget document for a long time at that amount. Hedger wanted to make sure there’s enough to cover any potential litigation, because it varies from year to year.

D. Smith said this amendment wasn’t trying to undermine public health and safety. Rather, it’s a way to ensure that if the county is going to engage in significant litigation as a plaintiff, that it’s a board decision. It’s already been established that smaller amounts can be handled at the administrator’s discretion.

After further discussion, Hedger indicated he’d be willing to develop a policy on this issue for the board to review. If the item is removed from the budget document, it wouldn’t necessarily hamper his ability to initiate litigation, he said. If something happens that’s a true public safety issue, he’d move ahead anyway and “I’ll worry about where the money’s coming from later.”

Outcome: The amendment failed on a 4-5 vote. Supporting the amendment were Dan Smith, Alicia Ping, Ronnie Peterson, and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the amendment were Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec, and Andy LaBarre.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Motion to Postpone

Dan Smith moved to postpone an initial vote on the budget until the board’s Nov. 20 meeting. There are several things that commissioners have said they’d like to work out, he noted, and one amendment had been postponed already.

Outcome on postponement: The motion failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from Dan Smith and Ronnie Peterson.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Final Deliberations

Discussion continued. Alicia Ping identified an item in the budget document that was unclear:

13. The Board of Commissioners authorizes the County Administrator to continue the necessary match. The summary shall separately specify any proposed match in excess of the minimum required.

Verna McDaniel indicated that it was inadvertently included, and should be removed. No amendment was necessary to do that.

Ronnie Peterson said he wanted to support his colleagues, but he wouldn’t follow them over a cliff. He spoke at length, restating his concerns about a four-year budget. He noted that the board’s main responsibility is to set the budget, so if they do a four-year budget now, what are they being paid to do in the coming years? Anyone who votes for a four-year budget should cut their salaries in half, he said, because they’re delegating away their responsibility. He was upset that they were getting ready to vote, even though he said his concerns hadn’t been addressed.

Andy LaBarre responded to some of the concerns raised by Peterson. He noted that the budget assumes the status quo in terms of state and federal funding. Rather than paying off its pension liabilities at one time through bonding, the county has decided to handle those obligations on a year-by-year basis “in a somewhat blind manner,” he said, because the annual actuarial payment can’t be determined in advance. LaBarre said the scariest thing for him in not doing a four-year budget is to see the kinds of deeper cuts they’d have to make if they didn’t take this approach.

At the request of LaBarre, county finance director Kelly Belknap reviewed that approach. She noted that with the two-year budget approach, the county would have needed to make cuts of $2.6 million in 2014 and another $3.9 million in 2015. But if structural reductions are front-loaded in 2014, over the four-year budget period the overall amount of cuts will be reduced, she said. [The budget presented to the board on Oct. 2, 2013 identified $4.13 million in operating cost reductions. Those include: (1) $2.89 million in proposed departmental reductions; (2) $688,000 in estimated increased revenues from fees and services; (3) $450,000 in reductions to county infrastructure allocations; and (4) $100,000 in cuts to “outside agency” allocations.]

LaBarre said that’s the reason he’ll be supporting the four-year budget.

Felicia Brabec thanked commissioners for their input, and supported the four-year approach, saying it allows for strategic, long-term decisions. She felt it would be transformative and was the prudent thing to do. It’s a big change, and will entail a lot more work. In contrast to Peterson’s belief that salaries should be cut, she thought it made more sense for salaries to be doubled, because of the extra work.

Dan Smith called the question, a procedural move intended to force a vote. The vote on calling the question was unanimous.

Outcome on 2014-2017 budget as amended: Initial approval of the 2014-2017 budget was given on a 7-2 vote, over the dissent of Dan Smith and Ronnie Peterson.

2014-2017 County Budget: Final Public Commentary

Brian Mackie introduced himself by giving his Ann Arbor address, saying that makes him a resident of Washtenaw County. He noted that he’s also an elected official, and “I hope that doesn’t disqualify me from speaking.” [Mackie is the county's prosecuting attorney.] The board has been talking about the budget since January, he observed, and now it seems the discussions are getting more pointed and serious. It’s a difficult job, he said, “but I would suggest to you that you are making this much harder than it needs to be.”

There are a couple of places to look for guidance, he said. One is the state constitution. Mackie recalled how earlier this year at a budget retreat, one commissioner had said he didn’t give a crap about what the state says about mandates. [That commissioner was Conan Smith (D-District 9), who made this statement at a March 7, 2013 budget retreat: “I don’t give a crap about what the state tells me to do anymore; they clearly don’t have the prosperity of my community in mind.” He was referring to state mandates, arguing that state-mandated service levels should be interpreted at the “absolute possible minimum.”] Mackie pointed out that county government is a unit of state government. It’s how services are delivered to citizens, and it’s essential in our scheme of government, he said.

