Jeannine Palms, who served on a citizens advisory committee to make recommendations for the county-owned property at 2260-2270 Platt Road, talks with commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who helped lead that effort. Palms spoke during public commentary to praise the process and urge commissioners to adopt the recommendations. (Photos by the writer.)

A citizens advisory committee made recommendations for the 13.5-acre site at 2260-2270 Platt Road, and included the desire to use a portion of the land for affordable housing. Inclusion of affordable housing is a condition for accepting a $100,000 planning grant from the state, and that condition worried some commissioners. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was particularly vocal in disagreeing with this approach. He suggested selling the land instead, then using the proceeds to pay for repairs and renovations of existing houses in the county, including those for sale through tax foreclosure auctions.

The board voted to give initial approval to the Platt Road recommendations, over dissent from Sizemore. A final vote is expected on Feb. 19. If approved, the county would then launch a much broader community planning process to determine the future use of that site.

Also debated at length was a proposal to hire a contract worker who would support budget-related work for the county board and administration. Commissioners had also discussed this issue during the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) questioned the process for hiring this kind of staff support. On Feb. 5, several commissioners expressed concern about spending money on this position and wanted more details about funding and duties. Those concerns led to a unanimous vote to postpone the item until March 5.

A proposal to create a dental clinic for low-income residents received initial approval on Feb. 5, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). The $1.5 million project includes partnering with the nonprofit Michigan Community Dental Clinics Inc. to run the clinic and with St. Joseph Mercy Health System, which would contribute space at its Haab Building in Ypsilanti at little to no cost. A final vote is expected on Feb. 19.

In other action, the board gave final approval to two items with no significant discussion: (1) creation of a new countywide program to help finance energy-efficiency projects for commercial properties – the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program; and (2) a new ordinance that allows the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. The county treasurer’s office – which is responsible for administering the dog licenses – expects to implement the changes in June or July, following an educational outreach effort.

Commissioners also passed a resolution urging Gov. Rick Snyder to use the state’s budget surplus in part for road repair, and approved a resolution honoring local attorney Jean Ledwith King for her service on the county’s historic district commission.

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) gave an update on efforts to address services to the homeless community. Advocates for the homeless had attended the board’s previous meeting, on Jan. 22, 2014. The board received a more detailed update on this situation at its Feb. 6 working session. That session will be covered in a separate Chronicle report.

Platt Road Property

Recommendations from a citizens advisory group for Platt Road property owned by Washtenaw County were on the Feb. 5 agenda for initial approval.

The 13.5-acre site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road formerly housed the juvenile center. The advisory committee, which was created by the board on Sept. 18, 2013 and met three times late last year, recommended that the county use a $100,000 grant from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) to fund a community design process for the property.

The committee recommended that the county keep the property until a design process is completed, according to a committee report. Specifically:

The CAC identified through consensus a number of principles that could apply to the site including demonstration for green technologies and sustainable design, mixed use, mixed income including affordable and moderately priced housing, minimized parking spaces, alternative transit, varied types and forms of housing for people of different ages, an urban village, less impervious surface, lower auto footprint, integration with neighborhood, visionary design, draws people to the site, opportunities to grow businesses, and connections to County Farm Park. In order to fit into its surroundings, the final composition of this site should serve to transition from the commercial aspects of Washtenaw Ave., the residential aspects of the local neighborhoods and the natural aspects of the County Park facility. Finally, it should incorporate uses that reflect its value as a county property and bring the opportunity of use or value for all Washtenaw County residents.

One of the resolved clauses stated that the county would commit to using a portion of the property for affordable housing. That’s a condition of accepting the $100,000 planning grant from MSHDA. The grant is 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).

The resolved clause states:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners directs the CAC to assist in hosting an intensive multi-day community design process to create a plan for the site, inclusive of affordable housing;

The resolution also directs the advisory committee to provide more detailed analysis and recommendations by Sept. 31, 2014.

Committee members are: Ron Emaus, Jeannine Palms, Vickie Wellman, Rob Burroughs, Amy Freundl, Pete Vincent, Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city councilmember), and Jennifer Hall (Ann Arbor housing commission director). Also serving on the committee were Washtenaw County staff members Meghan Bonfiglio of the county parks & recreation commission; Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management; and Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development. County commissioners on the committee are Yousef Rabhi and Andy LaBarre, who both represent districts in Ann Arbor.

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked members of the advisory committee for their work. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) described the work as a citizen-driven process, and reminded commissioners that they had discussed the need for citizen input when they created this committee last year. People had brought their ideas and values to the table, he said, and the committee was able to reach consensus so they hadn’t even needed to take a vote on the final report.

Rabhi said he didn’t think approval of these recommendations by the board was a vote about what to do with the property. It’s just a step, he said, and there will be additional, broader community engagement before anything is decided.

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

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he appreciated the citizens involvement and valued their input. He cautioned that voting on the recommendations meant that the board would be adopting them, which would lead to more limited flexibility – specifically related to affordable housing. He’d be more comfortable simply accepting the recommendations. This is a different process than the county typically uses to dispose of its property, he noted.

Peterson didn’t think the county should be in the housing business, but the recommendations indicate that the county would be committed to providing affordable housing on that Platt Road site. He noted that the value of the property is estimated at $2 million or more, and that could be used for the good of all Washtenaw County residents.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said it was important for the board to approve the recommendations. He indicated that unless he was misreading the resolution, he thought it meant that the board is just committing to a community-based process, rather than the usual way that the county deals with property. He noted that there wasn’t a community-based process when the county expanded the jail, for example. He thought it was a good commitment to make to the neighborhood, though any final decision about what to do would be made by the board.

LaBarre described the resolution as having four central elements: (1) that the county doesn’t sell all of the property, (2) that the property includes some aspect of affordable housing, (3) that development on the property should match its surrounding environment, including the commercial corridor of Washtenaw Avenue, the residential neighborhoods, and County Farm Park, and (4) that the site should include an asset that the whole county can benefit from and use.

Approving the recommendations would allow the county to leverage MSHDA dollars for a “super process” of community engagement, LaBarre said. The specific recommendations from that broader process would be acted on by the board. “We are not committing ourselves to a design process,” he said, in terms of specific actions.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, came to the podium. She said the committee is asking that the county not sell the property outright, but instead go through a community engagement process that is deliberative and visionary.

She clarified that the recommendations ask the county to retain at least a portion of the land, and to include at least some affordable housing.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith wondered what would happen to the MSHDA funding if the process results in a decision not to include affordable housing on that site. “Do we owe that money back to MSHDA?” he asked.

Callan clarified that the second resolved clause of this resolution would commit the county to including affordable housing on some portion of the site. It might be mixed income, or at income levels to be determined by the board. But MSHDA would invest funding in a planning process only if some portion of the site is used for affordable housing, she said. At this point, Callan added, “that portion is undefined.”

Smith worried that the county would owe the funding back to MSHDA if the community engagement process results in a decision not to include affordable housing. Callan replied that the site “is a county asset, and it is to be disposed of by the county board.” Sometimes the board’s decisions involve overlaying values onto the process, she noted, as the board did when it supported the Delonis Center homeless shelter.

So by approving the resolution, the board would be committing to include affordable housing on that site. Callan said she could follow up with MSHDA to confirm the agency’s position, but her opinion based on previous experience with the agency is that they’d tell the county to fund its planning process some other way if there isn’t a commitment to affordable housing.

Conan Smith said he’d be willing to put county dollars into the planning process, but at the least the county should be aware of a financial risk involved.

Rabhi said he sensed the concern that was developing among commissioners. Any time you have a discussion, you have to set parameters for that, he said, and it’s OK to do that. The recommendations outline principles that the advisory committee would like the county to adhere to during its broader planning process, Rabhi said. “If we believe in that vision, then it’s OK for us to lead. That’s what we’re elected to do.” That’s what the board is voting on, he added – a commitment to lead. He supported the resolution. Even if it turns out that the county can’t use the MSHDA funding, he said, it would be good to invest in this kind of planning process.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he’s asked many people what affordable housing is, and each person has a different answer. He didn’t support the resolution, and didn’t know why the board needed to approve anything at this point. He noted that a portion of the 13.5-acre site can’t be built on because of a small wetland area located there. “To me, if feels like I’m being set up in some way,” he said.