Mackie also said that the board should rely on the county’s “excellent administrator,” Verna McDaniel. She’s been working in county government for a long time, he noted, and knows what she’s doing. He didn’t believe there was tension between the sheriff and administrator. There’s a difference of opinion, he added, and he thought McDaniel was trying to carry out the wishes of the board. “Because frankly, I don’t believe public [safety], in spite what is said, is really backed by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Some of you certainly do. Some of you do not.” He also urged the board to listen to the sheriff. He indicated that the sheriff hadn’t been treated as well as others who’ve come before the board. Sheriff Jerry Clayton has a national reputation, Mackie noted. “He’s not only a good sheriff for Washtenaw County, he’s not only better than his predecessor in many ways, but he’s a national figure,” Mackie said. Clayton is called upon to train sheriffs nationwide. “He might know more about safety and criminal justice than you do,” Mackie told the board.

Mackie also talked about public safety in terms of working with the mentally ill, which he said was near and dear to the hearts of many commissioners. He encouraged them to listen to 911 calls. In a given hour, the sheriff’s dispatchers get calls from Ann Arbor three times an hour about a suicidal subject, he said. People call 911 because they’re desperate and they need help keeping someone alive. “So think about that, please,” he concluded.

Third-Quarter Budget Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel and the finance staff delivered a third-quarter 2013 budget update during the Nov. 6 meeting. The administration is projecting a budget surplus of $1,079,748.

The expected surplus is higher than the one projected earlier this year. During a second-quarter 2013 budget update that the county’s financial staff delivered on Aug. 7, 2013, a $245,814 general fund surplus was projected for the year.

The surplus is attributed in part to higher-than-expected general fund revenues of $103,805,884 – compared to $99,722,141 in the 2013 budget that county commissioners approved late last year. Total expenditures are expected to reach $102,726,136.

The surplus means that the county will not need to tap its fund balance in 2013 in order to balance the budget, as it had originally planned to do. By the end of 2013, the general fund’s fund balance is projected to stand at $17,867,835 or 17.3% of general fund expenditures and transfers out.

There are three areas that staff will be monitoring, which could affect the budget: (1) fringe benefit projections; (2) personal property tax reform; and (3) the impact of federal sequestration. [.pdf of third-quarter budget update presentation]

Third-Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about a projected $65,000 over-expenditure in the 14A District Court. She wondered how that happened. Finance analyst Tina Gavalier replied that it’s primarily caused by overtime costs due staff shortages and staff medical leave. She noted that earlier this year, a $100,000 over-expenditure had been expected – so the $65,000 is actually an improvement, she said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Gavalier said the District Court has a budgeted lump sum reduction of $109,000 for 2013. One could argue, she said, that the court is meeting part of its lump sum reduction by having lower-than-projected over-expenditures. Ping wondered how overspending can result in a credit to the court’s lump sum reduction. Gavalier replied that the lump sum reduction was budgeted as an over-expenditure.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said the administration is working with the court to help identify ways to reduce expenditures. This has been ongoing over the last two years, she said. The court administration has been cooperative, she added.

Ping said she thought the courts had agreed to a $200,000 lump sum reduction. McDaniel clarified that Ping was referring to the Washtenaw Trial Court, not the District Court.

Ping asked whether the county would need to notify both courts, if the board wanted to give notice of an intent to eliminate the lump sum budgeting approach. McDaniel pointed out that there will be a new chief judge as of January 2014. [David S. Swartz was recently named chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court, effective Jan. 1, 2014. The appointment was made by the Michigan Supreme Court. Swartz will replace current chief judge Donald Shelton, who has served in that position for four years.]

McDaniel said there might be some “different ways” to work things out with the new court leadership, and indicated that she’d like some time to give that a chance. [For more background on the lump sum agreement, see Chronicle coverage: "County to Keep Trial Court Budget Agreement."]

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the projection for the end-of-year fund balance. Gavalier replied that assuming their projections are correct, the fund balance would be $17,867,835 as of Dec. 31, or 17.3% of general fund expenditures and transfers out.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Act 88 Tax Hike & Policy

Two items related to a tax to support economic development and agriculture were on the Nov. 6 agenda.

The board was asked to give final approval to an increase in the levy of the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills.

The millage will be levied in December 2013 and raise an estimated $972,635. Initial approval to the increase had been given by the board on Oct. 16, 2013. The funds will be allocated to the following groups:

• $408,135: Washtenaw County office of community & economic development (OCED)
• $200,000: Ann Arbor SPARK
• $100,000: Eastern Leaders Group
• $52,000: Promotion of Heritage Tourism in Washtenaw County
• $50,000: SPARK East
• $50,000: Detroit Region Aerotropolis
• $82,500: Washtenaw County 4-H
• $15,000: Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show
• $15,000: MSU Extension for food systems-related economic development activities

The initial approval had allocated $423,135 to OCED. Based on a recommendation from OCED, an amendment approved unanimously on Nov. 6 shifted $15,000 from that allocation to fund food systems-related economic development. A second amendment, also passed unanimously, corrected the original resolution, which had stated that the millage would only be assessed against real property in Washtenaw County. The amendment clarified that the millage will be assessed against all taxable property located in the county.

The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 0.5 mills under Act 88 without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax, which predates the state’s Headlee Amendment.

Also on Nov. 6, the board was asked to give final approval to a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9) and given initial approval on Oct. 16. [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy includes creating an Act 88 advisory committee to make recommendations to the board and prepare an annual report that assesses how Act 88 expenditures have contributed toward progress of goals adopted by the board.

The policy allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. The policy also allocates up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding.

Act 88 Tax Hike & Policy: Public Commentary

Doug Smith pointed out that Act 88 only authorizes three activities. Two activities are advertisement, and the third is support of exhibitions of county products. He thought there was some confusion about the phrase that talks about increasing trade for county products. If you look at the structure of the sentence, that phrase refers to the purpose of supporting exhibitions of products, he said. “It’s not a standalone phrase.” The act doesn’t say anything about economic development, or giving money to startups or support of new companies, or subsidizing training programs. These economic development uses aren’t authorized by Act 88, he said.

Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United.

Regarding the board’s Act 88 policy, Smith noted that it uses the language of the law. The problem is that the contract that the county has with Ann Arbor SPARK doesn’t use the same language – it uses language of economic development. In addition, there’s no requirement for any kind of reporting for what the money will be spent on by SPARK. It all goes into one pot, he said, so the county can’t tell whether the spending complies with the law. The same is true for the $50,000 membership to the Detroit Region Aerotropolis, Smith said. What is that money being spent on? He asked commissioners not to use the Act 88 millage to support economic development.

Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United told commissioners that he’d helped Dick Headlee with the statewide campaigns in 1976, 1977 and 1978 that ultimately resulted in what’s known as the Headlee Amendment. The first year they tried, in 1976, the proposal only got 40% of the vote. In 1978, it received 58% of the vote statewide.

The people who voted were looking for tax limitation, he said. One of the real surprises that’s emerged since then is the “innovative use” of past legislation in an attempt to get around the Headlee Amendment, he said. The state constitution reigns supreme, McMaster said. When you refer to a 100-year-old bill, it’s “much subservient” to the constitution, he noted, because it’s a piece of legislation and in no way equates to the power of the constitution. He called the county’s attempt to levy a $1 million tax on Washtenaw County residents – without a vote of the people – an “ambush.” He urged the board not to pass the Act 88 levy or the policy. It’s not constitutional without a vote of the people, he said.

McMaster concluded by saying that part of the Headlee Amendment has a provision for a lawsuit, starting in the court of appeals “which we will pursue.”

Act 88 Tax Hike: Board Discussion – Move to Table

Dan Smith said he might have a lot to say about this item, but he first wanted to “consider something else I have in mind,” so he moved to table the resolution.

Outcome: The motion to table failed on a voice vote.

Act 88 Tax Hike: Board Discussion – Constitutional?

As he has on previous occasions, Dan Smith raised questions about whether levying this kind of tax is constitutional, because it would exceed constitutional limits on the amount of property tax that can be levied without voter approval. He also questioned whether the language of the Act 88 statute allows the kind of general interpretation the county is using to define eligible uses of funds generated by the levy. Those eligible uses are laid out in a long run-on sentence that’s difficult to parse, he noted, but if you read it very carefully, the use of the funds is quite limited.

The law states:

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

“So not only are we quite likely levying these funds unconstitutionally,” Smith said, “once we levy them unconstitutionally, we then go and spend them illegally.”

Smith has been advocating for written clarification from the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, that would explicitly state the county’s position on the legality of this levy. That hasn’t happened, Smith said.

Hedger maintains that he can provide that kind of written legal opinion only under direction from the entire board. Smith questioned whether it takes a vote of the board to request a legal opinion. Another Michigan county has a policy that interprets MCL 49.155 in such a way that a commissioner could apply on behalf of the entire board for a legal opinion, Smith reported.

MCL 49.155 states:

The prosecuting attorney, or county corporation counsel in a county which has employed an attorney in lieu of the prosecuting attorney to represent the county in civil matters, shall give opinions, in cases where this state, a county, or a county officer may be a party or interested, when required by a civil officer in the discharge of the officer’s respective official duties relating to an interest of the state or county.

Smith said he’s not even really looking for a legal opinion. He just wants additional clarification regarding the Act 88 levy specifically, similar to what’s provided in other cover memos. It’s certainly unclear whether this levy is 100% legal, he said. He noted that on the issue of the State Street corridor improvement authority, he didn’t have concerns about its legality. His concerns with the CIA were policy-related, he noted.

But for Act 88, he can’t get past the legal concerns in order to discuss the policy. The board is essentially saying “Sue us and we’ll let the court sort this out,” Smith said. That’s not the right approach. Taxpayers are forced to pay this tax under threat of foreclosure – if they don’t pay their taxes, the county can foreclose on their property. “That is a very very heavy threat from government to tax somebody,” he said, so the board should be very sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it’s legal.

He concluded by saying he can’t support the way the county is levying this tax, and he can’t support the way the money is spent after it’s collected.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Conan Smith said he appreciated D. Smith’s passion on this issue. He noted that last year, the state legislature took up a proposal to eliminate Act 88. There was a robust discussion and public hearings, but the legislature ultimately took no action and left it in place. He said he’s comfortable that if the state legislature is satisfied that Act 88 comports with the constitution, then that’s the case “until a court determines otherwise.” He agreed that the bar is high in taking the government to court, but his priority isn’t in determining the constitutionality of this law. His priority is in investing in the economic outcomes that these dollars can provide for county residents.