Peterson said he hadn’t planned for this to be a big discussion, but he again stressed the importance of involving citizens in the process. He indicated that he was troubled by other commissioners who had “challenged my intelligence about my ability to comprehend resolutions.” He said he supported affordable housing in Ann Arbor. “All affordable housing should not be on the eastern part of the county,” Peterson said. [District 6, which Peterson represents, includes Ypsilanti and portions of Ypsilanti Township, on the county's east side.]

To get the funding from MSHDA, Peterson noted, the board needs to approve the resolution that states a commitment to affordable housing on the Platt Road property. So they should be clear about what they’re voting on, he said.

LaBarre responded, saying he didn’t intend to challenge Peterson’s intelligence and that he took full responsibility for any miscommunication or lack of clarity. He hoped the board could move the resolution forward. The county isn’t getting into the housing business, he added, saying he needed to do better outreach with his colleagues on the board, and promising to do that in the coming weeks.

Conan Smith apologized to Peterson, saying that he could see how his remarks seemed combative. He said it turned out that Peterson had a much better understanding of the resolution than he had.

From left: Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Rabhi reported that in his conversations with city of Ann Arbor officials, they had expressed interest in partnering with the county on this project. He agreed with Peterson that the county shouldn’t get into the housing business, and they need partners to do affordable housing.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that neither the staff memo nor the resolution were specific about defining affordable housing. He asked Callan to elaborate on that, and he wondered if it would be possible to define affordable housing based on a real estate market rather than income. For example, if a $100,000 condo is located on that site, would that count as affordable housing in the Ann Arbor market?

Yes, Callan replied – a $100,000 condo in Ann Arbor would count as affordable housing. To any individual, affordable housing is defined as anything costing less than 30% of gross income. So by that definition, “affordable” means different things to different people, she explained, based on income levels. But as defined for the purposes of federal or state funding, affordable housing means spending 30% or less for people earning 80% or less of the area median income (AMI). For the Ann Arbor market – which for federal purposes includes all of Washtenaw County – median income is about $50,000. So 80% of that is about $37,000, Callan said. Any household earning that amount or less would qualify for affordable housing as defined by the government.

Callan noted that affordable housing can target a range of income levels, starting at the poorest – those earning 30% or less of AMI, or about $14,000. For that income level, you could afford about $350 a month in housing costs, Callan said, which is generally available only with significant subsidies. At 80% AMI, you could afford about $1,000 a month for housing. “That’s the range we’re looking at,” she said.

Sizemore suggested selling the land, then using the proceeds to pay for repairs and renovations of existing homes in the county, including those that are for sale through tax foreclosure auctions. LaBarre replied that the advisory committee had discussed the option of an outright sale, but it hadn’t been supported. That’s why the option wasn’t presented in the resolution, he said.

Outcome: The board voted 7-1 to give initial approval to the recommendations. Dissenting was Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent. A final vote is expected on Feb. 19.

Platt Road Property: Public Commentary

Jeannine Palms, a member of the advisory committee, spoke during the second opportunity for public commentary, after the board took its initial vote on the recommendations. She began by reading a statement from another committee member, Vickie Wellman. Wellman wrote that she had been very disturbed because of the divisive politics and political fighting that’s become the norm. Many projects and tasks aren’t completed due to infighting. But the work on the Platt Road committee was the first time she’s been impressed by the sincerity, quality, professionalism, energy, and cohesion of the effort. Wellman wrote that she was especially impressed by the integrity and professionalism of the staff. Her past experiences working with this kind of group haven’t been so rewarding, she wrote. It had been a big task, and everyone worked together to come up with the recommendations. Wellman’s statement concluded by urging commissioners to support the recommendations.

Palms thanked the board for giving initial approval to the resolution, saying she agreed with the sentiments in Wellman’s letter. She said she’s a regular visitor to County Farm Park and has worked on projects there, and the parks in this community have been a major focus for her life. This advisory committee brought together a lot of people from different backgrounds to work in a way that was truly impressive, Palms said. It was collaborative and mutually respectful, looking for ways to grow community capital, social capital and cultural capital, to provide a model for sustainable living. The recommendations were unanimously agreed upon, she said, and it was an honor to be part of this process. She looked forward to the next steps.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked Palms for her work, and thanked other committee members who had participated. It had been energizing for him as a new commissioner to work with them on this project. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) in turn thanked LaBarre for his work in putting the committee together, and he thanked the board for moving it forward. Rabhi also thanked Palms, noting that she’s very active in the community, especially in that neighborhood.

Staffing for Budget Work

Commissioners considered a proposal to hire a contract position that would support budget-related work for the county board and administration.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

At the board’s Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, commissioners had given direction to county administrator Verna McDaniel to research and recommend staffing options that would support the board’s community investment priorities. As part of adopting a four-year budget, the board set up a new strategic model to help them determine where the county’s resources should go. The board set goals as well as outcomes that are intended to measure how those goals are being achieved.

The priority areas for investment that were approved by the board in 2013 are: (1) ensure community safety net through health and human services, inclusive of public safety; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for county residents; (4) reduce environmental impact; and (5) ensure internal labor force sustainability and effectiveness.

The dollar amount for this position wasn’t included in the resolution, which stated that “compensation shall not exceed the scope of the Administrator’s authority.” The administrator has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts, and up to $100,000 for any proposed goods, services, new construction or renovation. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

A four-page job description was also included in the board packet. The person would report to the county administrator in terms of daily operations. [.pdf of job description]

Commissioners had previously debated this issue at some length during the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) questioned the process for hiring this kind of staff support.

Staffing for Budget Work: Board Discussion

In introducing this item on Feb. 5, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) reported that this relates to the continuation of work that the board did when developing the four-year budget, as well as previous work in past years that looked at how best to invest county dollars. How did the programs and services of the county match with investments in community priorities that the board had approved? “The magnitude of that work is great,” she said, and that’s why a recommendation for a contract staff position is being made.

Brabec, who as chair of the board’s ways & means committee had taken the lead in the budget process, noted that she had emailed commissioners a job description. The “deliverable” from that person would include a report on how the outcomes of county programs and services match with budget allocations. The person would also provide a gap analysis, so that when the board makes its annual budget adjustments at the end of the year, they can make allocations based on this process.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) noted that there are about 1,300 employees in the county government. Rather than hiring someone, he said, “I would direct the county administrator to get [this work] done, and if she doesn’t get it done, then we need to figure out why it’s not getting done.”

Sizemore pointed out that there’s a “cross-lateral team” in the county administration that each get an extra 4% in their salary, plus retirement benefits based on that higher amount. [The cross-lateral team, which was created instead of filling a deputy administrator position, consists of four senior staff members: corporation counsel Curtis Hedger; finance director Kelly Belknap; Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director; and Greg Dill, infrastructure management director. The board had approved the restructuring and pay increase about two years ago at its March 7, 2012 meeting, with Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) casting the only dissenting vote.]

Sizemore then objected to the fact that the resolution didn’t include a cost estimate for the contract position. He suggested taking the extra 4% pay from the cross-lateral team to pay for the work. He didn’t know where the money would come from to pay for this, and he didn’t understand why it couldn’t be done in-house.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he understood Sizemore’s concerns, but noted that the county has slashed the capacity of the administrator’s office over the past few years. Belknap is now overseeing the finance and budget operations, which used to be the work of two people, he said. There are empty desks in the administrative offices. “I think we’re honestly at the point where we can’t ask the folks in the cross-lateral team or administration … to also take this on without some additional capacity.”

Smith said he had originally wanted to create a new permanent position to do this work. The county administrator, Verna McDaniel, had convinced him not to do that just yet, and he thought that was wise. But even so, Smith believed that additional resources are needed in order to make this happen, given that it’s a brand new process.