C. Smith called the language of the Act 88 law “one of the worst run-on sentences” and that makes it tough to determine what exactly the funds can be used for. It’s reasonably arguable that increasing trade in the county is a central tenet of the act, he said, and that affords some leeway in interpreting how those funds are used, including making the kinds of investments that the county is considering.

C. Smith agreed with Doug Smith’s point during public commentary that there aren’t controls in place to see exactly how some organizations are spending the Act 88 funds that the county provides. However, in looking at each organization’s strategic plan, you can make a “reasonable inference” that the funds are being invested in a way that comports with Act 88. He said he appreciates the complexity of this issue, and that as a pre-Headlee statute its applicability is “somewhat convoluted.” However, he’s comfortable that the board has the authority to do this and he’d support the resolution, even though he would prefer to levy an even higher rate.

Andy LaBarre asked Hedger what it would entail, in terms of time and effort, to produce a legal opinion. Hedger replied that it would take some time to write up an opinion, but that he’d already done the research. One challenge is that there’s not much guidance as far as case law, because it hasn’t been challenged in court. There’s a lot of statutory interpretation that would be required, and that would take some time to figure out how to make it as clear as possible, Hedger said.

Hedger noted that any opinion wouldn’t apply just to Act 88. It would also apply to the veterans relief millage that the county levies, as well as some other levies.

Ronnie Peterson cautioned that getting a legal opinion “opens up a big door.” He noted that Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United might get a legal opinion, “but it won’t be from us.” The ramifications would be very challenging, Peterson said, and the board needs to consider that as they deliberate on a four-year budget.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, the board gave final approval to an increase in the Act 88 levy. Dan Smith (R-District 2) dissented and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting by the time the vote occurred, just after midnight.

Act 88 Policy: Board Discussion

Regarding the Act 88 policy, Dan Smith said he had several concerns about it. As an example, he highlighted the policy that would allow the advisory committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. He noted that Act 88 authorizes only the board to direct how revenues are spent: The wording in the statute is very specific, he said.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger responded that by approving this policy, the board would be providing that direction – in essence, delegating it to the advisory committee. It’s one step removed, Hedger said, but it’s “not just coming out of the blue.”

Alicia Ping wondered why the amount of 10% was designated. Conan Smith replied that there are “leveraging opportunities that rise up with relative immediacy,” like matching grants or event sponsorship. Some of these things don’t warrant board approval, he said. Small amounts are spent regularly through the county administrator’s discretion, he noted. The committee could also give money directly to an organization, if it sees fit to do that and if the organization provides programs or services that fit with the Act 88 allowed uses.

Ping wondered if the full board would get a report on how that 10% would be allocated. C. Smith pointed out that the policy includes a requirement for an annual report about how all Act 88 expenditures were made, and assessing whether those investments were effective.

Yousef Rabhi said every agency that’s funded with public dollars should be accountable for how those dollars are spent. There’s been some citizen feedback that some of the agencies funded by the county don’t have enough accountability, he said. “We need to make sure that they are accountable for public dollars that we allocate to them.” This policy helps accomplish that, Rabhi concluded.

Outcome: The Act 88 policy was unanimously approved. Rolland Sizemore Jr. had left the meeting and did not vote.

Act 88 Policy: Request for Legal Opinion

In introducing this item, Dan Smith said he believed the Act 88 statute is constitutional, but that the county isn’t using it constitutionally because the county is already at its maximum allowable levy. One reason why the state legislature didn’t repeal Act 88 is that the law is constitutional for counties that haven’t reached their maximum allowable levy amount, he said.

It’s critical to sort this out, he added, because if these levies are legal, then about three-quarters of a billion dollars could be raised across the state to fix roads – raised locally and controlled locally. Everyone who drives on roads knows that this needs to be done, he said. “If this is a solution that can be used across the state, we need to make people aware of it.” If it’s not, “we need to know that too.”

He brought forward a resolution directing corporation counsel to provide an opinion on taxes levied in excess of constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

Outcome: The motion died for lack of a second.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA

On the Nov. 6 agenda was a resolution for final approval of a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA), which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] An initial vote had been taken on Oct. 16, 2013, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

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

The Pittsfield Township board of trustees held a public hearing on the CIA at its Oct. 9, 2013 meeting. That started the clock on a 60-day period during which any taxing entities within the corridor can “opt out” of participation. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission voted to support participation in the CIA at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting. Other local taxing entities in the corridor are Washtenaw Community College, the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, and the Saline and Ann Arbor district libraries. The Ann Arbor District Library board voted to approve its own tax-sharing agreement at a meeting on Nov. 11, 2013. At its Nov. 12 meeting, the Saline library board voted to opt out of the CIA. The metroparks board also decided to opt out, with a vote at its Nov. 14 meeting. No action has been taken by the WCC board of trustees, which next meets on Nov. 26.

On Oct. 16, Dan Smith had moved a substitute resolution. It stated that the county would not participate in the CIA. [.pdf of D. Smith's substitute resolution] He said he supported the road improvement project, but objected to the TIF funding mechanism. He noted that the county had the ability to invest directly in the project using general fund money. He also pointed out that if the county participated in the CIA, the county would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. In addition, the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, he said, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point.