He clarified with McDaniel that she anticipated finding the money to pay for this contract position within line items over which she has discretionary control.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he appreciated Sizemore’s concerns. He noted that in developing the four-year budget, the board had received staff support from Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, as well as other staff members. But those staff members have other responsibilities – more than they’ve had in the past, he said. Commissioners don’t have sufficient time to invest either, he said, as their work on the board is part-time. Now, the board needs to make an investment to move this process forward.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) reminded commissioners that he spoke out last year every time the board was asked to authorize new hires, urging the board to be cautious. Many times there were extenuating circumstances related to the hires, like outside funding, Smith said. He went along with those hires, but this current request isn’t comparable, he said, and he wasn’t in favor of this hire.

Seated from left: Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who serves as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and county administrator Verna McDaniel. Standing is Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Alluding to his own experience in business, Smith noted that employees are asked to do more, but also the company cuts back on products or has longer release cycles and fewer features on the products that are released. At the county, however, “we don’t seem to be too keen on doing less.” He pointed out that even at that night’s meeting, the board would be voting on a new program – creating a dental clinic. So he was not in favor of this staff position.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) told commissioners that he appreciated the discussion, but “I take it that there’s not a vote tonight.” [Until this point, no one had publicly mentioned the intent to postpone this item.] He asked what the timeframe was for this work, and what the goals were for the individual that they’d be hiring. He also wanted to know what the expectations were for this person to collaborate, either internally within the county government, or with people in the community.

Peterson also cautioned that the board needs to be clear about who’s leading the organization. He wanted to make sure the position had a different title than “strategic program manager” – the title that was originally proposed. He suggested making the title “special assistant to the administrator for board support.” He said he didn’t want anyone to walk around with a cape thinking that they had more power than the county administrator.

Peterson supported the points made by Sizemore and Dan Smith. “The piggy bank was closed,” he said. If it’s been re-opened, he added, he wished someone would tell him, because he had a wish list of things he’d like to fund.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) agreed with Peterson, saying they had finalized the 2014-2017 budget in November of 2013, but since then several additional items have come to the board for approval that impact the budget. He hated to see a $50,000 or $100,000 request coming to the board every month. Martinez-Kratz said he felt it was the job of all commissioners to listen to constituents and gauge community impacts, and to orient their votes on the budget priorities based on that. He didn’t feel another employee was required for that.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) addressed the references to a piggy bank, saying that the point of this new job is to help the county make investments more strategically. “This is spending a small amount to make sure we’re being more deliberate about the decisions we’re making,” he said. Rabhi also pointed out that this proposal had been part of the budget document that the full board had approved in November of 2013. The job is a contract position, he noted.

Rabhi voiced support for county administrator Verna McDaniel, saying that the board has asked more of her than previous boards have requested of previous administrators. They’re asking more of the administration, he said, while they’ve also taken away resources to do the work.

However, Rabhi felt it was appropriate to postpone action on the proposal, to address some of the issues that Peterson had raised.

Staffing for Budget Work: Board Discussion – Postponement

Rabhi made a motion to postpone until the March 5 meeting.

Dan Smith then said he’d like to postpone it until May 7 – after the board receives a first-quarter budget update from the administration. At that point, the board would have a better picture of the county’s finances. He moved to amend Rabhi’s original motion.

Conan Smith noted that the board had voted on this issue in November of 2013, when they approved the budget. The intent was to have this new position work with the new budget process, he said, and he didn’t want to wait until May to approve it. If they waited, it meant they wouldn’t issue a request for proposals (RFP) until June, and the position likely wouldn’t be filled until halfway through the fiscal year, at best. He was anxious to move the proposal forward as quickly as possible.

Outcome on amending the March 5 postponement to May 7: The motion failed, with support only from Dan Smith, Rolland Sizemore Jr., and Kent Martinez-Kratz.

There was no further discussion.

Outcome on postponing to March 5: The motion passed unanimously.

After the vote, Sizemore again expressed frustration about the proposal. He wondered why the county didn’t take advantage of resources from local universities. He also asked what would happen to the report that would be completed as part of this process – would it be “put on the shelf with the 10 other reports we’ve already got on the shelf?” He noted that the city of Ann Arbor has cut its staff “and they seem to be existing pretty well.”

Sizemore also mentioned the bond proposal that the administration had floated in 2013, to cover pension and retiree health care obligations. At that time, the administrator indicated that the county needed to issue bonds for $350 million, he noted, but “now we seem to have pots of money to spend on things that come up,” like this new position. He hoped McDaniel would come back to the board with more details about the cost. He wondered who would actually hire the person – McDaniel, or the board? He hoped the person would be a resident of Washtenaw County, adding that he hated spending county tax dollars on employees who don’t live here. “I have a lot of questions, and right now I’m pretty upset about this,” Sizemore concluded.

Dental Clinic

A proposal to create a dental clinic for low-income residents of Washtenaw County was on the Feb. 5 agenda for initial approval.

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s interim public health officer.

The project is estimated to cost $1.5 million, using funds from the public health Medicaid liability account ($814,786), the public health fund balance ($663,015) and Washtenaw Health Plan ($50,000). According to the county’s public health staff, 58,000 county residents either don’t have dental insurance or on Medicaid dental insurance. However, only a few private dentists accept Medicaid. When up and running, the dental clinic is expected to serve 6,000 patients annually, including residents with income at up to 200% of the poverty level.

It’s expected that federal matching funds would supplement Medicaid reimbursement rates to provide a sustainable long-term cash flow, according to a staff memo. [.pdf of staff memo]

The resolution authorizes contract negotiations with the nonprofit Michigan Community Dental Clinics Inc. to run the clinic and with St. Joseph Mercy Health System, which would contribute space at its Haab Building in Ypsilanti at little to no cost.

The board had been briefed previously on this proposal at two working sessions over the past year.

Discussion on Feb. 5 was brief. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) praised the public health staff for their work, saying it was appropriate for them to identify the need and take on the responsibility. It was especially important to provide dental care for children, he said. Several other commissioners also expressed support.

Ellen Rabinowitz, interim health officer and executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, noted that outreach will be needed to promote the new clinic. A press release is being drafted, she said, but they’ll wait to release it until after the board takes a final vote on the project at its Feb. 19 meeting.

Outcome: Initial approval for the dental clinic was given on a 7-1 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent. A final vote is expected on Feb. 19.

Dog Licensing

A new ordinance that allows the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog was on the agenda for final approval.

Larry Murphy attended the Feb. 5 meeting of the county board. He has created a campaign committee to run for county commissioner in District 1. He is a Republican. The seat is currently held by Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz.

The resolution also establishes that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions. It also sets new licensing fees. [.pdf of dog license ordinance]

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

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

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

The county treasurer’s office also is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. There would be no charge to license service dogs, with proper documentation and proof of rabies vaccination. More information about current dog licenses is available on the county website.

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

There was no discussion of this item on Feb. 5.

Outcome: Final approval to the dog licensing ordinance passed unanimously.

The ordinance could take effect 50 days after final approval, in late March. But the county treasurer’s office – which is responsible for administering the dog licenses – expects to implement the changes in June or July, following an educational outreach effort.

PACE Program

A resolution to create a new countywide program to help finance energy-efficiency projects for commercial properties was on the Feb. 5 agenda for final approval. Initial approval had been given at the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, which included public commentary from supporters of the initiative. [.pdf of PACE program documentation] [.pdf of PACE cover memo] [.pdf PACE resolution]

The countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program aims to help owners of commercial (not residential) properties pay for energy improvements by securing financing from commercial lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments.

The county is joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, had spoken briefly to the board on Jan. 22, 2014, and had previously answered questions about the program at the board’s Dec. 4, 2013 meeting. State Sen. Rebekah Warren also spoke briefly during public commentary on Dec. 4 to support the initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan.

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

The county’s PACE program differs from the one set up by the city of Ann Arbor, which created a loan loss pool to reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. Washtenaw County does not plan to set up its own loan loss reserve.

Discussion was minimal on Feb. 5. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Conan Smith (D-District 9) for his work on this initiative. Smith said he’s been talking with Levin about implementing the program, noting that bad weather had prevented Levin from attending the meeting that night.

Outcome: Final approval for the PACE program was given unanimously.

Road Repair Funding

Commissioners considered a resolution urging Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder to allocate the state’s estimated $1 billion budget surplus to road repair.