The Oct. 16 vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Public Commentary

Mandy Grewal addressed the board during public commentary, thanking them for their support of the CIA. She introduced several other township officials who attended the meeting but who did not formally address commissioners, including treasurer Patricia Scribner; CIA board member Claudia Kretschmer of Gym America; Craig Lyon, the township’s director of utilities and municipal services; and consultant Dick Carlisle. She indicated that county commissioner Felicia Brabec would soon be appointed to the CIA board. She hoped that the county commissioners would support the CIA.

County commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal.

Christina Lirones introduced herself as a Pittsfield Township resident and former township clerk, treasurer and chair of the planning commission. She’s very opposed to the CIA proposal and she hoped the board would opt out. The township held a public hearing on Oct. 9, and she noted that she’d emailed commissioners a copy of the statement she’d made at that meeting. [.pdf of Lirones' statement at Oct. 9 township public hearing] There are other ways that road improvements could be funded, she said, and past township administrations avoided these kinds of TIF funding arrangements. As someone who supports county services and who voted for the county parks millage, Lirones said she’s deeply concerned that tax dollars that should support residents and parks will be diverted in part for road expansion. In most sections, the road already has three lanes or more, she noted, and it’s in much better shape than many other county roads. That part of the township would increase in value, regardless of the road expansion.

The CIA TIF is being rushed through, Lirones contended, in order to get it on the tax rolls this year. There’s no benefit to the county, she argued, only the loss of tax revenue. Businesses that move to the corridor already receive tax abatements from the current township board, she said, and a TIF would cut revenues further. In the past, developers have funded road improvements based on projected traffic counts, but the CIA TIF would reverse this policy and shift the expense onto taxpayers. It’s unfair to responsible developers who’ve paid for this in the past, she argued, and it’s unfair to residents and taxpayers. It’s also unfair to taxing entities that are giving up their tax revenues. She said the residents who live on State Street were not invited to serve on the CIA board and they don’t support this project. She said she and her husband were the only members of the public who attended all the meetings related to the CIA, which she characterized as poorly noticed and held during the day.

Lirones spoke again at the second opportunity for public commentary later in the evening, after the board’s budget discussion. She noted that the CIA tax-sharing agreement limits the amount of tax capture to $3.8 million from Washtenaw County tax revenues. At first, she said, she thought perhaps it’s a small amount of money for the county. But it turns out that based on their budget discussion, the county is in some dire financial straits, she said, so the $3.8 million is a significant amount that would be lost to the county operating budget. It’s money that the sheriff’s department and human services could use, she said. Lirones hoped the board would decide to opt out. She restated many of the reasons she’d previously mentioned for opposing the CIA, including the fact that the corridor is already being developed even without the road improvements. It’s important for tax dollars to be used for their original intent. “I’m afraid it’s only the first in a series of tax increment finance and capture districts,” she concluded.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Board Discussion

There was minimal discussion before the final vote on Nov. 6. Dan Smith pointed out that the board was voting on the tax-sharing agreement. It states that the amount of tax capture will be 50%, not the full 100% that would be allowed by law. Procedurally, it was not an “opt-in” vote, he noted.

Conan Smith said he was glad that the board leadership and administration will be developing a policy regarding tax increment financing districts.

Outcome: The tax-sharing agreement for the State Street CIA was unanimously approved.

Coordinated Funding

On the agenda was a resolution for final approval to extend the coordinated funding approach for human services, as well as to authorize some changes in that funding model. Initial approval had been given on Oct. 16, 2013, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During a discussion on this item at the county board’s Oct. 16 meeting, some commissioners expressed concern about controlling the allocation process related to the county’s contribution. Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, reported that she’d be bringing back recommendations to the board for approval, prior to any allocation of funding. This has also been the process in previous years.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion – Community Outcomes

On Nov. 6, Callan reviewed the process and provided additional details about how allocations are made. She also provided a handout with information about community outcomes for coordinated funding. [.pdf of outcomes handout]

Callan explained that the approach of looking at community-level outcomes is new, but it has been discussed for some time. It aligns with the board’s own initiative to look at outcomes when determining budget allocations for the general fund, she noted. The level of investment in the coordinated funding approach is up to the board, she said. But one of the points of five different funding sources – working together – is to eliminate the need for a nonprofit to apply five different places in order to get funded. County dollars go into the six areas that have been identified as priorities, Callan said.

From left: Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and county administrator Verna McDaniel. Both serve on the coordinated funding leadership team.

During the last funding round, there were about three times as many applications as there were entities that ultimately received funding, she noted. The application review and scoring process is very transparent, she added.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) wondered how the board can become engaged in that process. Callan reported that Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) serves on a coordinated funding leadership team, as does county administrator Verna McDaniel. Weight is given to organizations serving those residents who are most at risk and impoverished, Callan said.

Callan said she hoped the board wasn’t interested in becoming involved in the operation details of how scoring rubrics are created for request for proposals. But the board’s priorities for funding anti-poverty efforts and root causes are very clear, she said, and are reflected in all of the coordinated funding work. Every single community outcome is about preventing, reducing or eliminating poverty, Callan said.

Conan Smith said he felt the scoring rubric really needs to be shared with the board before it’s adopted, because that’s how dollars get allocated.

C. Smith also raised the issue that smaller, innovative nonprofits often don’t compete well in the coordinated funding allocation. He asked Callan to address that issue. That’s been an enduring concern, she replied, and in general the larger, more established agencies do tend to get funded. In this upcoming cycle, a couple of things have changed, she said. A new funder, RNR Foundation, has joined the coordinated funding initiative. That family foundation wants to provide capacity-building dollars to smaller nonprofits so they can compete in this funding process.

Additionally, requiring a third-party independent audit is very onerous and costly for smaller nonprofits. So the coordinated funders have changed the threshold for requiring an audit – to agencies with budgets of $500,000 or more. For agencies with budgets between $250,000 and $500,000, an independent financial review is now acceptable. Nonprofits with budgets under $250,000 can provide the 990 forms that are filed with the IRS, as well as the most recent financial statements that are submitted to that nonprofit’s board. All of this is an attempt to lessen the burden on smaller organizations, she said.

C. Smith asked when the coordinated funding reviewers are appointed. In about a month, Callan replied. A request for information (RFI) has already been issued for nonprofits that hope to get funding. The RFP to solicit applications for funding will be released in January or early February of 2014, she reported. It’s up to each funding organization to appoint their reviewers, she said, but in the past those appointments have been recommended by OCED. It’s important for the group of reviewers in aggregate to have a diverse skill set, she said. C. Smith noted that having diverse perspectives is also important.

C. Smith said when funding recommendations are brought to the board, it feels like a rubber stamp at that point. In reality, Callan said, the board can decide how to invest the funds. The vote they’d be taking that night was about whether they want to stay at the table. Other input includes making clear the board’s funding priorities and appointing reviewers. She said she understands that the board feels its hands are tied sometimes, because of the complexity of the process.

C. Smith said the board’s input at the end of the process – in approving the funding allocation – isn’t meaningful. He’d rather see the board be more involved in the front end. He wanted commissioners to really talk about the funding priorities and the reviewers as a board, so that they can make more of an impact. He noted that the board has never changed a single allocation for coordinated funding.

In response to another question from C. Smith, Callan noted that OCED staffs seven community advisory boards, including the Ann Arbor housing and human services advisory board and the county community action board. Input from those boards is integrated into the coordinated funding process, too.

C. Smith concluded by saying his comments were meant to improve the process, which he thought had taken a step forward during this cycle. Callan replied that she welcomes suggestions for improvement. “I would encourage you and the board to use the same rigor with all of your investments,” she said.

Ronnie Peterson spoke at length about the importance of ending poverty, and the county’s role in making that happen.

Outcome: The board gave final approval to extend the coordinated funding approach. The vote was unanimous, but Rolland Sizemore Jr. had left the meeting when this vote was taken at nearly midnight.

Platt Road Advisory Committee

Commissioners were asked to appoint members of a 13-member advisory committee to look at options for the county-owned Platt Road site in Ann Arbor, where the old juvenile center was located.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Members are: county commissioners Yousef Rabhi and Andy LaBarre, who both represent districts in Ann Arbor; Ann Arbor city councilmember Christopher Taylor; three county senior managers – Bob Tetens, Mary Jo Callan and Greg Dill; Jennifer Hall, director of the Ann Arbor housing commission; and six residents – Jeannine Palms, Vickie Wellman, Amy Freundl, Ron Emaus, Peter Vincent and Robb Burroughs.

The board had voted to create the committee at its Sept. 18, 2013 meeting. The idea of an advisory committee to help with the dispensation of this property – at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road – was first discussed at the board’s July 10, 2013 meeting. It was included in an overall strategic space plan for county facilities, which proposed demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee would be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, was an item to be worked out for a board vote at a later date.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sept. 18 resolution also set a deadline of Dec. 31, 2013 for the committee to deliver its analysis and recommendations to the board. [.pdf of substitute resolution] That resolution passed unanimously on Sept. 18, with three commissioners absent.

There was no discussion on this item during the Nov. 6 meeting.

Outcome: Appointments of the Platt Road advisory committee passed unanimously.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield Status

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a brownfield plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix. Initial approval had been given on Oct. 16, 2013. [.pdf of brownfield plan]

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

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

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

There was no board discussion on this item.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to give final approval to the brownfield plan.

Interim Public Health Officer

Ellen Rabinowitz was nominated to serve as interim health officer for Washtenaw County. She currently serves as executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, a job she’ll continue to hold. [.pdf of Rabinowitz resumé]

Ellen Rabinowitz, executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan and new interim public health officer.

The appointment is spurred by the retirement of current health officer Dick Fleece, effective Dec. 28. The position is mandated by the state, and requires a graduate degree and 5 years of full-time public health administration. Responsibilities include overseeing the county’s public health department.

According to a memo that accompanied the appointment resolution, the interim status will allow for time to make a decision about the permanent appointment. Both the interim and permanent appointments require approval by the state Dept. of Community Health. The staff memo also states that any savings received during the interim appointment will go toward reducing the use of fund balance projected in the 2013/2014 public health budget.