At the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) had indicated the likelihood of this resolution coming to the board. She reported that a subcommittee that’s exploring the future of the Washtenaw County road commission had met prior to the county board meeting on Jan. 22. The subcommittee, which Ping chairs, had voted to ask the county board to pass a resolution urging Gov. Rick Snyder to allocate the state’s budget surplus for road repair, distributed to local entities using the current state formula for road allocations.

The resolution’s one resolved clause initially stated:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, such funds from state surplus should be used for roadway maintenance using the fair formula allocation as prescribed by Public Act 51 of 1951 ensure Washtenaw County benefits fairly from surplus use.

Ping did not attend the Feb. 5 meeting. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) reported that Ping told him she’d be amenable to changing the resolved clause to reflect that the surplus doesn’t need to be spent entirely on roads, but should include roads. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he’d support the change, noting that there are other priorities that the surplus could be spent on, including state revenue-sharing with local governments.

The resolved clause was then unanimously amended to insert “in part”:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, such funds from state surplus should be used in part for roadway maintenance using the fair formula allocation as prescribed by Public Act 51 of 1951 to ensure Washtenaw County benefits fairly from surplus use. [.pdf of resolution]

The phrase “in part” was also inserted into the title of the resolution.

The resolution states that the Washtenaw County road commission maintains about 1,654 miles of roads, including 770 miles of gravel roads. It also is responsible for 111 bridges and more than 2,000 culverts, and is contracted by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to maintain about 580 lane miles of state trunkline roads. Road commissioners have indicated that there are several million dollars worth of needed repairs that are unfunded.

In a statement issued earlier in the day on Feb. 5, Snyder released some details for a fiscal 2015 budget proposal, including $254 million “to match federal aid and maintain Michigan’s roads and bridges, transit services and aeronautics projects across the state.”

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Services for the Homeless

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he wanted to follow-up on the discussion that the board had with members of the homeless community at the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting. He had subsequently met with representatives from that group, along with county administrator Verna McDaniel, Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community& economic development, and Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. He noted that in order to address the list of demands for increased services at the Delonis Center shelter, which had been presented to the board on Jan. 22, the county needs to partner with other entities in the community.

The board received a more detailed update on this situation at its Feb. 6 working session. That session will be covered in a separate Chronicle report.

Communications & Commentary: Deportation

Rabhi also mentioned the possible deportation of Jose Luis Sanchez-Ronquillo. He noted that a few years ago, the county board had heard from advocates lobbying against another deportation threat – of Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista. [Bautista and her supporters had attended the board's Dec. 7, 2011 meeting.] In a similar case, Rabhi said, Sanchez-Ronquillo and his wife have lived in Ann Arbor for about 16 years, and their children attend Bach Elementary School. Rabhi reported that he had attended a rally in support of Sanchez-Ronquillo, where it was announced that he’d been granted a one-year extension to stay in the country. While that’s good news, Rabhi noted that “this isn’t the first time it’s happened, and it won’t be the last.” It’s important to think about how to make this a welcoming and diverse community, he said.

Communications & Commentary: Autism Coverage

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, gave an update on a proposal that the county administration plans to make formally to the board at a future meeting: To begin offering health care coverage to county employees for the treatment of autism.

She noted that offering the coverage would result in an estimated $182,000 increase in the county’s annual health care premium. Because the county self-funds health care coverage for its employees, that amount will fluctuate based on actual claims, she said.

The main unknown is whether the state will continue to offer reimbursement for autism coverage, Heidt said. There’s been no indication that the state plans to set aside additional funds for fiscal 2014 or beyond. About $26 million that was set aside by the state in previous years could still be tapped for reimbursement. She said she’d continue to gather information and resources, and would meet with the board committee that had been established on Jan. 22, 2014 with commissioners Andy LaBarre, Felicia Brabec and Ronnie Peterson. She anticipated coming to the board with a recommendation on March 5.

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

Absent: Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

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

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

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

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

The county treasurer’s office also is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. There would be no charge to license service dogs, with proper documentation and proof of rabies vaccination. More information about current dog licenses is available on the county website.

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

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

Yousef Rabhi was re-elected as chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at the board’s Jan. 8, 2014 meeting. The following day, he publicly announced his intent not to run for mayor of Ann Arbor this year. (Photos by the writer.)

It’s the next step of several that are required before such a program can be created. The goal of PACE is to help owners of commercial (not residential) properties pay for energy improvements by securing financing from commercial lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments.

The county’s proposal entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program.

A public hearing on this issue is set for the board’s meeting on Jan. 22. The board would also need to take another vote to actually create the PACE district. A date for that action has not been set.

Officer elections were also held on Jan. 8. As expected, the board officers who were first elected in January 2013 were re-elected. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) will continue to serve as board chair. Also re-elected were Alicia Ping (R-District 3) as vice chair, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) as chair of the working sessions. There were no competing nominations and all votes were unanimous, although Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was out of the room when the votes for Brabec and LaBarre were taken.

Regarding revisions to the board’s rules and regulations, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger made four recommended changes, including three that related to voting requirements. The fourth change inserted language to clarify that binding action may not be taken at a board working session.

The Jan. 8 meeting also included a public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. The board had held a previous hearing at its meeting on Oct. 16, 2013, but it occurred after midnight and no one spoke. Some commissioners felt that a second hearing should be scheduled because the initial one was held so late in the evening. One person spoke on Jan. 8, urging the board to create a progressive scale of fees and to provide waivers for low-income families and individuals.

In other feedback from the public, Jim Casha spoke during public commentary to raise concerns over the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA). “It just seems to me that it’s just going to be another waste of time and taxpayers’ money, and just another level of bureaucracy,” he told commissioners. Board chair Yousef Rabhi will be appointing a new Washtenaw County representative to the RTA soon to replace Richard Murphy, who did not seek reappointment. The county’s other board member on the RTA is University of Michigan professor Liz Gerber, whose term runs through 2015.

The extended deadline for applying was Jan. 12, and Casha was one of only two applicants for the RTA opening. As a Canadian resident, he is ineligible to be appointed for the seat to represent Washtenaw County. The other applicant is Alma Wheeler Smith, a former state legislator and the mother of county commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Officer Elections

The first meeting of each year for the county board is initially chaired by the county clerk, until the board elects its officers for the year. As he has for the past several years, on Jan. 8 the meeting was brought to order by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum. After leading the initial portion of the meeting, Kestenbaum called for nominations for board chair.

Larry Kestenbaum, Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) nominated Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) for re-election as chair. He began by joking that 2013 was “a miserable year. I mean, it had the number 13 in it, and we knew it was going to be bad from the very beginning. And the only way that we were going to get through a year with 13 in it was to have an outstanding, creative chair who brought his own luck with him.”

There were no other nominations.

Outcome: Yousef Rabhi was unanimously re-elected chair on a roll call vote.

After the vote, Smith jokingly complained that the minutes didn’t reflect his rhetoric: “The minutes for this are miserable. ‘C. Smith nominated commissioner Rabhi.’ That’s all it says!”

Kestenbaum then handed over the meeting to Rabhi. As his first act, Rabhi nominated Alicia Ping (R-District 3) for re-election as vice chair.

C. Smith moved a unanimous ballot – a parliamentary procedure to elect the nominee without a roll call vote when there are no competing nominations and no one is expected to vote against the nomination.

Outcome on unanimous ballot: The vote failed 8-1, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Outcome on roll call vote: Ping was unanimously re-elected vice chair.

Later in the meeting, elections were held for the officers of the board’s standing committees: the ways & means committee, and working sessions.

Ping nominated Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) for re-election as chair of the ways & means committee, on which all commissioners serve. The meetings of this committee are held immediately prior to the regular board meetings, and initial votes are taken at the ways & means meetings.

There were no other nominations. C. Smith again moved a unanimous ballot.

Outcome on unanimous ballot to re-elect Brabec: It was approved on a voice vote. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was not in the room at the time.

Brabec nominated Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) for re-election as chair of the board’s working sessions. There were no other nominations. C. Smith moved a unanimous ballot.

Outcome on unanimous ballot to re-elect LaBarre: It was approved on a voice vote. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was not in the room at the time.

Officer Elections: Compensation

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

Curt Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, talks with commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) prior to the start of the Jan. 8, 2014 board meeting. Ping was re-elected vice chair of the board.

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

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

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

For 2013, the following stipends were paid [.pdf of chart indicating appointments and eligible stipends]:

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

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

The board appointments and stipends for 2014 haven’t yet been set. That will likely happen at an appointments caucus that is expected to be scheduled for later this month or early February.

Rules & Regulations

Revisions to the board’s rules and regulations, which are approved and updated annually, were recommended by corporation counsel Curtis Hedger. Three changes related to voting requirements. The fourth change inserted language to clarify that binding action may not be taken at a board working session. [.pdf of draft rules & regulations, with changes indicated in bold and strike-through] [.pdf of Hedger's staff memo]

At the Jan. 8 meeting, Hedger told commissioners that the most significant change related to taking a final vote on the same day that a resolution is initially introduced. [bold indicates added text, strike-through indicates deletion]:

III. CONDUCT
…
T. FINAL ACTION ON DAY OF INTRODUCTION:

No resolution or proceeding of the Board of Commissioners imposing taxes or assessments, or requiring the payment, expenditure or disposition of money or property, or creating a debt or liability therefore, shall be allowed on the same day as introduced, unless approved by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) a majority of the members elected and serving.

In the past, Hedger noted, the rules called for two-thirds of the board’s members to move a resolution for a final vote at a board meeting, if it was initially introduced at the ways & means committee meeting that same night. Even though the board’s two-thirds rule “had been there forever,” Hedger said, “it was brought to my attention that under Michigan law, we can’t do that.” Specifically, MCL 46.3 states:

(2) The county board of commissioners of a county shall act by the votes of a majority of the members present. However, the final passage or adoption of a measure or resolution or the allowance of a claim against the county shall be determined by a majority of the members elected and serving. …

Hedger reported that he had canvassed staff at other counties and they told him that the county boards follow that rule. So by passing this revision to the Washtenaw County board rules, it would bring them into compliance with Michigan law, he said.

The other suggested revisions are technical changes, Hedger said. One change is to clarify actions that require a “higher majority” vote in order to pass [added text in bold]:

O. VOTING:

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

…2. Votes Required:

Procedural and other questions arising at a meeting of the Commissioners, except for those decisions required by statute or by these rules (Specifically, Rule II F—Closing Debate in Committees and Rule III R—Suspension/ Amendment or Rescission of Board Rules) to have a higher majority, shall be decided by a majority of the members present. A majority of the members elected and serving, however, shall be required for the final passage or adoption of a motion, resolution or allowance of a claim.

Another proposed change was to standardize the phrase “elected and serving,” to be consistent with other references in the board rules [added text in bold]:

R. SUSPENSION:

No rule of the Board shall be suspended without the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of the members elected and serving. To amend or rescind a rule will require two-thirds (2/3) of members elected and serving unless specific notice was given at previous meeting, whereupon a majority of members elected and serving may amend or rescind.

The final proposed revision involved working sessions. Hedger said he changed the rules to make it more precise about what a working session is. It clarifies what the board already does, he said. [bold indicates added text, strike-through indicates deletion]:

XI. WORKING SESSION PROCEDURES

The purpose of the Working Session shall be to permit in-depth, informal discussion of Commissioner concerns, Board goals, significant programmatic and financial issues, and conceptual and informational presentations by the County Administrator. All matters involving major change in service delivery, staffing or funding, or any modification in Board of Commissioner policy shall originate at the Working Session. Status reports from advisory committees and departmental informational reports shall be presented at Working Session. The Working Sessions of the Board of Commissioners are not to be considered an official public meeting of the Board of Commissioners. The Working Sessions are noticed as a public meeting to comply with the Open Meetings Act because a quorum of the Board of Commissioners may be present at the meeting. It is intended that Formal votes indicating Commissioner support or opposition to agenda items shall not be taken at Working Session meetings. The Chair may take an informal poll of the board members present to assist in determining whether the Commissioners desire more information or discussion regarding an item or whether the Commissioners are prepared to take action on an item at a meeting of the Ways and Means Committee or at the regular session. Agendas shall be set in advance; however, Commissioners shall have the opportunity to introduce issues during the meeting for future Working Session consideration.

Rules & Regulations: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked whether MCL 46.3 actually requires a two-thirds majority vote for non-agenda items. Smith was referring to this section [emphasis added]:

(2) … The county board of commissioners may require in its bylaws that the votes of 2/3 of the members present or a majority of the members elected and serving, whichever is greater, are required on final passage or adoption of a nonagenda item. The voting requirements of this subsection do not apply if section 11 or any other provision of law imposes a higher voting requirement.

The short answer is no, Hedger replied. Smith said his concern is that there are often items that aren’t on the published agenda, but that are brought forward at the ways & means committee meeting. He clarified with Hedger that if items are moved as part of the agenda during the meeting, then those items are considered agenda items.

Hedger also pointed out that the law states the board “may require,” not “shall require.” So it’s at the board’s discretion.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he wasn’t particularly thrilled with the removal of the two-thirds majority rule, but added that he couldn’t argue with Hedger’s reasoning. He said he had reviewed all the changes in great detail, and had “kicked several of these things back and forth” with Hedger. Smith concluded that he was satisfied with the proposed changes.

Outcome: The revised rules and regulations were approved unanimously.

PACE Program

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a notice of intent to form a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

An initial vote had been taken on Dec. 4, 2013, following about an hour of debate. There was no discussion on Jan. 8.

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

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

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

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

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

8. Reserve Fund

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

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

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

On Dec. 4, the board set a public hearing on this issue for the meeting on Jan. 22, 2014. The board would also need to take another vote to actually create the PACE district. A date for that action has not been set.

Outcome: A final vote to issue a notice of intent to create a PACE program was passed unanimously. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Dog Licensing Public Hearing

The board held a public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog.

County treasurer Catherine McClary.

The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees. [.pdf of proposed dog license ordinance]

One person, Thomas Partridge, spoke during the public hearing. He didn’t think the ordinance went far enough to protect all animals, especially during severe weather. He said that low-income families who want to have pets for their children will be challenged to pay license fees and the inoculations that would be required in order to get a license. He called for the board to create a progressive scale for fees and to provide waivers for low-income families and individuals.

The board had held a previous hearing at its meeting on Oct. 16, 2013, but it occurred after midnight and no one spoke. Some commissioners felt that there should be another opportunity for formal public input, so that’s why another public hearing was scheduled for Jan. 8.

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

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

However, the county board hasn’t yet taken the additional step of authorizing the issuance of a civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. There was no agenda item put forward for a vote on this issue at the Jan. 8 meeting, nor was there any resolution on the agenda regarding a new fee structure for dog licenses.

A draft resolution and staff memo had been prepared in November 2013 but never brought forward to the board for a vote. [.pdf of November 2013 staff memo and resolution] The county treasurer’s office is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. More information about current dog licenses is available on the county website.

In addition, the draft memo provided a list of fees for violating the dog license ordinance: $50 (first offense); $100 (second offense); and $500 (third and subsequent offenses).

County treasurer Catherine McClary attended the Jan. 8 meeting but did not formally address the board.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Regional Transit Authority

Jim Casha introduced himself as a resident of Ontario, Canada, who was born and raised in Detroit. He was there to ask for the board’s help with the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA).

Jim Casha spoke during public commentary about the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA).

Casha told commissioners that he’d been a student at the University of Detroit and had worked at the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMOG). After that, he got out of planning and into the construction of transit systems, including subways.

He was concerned that the decisions of the RTA board aren’t in the best interest of building a regional transit system. “It just seems to me that it’s just going to be another waste of time and taxpayers’ money, and just another level of bureaucracy,” he said.

Casha said he’s made two suggestions to the board. The first was to acquire the 157-acre Michigan state fairgrounds property, as a way of generating revenue. It’s a logical place for a regional transportation hub, he said. The rail link from Chicago through Ann Arbor to Detroit already runs past the east side of the property, and it’s near 8 Mile and Woodward. It’s a very valuable piece of land, and the RTA could use it to generate millions of dollars through long-term leasing.