Before the Nov. 6 vote, Rabinowitz and Fleece both addressed the board. Rabinowitz told commissioners that Fleece’s retirement will leave a big hole, as he’s done some amazing work over the last five years. She said he’s leaving the department in great shape. It’s clearly a dynamic time in the field of health care, with the Affordable Care Act changing the nature of health care service delivery, she said. It opens up a lot of opportunities for the field of public health.

Commissioners praised both Rabinowitz and Fleece for their service. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) recalled that former county administrator Bob Guenzel often used Fleece as a model for those in public service. Fleece never failed to respond to a citizen’s request, Peterson said, and he’ll be deeply missed.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) told Rabinowitz that he really wants to see a public health board created. He asked her to report back to the board about what a public health board would mean to the department, and the process required to set it up. Rabinowitz replied that it’s an important issue to explore. The possibility of pulling together a board of experts is something she’s interested in exploring. Peterson said it should be a goal to establish such a board by the end of 2013, because public health advocates who might serve on the board should be involved in selecting a permanent director.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked county administrator Verna McDaniel for an update on possible restructuring of the public health department at the board’s Nov. 20 meeting.

Fleece told commissioners that he gave his full support to Rabinowitz, calling her the perfect person at the perfect time to take on this role, citing her connections to the health care field and her managerial abilities.

Regarding a public health board, Fleece said he’s heard varying opinions. Some people say that such boards require a lot of care and feeding to the extent that the board becomes a burden on staff. In other cases, the board can be an advocate and serve as a good source of information. There will be decisions to make regarding how much authority to give a public health board, he noted.

Fleece also pointed out that the county’s public health department already seeks advice from many sources, including the University of Michigan School of Public Health. He said he’d do everything he can to help with this process.

Commissioners gave Fleece a round of applause.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to appoint Ellen Rabinowitz as interim health officer.

Public Hearings Set

The board was ask to set two public hearings: (1) on Nov. 20 to get input on the 2014-2017 budget for Washtenaw County; and (2) on Jan. 8, 2014 to get feedback on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog.

Hearings on both of these items were already held on Oct. 16, 2013. However, no one spoke at those hearings, which were held after midnight as part of a meeting that lasted over six hours.

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

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

The proposed ordinance to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees. [.pdf of dog license ordinance] [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Outcome: Without discussion, the board set both public hearings for Nov. 20.

Tax for Indigent Veterans Services

Commissioners were asked to approve an amendment to a resolution that authorized the levy of a millage for services to indigent veterans. Commissioners had passed the original resolution on Oct. 16, 2013.

That original resolution stated that the millage would only be assessed against real property in Washtenaw County. In fact, the intent is to assess the millage against all property located in the county. The resolution approved on Nov. 6 clarifies that intent.

The county will levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services. The new rate of 1/30th of a mill will be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The previous rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 this year.

Outcome: The amendment passed unanimously, without discussion.

Proposal to Rescind “Stand Your Ground” Resolution

At the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, commissioners had passed a resolution – on a 5-4 vote – urging the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of the Stand Your Ground law. They heard extensive public commentary on the issue at that meeting as well as at earlier meetings this fall, much of it from supporters of Stand Your Ground.

On Nov. 6, Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that corporation counsel Curtis Hedger had informed the board that a lawsuit had been filed against the county and that Hedger needed to retain outside counsel to defend the county. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Board Sued Over Stand Your Ground."]

The lawsuit was a direct result non-binding action that the board took that passed by one vote, Smith noted. If the lawsuit defense was handled internally, it wouldn’t be a concern, he said. But it’s being handled by an outside attorney who’s billing the county by the hour, he noted.

Because of that, he said, he was presenting a resolution to rescind the anti-Stand Your Ground resolution.

Outcome: No one seconded Smith’s motion, so the motion died for lack of support.

Stormwater/Asset Management Grant

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to applying for and accepting a state grant through the Stormwater/Asset Management program for $1.1 million over three years – from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017.

From left: Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Evan Pratt, and Harry Sheehan, the office’s environmental manager.

The grant is available through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and would be used by the county office of the water resources commissioner to develop a combined stormwater/asset management plan for Washtenaw County drains.

The funds are part of a broader SAW program – stormwater, asset management and wastewater – that Gov. Rick Snyder authorized in January 2013 to provide $420 million in grants and loans for water quality improvements.

According to a staff memo, the grant would “fund staffing, consulting, software and hardware to implement an asset management system, including inventory, condition assessment, criticality of assets, operation and maintenance planning, and capital improvements.” The intent of the plan is to “strengthen local units of government to make informed decisions with regard to stormwater collection, treatment, master planning, zoning and site plan review.”

Water resources commissioner Evan Pratt and Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the county office of the water resources commissioner, both attended the Nov. 6 board meeting but did not formally address the board.

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to this grant application. A final vote is expected on Nov. 20.

Emergency Management Performance Grant

The board considered a resolution to approve the acceptance of pass-through funds from the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security to support county emergency management operations. The funding of up to $86,677 would be used for the salary and fringe benefits for the county’s emergency management director. That position, part of the sheriff’s office, is held by Marc Breckenridge.

Breckenridge attended the Nov. 6 board meeting but did not formally address the board. Nor did commissioners raise any questions on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the emergency management performance grant. A final vote is expected on Nov. 20.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Delonis Center, Barrier Busters

Four people spoke about social services during the first opportunity for public commentary, including three people who represented the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor.