He noted that the state is planning to give away the land to private developers, but he argued that this is not the right time to do that. A group of citizens has been working on an alternative approach to create a truly public-private partnership that generates money for the public, he said, not just for private individuals. He said he’d made these comments to the RTA board, “but I really just don’t think they’re listening.”

Casha also objected to the selection of John Hertel over Larry Salci as the RTA’s CEO. Salci was the former director of the southeast Michigan transportation authority in the 1970s, he said, and had prepared a regional transportation plan with federal funding lined up at that time. Only one member of the current RTA board supported Salci, Casha noted, although the two RTA board representatives from Washtenaw County – Liz Gerber and Richard Murphy – had supported Salci initially.

The three-minute time limit for public commentary elapsed before Casha finished his remarks. He also provided written handouts to the board. [.pdf of Casha's commentary to RTA board in March 2013] [.pdf of Casha's commentary to RTA board in April 2013]

Commissioner Response to Public Commentary – RTA

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Casha for his commentary, saying that the point about finding a use for the state fairgrounds that helps the public over private interests really resonated with him. The land should be kept for public purposes, and he appreciated Casha’s advocacy on that.

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

The county board chair appoints both of Washtenaw County’s members to the RTA board. Those appointments were first made at the end of 2012 by Conan Smith (D-District 9), who was chair through the end of that year. Liz Gerber, a University of Michigan professor of public policy, was appointed to a three-year term. Richard Murphy, who works for Smith at the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, was appointed to a one-year term, and is not seeking reappointment.

The deadline to apply had been extended to Jan. 12, but only two applications were received – from Casha and former state legislator Alma Wheeler Smith, who is Conan Smith’s mother. The RTA state enabling legislation (Act 387 of 2012) mandates that board members must be residents of the county or city that they represent. So as a Canadian resident, Casha is ineligible for the appointment. [.pdf of application materials]

Communications & Commentary: Appointments

Later in the meeting, Yousef Rabhi noted that in addition to an opening for the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA), there are also openings for the Washtenaw County food policy council and the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission.

The deadline to apply had been extended to Jan. 12. Rabhi noted that nominations will be made at the board’s next meeting on Jan. 22. Commissioners will receive applications for review before that.

Communications & Commentary: Shelter for the Homeless

During the time for public commentary, Tom Partridge called on the board to redouble efforts to help people in need, especially during the very dire weather conditions experienced recently. He asked them to shift funding and provide emergency relief to homeless residents, including food and transportation.

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

There’s also need on a continuing basis to eliminate homelessness, build affordable housing, and provide affordable public transportation and health care, Partridge said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) gave an update on the county’s response to providing shelter for the homeless during the recent winter storm and sub-zero temperatures. He said he knew that the Ann Arbor city council had some dialogue about it and heard from residents during the Jan. 6 council meeting. People are not being turned away from the Delonis Center, a homeless shelter, he said. The shelter has even relaxed some of its intoxication rules to allow people to stay there who might otherwise not be permitted, Rabhi noted.

There are some people who aren’t allowed to stay at the shelter because of previous incidents, Rabhi reported. The county’s PORT (the county’s project outreach team) has been reaching out to them, he said, to make sure they have accommodations or supplies like sleeping bags. There’s always more that could be done, Rabhi said, but there is collaboration among many entities, including the local governments, the Red Cross, and others.

Communications & Commentary: Food Policy Council

Yousef Rabhi described some of the initiatives that the Washtenaw County food policy council is working on, including a proposal for a county procurement policy that would be more environmentally responsible. In addition, the food policy council working in collaboration with the county’s office of community and economic development to emphasize using local sources in government procurement. Formal proposals will likely come to the board – possibly this spring, he said.

Communications & Commentary: Teens For Tomorrow Art Contest

During her report to the board, county administrator Verna McDaniel highlighted the recent Teens for Tomorrow art contest. She thanked Yousef Rabhi for attending, and thanked Rolland Sizemore Jr. for his advocacy of programs for county youth.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees. [.pdf of proposed dog license ordinance] One person, Tom Partridge, spoke at the Jan. 8 hearing.

The board had held a previous hearing at its meeting on Oct. 16, 2013, but it occurred after midnight and no one spoke.

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

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

However, the county board hasn’t yet taken the additional step of authorizing the issuance of a civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. There was no agenda item put forward for a vote on this issue at the Jan. 8 meeting, nor was there any resolution on the agenda regarding a new fee structure for dog licenses.

However, a draft resolution and staff memo were prepared in November 2013 but never brought forward to the board for a vote. [.pdf of November 2013 staff memo and resolution] The county treasurer’s office is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. More information about current dog licenses is available on the county website.

In addition, the draft memo provided a list of fees for violating the dog license ordinance: $50 (first offense); $100 (second offense); and $500 (third and subsequent offenses).

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]

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

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

Also on Nov. 6, the board scheduled a second public hearing to be held on Jan. 8, 2014 for a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees. [.pdf of dog license ordinance] [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civil Infractions Ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civil Infractions Ordinance: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Public Transit Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Transit Update: Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accommodations Ordinance Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinated Funding Program

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinated Funding Program: Public Commentary

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

Coordinated Funding Program: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breastfeeding Policy

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

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

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

Breastfeeding Policy: Public Commentary

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

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

Apportionment Report

A preliminary apportionment report for Washtenaw County – giving details of the 2012 taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality – was presented to county commissioners at their Oct. 17 meeting. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. December tax bills will be mailed out to property owners based on these calculations.

Raman Patel, Washtenaw County’s equalization director.

In April, the county’s equalization department produces an annual report describing Washtenaw County’s total equalized (assessed) value of property. The report is part of a state-mandated equalization process, and gives an indication of how much revenue the county will receive from property taxes in the coming year. [See Chronicle coverage: "Report: Better-Than-Expected '12 Tax Revenue"]

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

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

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

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

Apportionment Report: Board Discussion

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

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

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Camp Take Notice

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Retirement Funds

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

Commissioners Dan Smith and Alicia Ping.

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Sylvan Recount

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary:  WATS

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

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

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

Recognitions

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

Barbara Niess May, executive director of the SafeHouse Center.

Recognitions: Domestic Violence Awareness

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

Recognitions: Cooperatives

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

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

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

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

Absent: Barbara Bergman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

Janis Bobrin, Washtenaw County’s water resources commissioner, attended the Oct. 3, 2012 county board meeting to present environmental excellence awards. She received a standing ovation from commissioners. She is not running for re-election, and will leave office later this year after more than two decades in that position. (Photos by the writer.)

The board is authorized to levy the tax under Act 88 of 1913 – and it does not require a voter referendum. Voting against the increase were commissioners Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rob Turner. They cited several objections, including the timing of a tax increase while many taxpayers are struggling because of the economy, and the unlikelihood that the tax will be lowered in the future, when economic conditions improve. Peterson also felt that the Act 88 funds aren’t being used for their original purpose – to leverage matching dollars for economic development – and instead are being diverted to support county operations.” It was never meant to be a piggy bank for county government,” he said.

The final vote to levy the increased tax passed 8-3, with Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater and Dan Smith voting against it. Alicia Ping has in the past also voted against the Act 88 tax, but supported it this time – though she voted against the amendment to increase the rate. She hoped commissioners would consider reallocating some funding for the western side of the county, pointing out that there are economic development needs there too, including a lack of decent Internet access.

Far less contentious was an initial vote to move control over administering the county’s 5% accommodation tax from the county treasurer’s office to the finance director. Two members of the Washtenaw County Hotel/Motel Association spoke in support of changing the accommodation ordinance in this way. The vote by commissioners was unanimous, though Dan Smith noted that this is the second time this year that the ordinance has been revised, and he hoped it would be the last. He also expressed some concern that all hoteliers aren’t being treated equitably. A final vote and public hearing on the change is set for Oct. 17.