Martin Delonis addressed the county board on Nov. 6, thanking the county for its financial support of the Robert J. Delonis Center, a homeless shelter in Ann Arbor that’s named after his father. Martin Delonis serves on the board of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the center.

Ellen Schulmeister, the association’s CEO, read a thank-you letter from a former client of the Delonis Center – a former teacher and legal secretary in her mid-50s, who attempted suicide twice because of reoccurring homelessness. This woman also struggled with health issues, but during her stay at the Delonis Center she got the help she needed and is now living in her own apartment. Schulmeister told the board that this woman had specifically asked that her story be shared with the entities that support the center, which includes the county.

Martin Delonis told commissioners that the Robert J. Delonis Center is named after his father. Delonis said he recently followed in his father’s footsteps by joining the shelter association’s board. He thanked the board on behalf of his family, the Delonis Center, and the people that the center serves. He paraphrased a prayer that he said was important to his family: “We should not hope for tasks that are equal to our powers, but instead, powers equal to our tasks.” The county supports the shelter and helps its task of ending homelessness one person at a time, he said. He thanked commissioners for their continued commitment.

Debbie Beuche introduced herself as president of the shelter association’s board. She thanked commissioners for their support, saying that it means a lot for the community. She hoped they would continue that support.

Harriet Bakalar told commissioners that she’d been a social worker in this area since 1971, and wanted to speak about the importance of funding Barrier Busters. She’d heard there was some consideration about reducing funding for that program. For the last 13 years she’s worked for the Housing Bureau for Seniors, and has helped seniors as they make transitions. Many people in the county are extremely vulnerable to homelessness, she said. Many people work here but can’t afford to live here. Barrier Busters is a lifeline to many of the seniors that she works with, and the program has helped stabilize people’s housing situations. She didn’t think anyone would want to see seniors on the streets, so she encouraged commissioners to continue support of the Barrier Busters fund.

Communications & Commentary: 1,4 Dioxane

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

Martinez-Kratz said he was frustrated that the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) hasn’t yet updated the toxicity levels for 1,4 dioxane. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb. The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and set a new deadline for December 2013. The MDEQ is now proposing to leave the standards unchanged.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Martinez-Kratz noted that this affects residents in his district, but it’s difficult to inform them of the danger because of the different standards being used by the EPA and MDEQ. He’d been hoping the MDEQ would update its standards.

By way of background, a public hearing was held this month in Lansing on this issue, drawing several local residents and elected officials, including state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-District 53) of Ann Arbor.

The county board of commissioners has also previously taken a stance on this issue. At their Sept. 18, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to direct staff to explore options – including possible legal action – to help set cleanup criteria in Michigan for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane. In part, the item relates to a 1,4 dioxane plume stemming from contaminants at the former Gelman Sciences plant.

On Nov. 6, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Martinez-Kratz for his leadership on CARD. Rabhi had served on CARD during his first two years in office, he noted, and he knew he was passing it off to someone who’s passionate about this issue.

Later in the meeting, outgoing public health officer Dick Fleece noted that he’d been working on the issue of 1,4 dioxane for decades. “Good luck with that,” he quipped. It’s something where there’s a lot of work but not a lot of results. He said he’d make sure the board’s Sept. 18 resolution on this issue gets into the public record as part of the public hearings that were taking place in Lansing.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Tom Partridge spoke during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary. He told commissioners he was advocating for the county’s most vulnerable residents, who need affordable housing, shelter for the homeless, health care, and public transportation. It’s dishonorable for commissioners to come to these meetings and disregard the needs of people who are virtually on the steps of the county administration building, he said.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 20, 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During a discussion on this item at the county board’s Oct. 16 meeting, some commissioners expressed concern about controlling the allocation process related to the county’s contribution. Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, reported that she’d be bringing back recommendations to the board for approval, prior to any allocation of funding. This has also been the process in previous years.

On Nov. 6, Callan provided additional details about the allocation process, and provided a handout with information about community outcomes for coordinated funding. [.pdf of outcomes handout]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During a discussion on this item at the county board’s Oct. 16 meeting, some commissioners expressed concern about controlling the allocation process related to the county’s contribution. Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, reported that she’d be bringing back recommendations to the board for approval, prior to any allocation of funding. This has also been the process in previous years.

A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

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

The budget allocation for $1,244,629 had already been made at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. A total of 20 programs operated by 16 different organizations are receiving funding from the city of Ann Arbor this year. It’s the same amount that was allocated last year.

Half of those organization are receiving more than $90,000: Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County ($91,645); Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County ($94,490); Food Gatherers ($95,171); Community Action Network ($104,944); Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor ($109,851); Avalon Housing Inc. ($142,851); Legal Services of South Central Michigan ($177,052); and the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County ($245,529).

In the coordinated funding approach to human services taken by the city, a total of $4,369,102 is being allocated by the city and other entities. In addition to the city’s share, other contributions include: United Way of Washtenaw County ($1,797,000); Washtenaw County general fund ($1,015,000); Washtenaw Urban County ($288,326); and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation ($24,147).

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]