Commissioners also approved a set of recommendations to guide county administrator Verna McDaniel in her negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for animal control services. The current contract with HSHV ends on Dec. 31. An accompanying report from a policy task force was discussed only briefly – in part because the final version had been sent to commissioners only that day and there had been little time to digest it, and in part because some commissioners wanted to adjourn so that they could watch the first presidential debate, which began at 9 p.m. The board plans to continue discussion of the issue at a future date.

During the meeting, board chair Conan Smith told commissioners that a caucus would be held immediately prior to the next board meeting – on Nov. 7, at 5:30 p.m. – to discuss appointments to various county boards, commissions and committees. Such appointment caucuses are open to the public. [A listing of all vacancies is found on this website. An online application to apply for an opening can be found here.] The news prompted Ronnie Peterson to criticize the process, which he felt was not sufficiently transparent.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax

On the agenda was a resolution to authorize levying the Act 88 tax to support agriculture and economic development, as well as an amendment that would raise the rate to 0.06 mills, an increase from the current 0.05 mills. A public hearing was also held on this item.

The board was on track to approve the tax last month at the 0.05 mill rate. But after a public hearing, board chair Conan Smith proposed an amendment to raise the rate to 0.06 mills – an idea he’d informally floated at the board’s Sept. 5 meeting. Some commissioners objected to making a change after the public hearing, which led the board to postpone action until Oct. 3, when another public hearing was scheduled.

Smith’s proposal also gave the office of community and economic development (OCED) the authority to distribute the millage funds.

The millage is authorized under the state’s Act 88 of 1913, and has been levied by the board since 2009. That year, it was levied at 0.04 mills. It was raised to 0.043 in 2010 and 0.05 in 2011. Because the Michigan statute that authorizes this millage predates the state’s Headlee Amendment, the board can levy it without a voter referendum.

The rate of 0.06 mills would generate about $838,578 and cost $6 for each $100,000 of a home’s taxable value. It would generate about $145,483 more than the rate of 0.05 mills. The millage proceeds were proposed to be allocated to the following local entities in 2013, with generally the same amounts that the groups received this year: Ann Arbor SPARK ($200,000), SPARK East ($50,000), the county’s dept. of community & economic development ($140, 331), Eastern Leaders Group ($100,000), promotion of heritage tourism ($65,264), Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP – $15,000), Washtenaw 4-H ($82,500), Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show ($15,000), and MSU Extension, to support economic development in the local food system ($15,000).

Smith proposed that the additional funds from the increase would be used for the Detroit Region Aerotropolis ($50,000), with any remaining balance – about $95,000 – be allocated to the office of community & economic development, for activities related to those authorized by Act 88. It’s likely that the amount would include additional staff for that office.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Public Hearing/Commentary

Shawn Letwin of Webster Township spoke briefly during the first opportunity for public commentary. He noted that when the increase has been discussed, some people have talked about the fact that incomes in the county are increasing. He said that his income has increased about 300% – because he was downsized three times and made only $10,000 last year, compared to about $30,000 this year. There just isn’t the money now for a tax increase, he said. Letwin told commissioners that he has about $200,000 in debt and will have to finance about $68,000 for his child’s college education. He couldn’t afford the tax increase, and hoped the board would be prudent in their decision.

Two people spoke during the official public hearing on the Act 88 tax. Thomas Partridge said he endorsed the tax but didn’t think the board had leveled with the community. These kinds of taxes are relics of the 18th century, he said. Special interest millages like Act 88 should be replaced by progressive business and personal income taxes, he said. Partridge wanted the board to explain how this tax would contribute to the advancement of agriculture, economic development and tourism. The county needs a prominent site for an agricultural, industrial and scientific fair, he said, as well as a convention center and a large indoor/outdoor theater.

Matt Shane introduced himself as MSU extension director for the district that includes Washtenaw County. He described highlights of how Act 88 revenues benefit the MSU Extension and the 4-H programs that it operates, including some that focus on entrepreneurship and consumer horticulture. 4-H has impacted about 4,500 youth between the ages of 5-19, he said.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Board Discussion – Amendment

The discussion began with a brief overview by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, who reviewed what had happened at the Sept. 19 meeting. Now, he said, the board first would be considering Conan Smith’s amendment to raise the millage rate from 0.05 mills to 0.06 mills. After they deliberated and voted on that amendment, they would then vote on the resolution to levy the Act 88 millage.

Dan Smith noted that the proposal calls for a 20% increase from the current rate, and he wouldn’t support it.

Ronnie Peterson said there’s no question that the real estate market has taken a hit, especially on the county’s east side, where tax and mortgage foreclosures are high. He described his stance toward economic development as aggressive, saying that Act 88 revenues are appropriate to support the services they’ve funded in the past. But he wondered what the rationale is for raising the rate – when would the board see a plan? He felt the increase should be justified before the board acts on it.

Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Conan Smith reviewed how he had introduced the proposed increase at the board’s Sept. 5 meeting, and had passed out a memo to commissioners the next night, at their working session. [.pdf of Smith's Act 88 memo] [Peterson had been absent from that working session.]

Smith said the intent is to maintain current funding levels in the face of declining property values, and to provide additional support to the Detroit Region Aerotropolis. The aerotropolis, which includes Willow Run airport, is currently funded through the county’s general fund. The change would free up general fund money for other uses. Finally, Smith said there’s currently inadequate staff – 1.5 full-time-equivalent positions – to manage the county’s economic development activities. Additional staffing would allow the county to use its economic development funds more efficiently, he said.

Peterson then spoke at length about his concerns, noting that he was one of the people who originally supported the Act 88 millage. He gave credit to Bob Guenzel, the county administrator at the time, as well as former board chair Jeff Irwin and former commissioner Ken Schwartz, who first identified Act 88 as a potential way to raise revenues without seeking voter approval.

It was the first time that the county had been aggressive in addressing economic development needs, Peterson said. The tax was intended to providing matching funds for grants and partners in the community that were doing this work. The need was especially great on the county’s east side. But the millage proceeds were not intended to subsidize county operations, Peterson said. If that’s what the board wants, they should go to the voters and ask. ”It was never meant to be a piggy bank for county government,” Peterson said. He wondered if the proposed tax increase was a way to protect key employees or managers – and if that’s the case, the board should know, he said.

Conan Smith replied that the board hasn’t empowered the county administration to add jobs yet. The current resolution would only authorize an increased levy to create additional funding. If that’s approved, then the board would eventually have to amend the budget and approve any additional jobs.

Peterson objected to not having more details before they vote. There wasn’t a plan for the use of proceeds, he said. He cited several other taxes that would be coming before county residents, including a possible transportation tax and renewal for parks and recreation. It’s ridiculous to ask his constituents to pay more, Peterson said.

Rob Turner also expressed concern about raising the amount. He understood that property values were declining and that meant fewer revenues would be collected if the rate stays the same. But he felt that when property values start increasing again, the rate won’t be decreased. “It’ll be a tax increase forever,” he said.

Saying he respected everyone’s opinions, Yousef Rabhi spoke in favor of the increase. It’s a troubled economy, but how should they help rebuild it? By investing, he said. Funding organizations like Ann Arbor SPARK, the Eastern Leaders Group and others is helping create a stronger economy, he said, and it shows.

Rabhi noted that although other commissioners refer to a 20% increase, that’s really just a $1 increase for a home with a taxable value of $100,000 – from $5 to $6 annually. What’s more, they’re well below the half-mill limit that the county is allowed to levy under Act 88, he said.

Rabhi also disputed Turner’s point about the difficulty of lowering taxes. In fact, everyone loves lowering taxes, Rabhi said – it’s more difficult to raise taxes, and requires the board to take leadership. It’s the right thing to do at the right time, and he hoped commissioners would support the increase.

Leah Gunn said she’d been involved with the Eastern Leaders Group, at Peterson’s invitation, and knew they did a wonderful job. She felt the Act 88 increase was very small and reasonable. She’d be willing to pay more, even though much of the funding is going to the east side of the county. [Gunn is one of four Ann Arbor commissioners.]

County commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

Alicia Ping – who represents District 3, covering southern and southwest parts of the county – wondered when the board would talk about how the Act 88 funds are allocated for economic development in other parts of the county, not just the eastern side. There are needs in the west, too, she said – some people can only get dial-up Internet access, for example. That means they can’t work from home if they need to use the Internet, and have to go to somewhere else to get it. “You can’t do business without that sort of access,” she said. Ping indicated support for an approach that didn’t simply fund the same organizations year after year. It’s important to look at the whole county, she said, not just Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

Felicia Brabec said she agreed with many of the comments made, especially by Gunn and Rabhi. To her, this feels like a solid plan for economic growth. She shared Ping’s view about the need for strategic planning countywide, and felt that additional staff would help with that effort. It would help in being more tactical to address the county’s needs.

Peterson repeated his point that the Act 88 funds weren’t meant to support jobs within the county organization. Responding to the contention that the increase is small, he said that if your home is in foreclosure, “every dime counts.” He also noted that no elected officials in his district, or any constituents, had asked him to support the increase.

Barbara Bergman called the question. This parliamentary move – designed to end discussion and force a vote on the item – requires a two-thirds majority to pass. That equates to eight votes on the 11-member board.

Wes Prater objected, saying he hadn’t had the opportunity to speak yet. Hedger clarified that the board rule allowing each commissioner to speak before a vote is taken applies only to committee meetings, not the regular board meeting. The question had been called properly, and a vote on it could proceed.

Often calling the question is approved on a voice vote. However, because there seemed to be division on the board, the clerk took a roll-call vote.

Outcome on calling the question: The motion failed on a 5-6 vote. Voting against it were Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rob Turner.

The discussion resumed, and Prater took his speaking turn. He was bothered that they’re using an act that’s nearly 100 years old, and that had been dormant until recently. Somebody “found” it, he said, so the county started levying this tax. If commissioners want this money for economic development, they should put it on the ballot for voters to decide, he argued. “If it’s good stuff, they’ll approve it,” he said.

Saying he’s supportive of Act 88, Rob Turner did not think an increase was appropriate. In fact, taxes aren’t easy to roll back after they’ve been raised, he said. Some commissioners argue that it’s only a one-dollar increase, but things add up. He compared it to his own family’s phone bill, which started out modestly but over the years has grown because so many things have been added to it. “At some time, you have to stop,” he said. It’s not wise to go above 0.05 mills.

Yousef Rabhi clarified with the administration that the allocations for the Act 88 proceeds aren’t limited to the amounts and organizations that are currently designated to receive the funding. The board has the authority to change that, he said. But this amendment is simply raising the amount of the millage, he said. If someone isn’t happy with supporting Ann Arbor SPARK, then they can lobby against funding it. The point isn’t to steal people’s money, he said. By way of analogy, Rabhi said he can spend a dollar on soda at the corner store. But if everyone pools their dollars, then it’s possible to create jobs and build the community. “Together, we can do more than as individuals,” he said – that’s the point.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he planned to support the increase. Responding to Ping’s comments, he said that commissioners work hard on the east side of the county. [Sizemore, who represents District 5, lives in Ypsilanti Township.] He said one of his goals is to expand the Act 88-funded efforts countywide. But it’s the byproducts of the Act 88 funding that are really important, he added. For example, Kalitta Air has invested millions in expanding at the Willow Run airport, he said, and the Wolfpack – a conservancy group co-founded by attorney and former Clinton advisor Paul Dimond and retired Ford executive Ray Pittman – is interested in supporting the proposed recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti, near the Huron River.

County commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Sizemore described Ypsilanti as a jewel that just needed more polishing. He noted that University of Michigan faculty who are helping design the rec center were surprised when they visited the city. Downtown Ypsilanti can be transformed like Dexter, he said, but people just need to get working on it. [The village of Dexter had been highlighted earlier in the meeting as a recipient of the county's overall environmental excellence award.]

Sizemore characterized the work of Ann Arbor SPARK as “trickle down” regarding job creation, but the community also needs a “trickle up” approach. He felt he’d be “beaten up for it,” but he was supporting the millage increase, though he wasn’t happy with the way in which it had been brought forward.

Prater pointed out that the Ann Arbor District Library has a $65 million bond proposal on the ballot that could mean new taxes, raising money for a new downtown library. And there could be another millage soon for countywide transportation, he noted. Commissioners need to take a hard look at what’s happening and stop this foolishness, he said. They need to start acting like they’re concerned for the taxpaying public. The increase isn’t a lot of money, but it’s the principle, Prater concluded.

Peterson reiterated that he was fine with the 0.05 mill rate, but didn’t want to raise it. His concern is that they’re steering away from its original purpose. He said he totally disagreed with Sizemore – saying this tax increase isn’t about Ypsilanti. The city of Ypsilanti had been doing just fine before Sizemore decided to visit, Petersen said.

Peterson contended that the tax increase is designed to fund an internal program within county government, and he objected to that. If commissioners want more revenue for county operations, they should ask the voters. This is why people don’t trust elected officials, he said. If the board wants to create an economic development department, commissioners should sit around the table and talk about that.

Barbara Bergman called the question. This time, support for that action was unanimous and the clerk called the role for a vote on the amendment.

Outcome on amendment: The amendment to increase the tax passed on a 6-5 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith, Ronnie Peterson, Rob Turner, Wes Prater and Alicia Ping.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Board Discussion – Main Resolution

Dan Smith noted that he’s heard the term “economic development” used during the board’s deliberations, but in fact, Act 88 of 1913 doesn’t mention it. The act’s title is “Advertisement of Agricultural Advantages,” he said, with a subtitle that states: ”Advertisement of state or county agricultural, industrial, trade or tourist advantages; tax levy or appropriation by board of supervisors.” While economic development is being used as a catchall phrase in these discussions, it’s actually a distortion of the original act, he said.

Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith.

Wes Prater asked the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, to respond to Smith’s comment. Hedger noted that the act was passed nearly 100 years ago, and that while it doesn’t mention economic development directly, it does refer to trade and industry. He thought that it does cover economic development.

Indicating that she had been especially persuaded by Yousef Rabhi’s “passionate” speech, Alicia Ping told her fellow commissioners: “Don’t fall over, but I think I’m going to vote yes on this.” [Previously, Ping had voted against levying the Act 88 millage.] She doesn’t agree with everything it involves, but hoped that the funds could be reallocated in the future to benefit other parts of the county. The resolution would pass regardless of how she voted, Ping acknowledged, but she hoped that other commissioners would remember that she voted yes, the next time they decide how to spend the proceeds.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. agreed with Ping, saying they needed more people working on economic development, and more ideas. They needed to spread out the funding so that a larger part of the county benefits. ”The whole dang county needs help, to be honest with you,” he concluded.

Barbara Bergman again called the question, and received unanimous support to move ahead with the vote on the main resolution.

Outcome on main resolution: The resolution passed on an 8-3 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith, Ronnie Peterson and Wes Prater.

Accommodation Ordinance

The board was asked to consider initial approval of a change to Washtenaw County’s accommodation ordinance that would shift control for administering and enforcing the accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director.

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

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

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

Accommodation Tax Ordinance: Public Commentary

Two representatives of the Washtenaw County Hotel/Motel Association addressed the board about the ordinance changes. Joe Sefcovic, general manager of the Holiday Inn on Plymouth Road, is president of the association. He thanked commissioners for bringing forward the ordinance change, and urged them to support it.

John Staples began by telling the board that he’d worked at Weber’s Inn since 1943 – but then laughed and said he’d meant to say he’d worked there for 43 years. [Staples is general manager at Weber's.] He said he’s treasurer of the hotel/motel association, and has been involved in that organization since its inception. Ever since the accommodation tax was first instituted, it has never been collected on anything except room revenue, he said. Staples supported the proposed ordinance changes.

Accommodation Tax Ordinance: Board Discussion

Dan Smith noted that this is the second accommodation ordinance change in less than a year. It sounded like the AOC had taken its time and evaluated this proposal, but he hoped there wouldn’t be more changes anytime soon. Smith said his other concern is that the ordinance isn’t treating all hoteliers the same. There are full-service hotels/motels on the one hand, but also a la carte establishments that charge extra for things like Internet access, a rollaway bed and breakfast. He said he understood the intent of the ordinance, but wasn’t sure it resulted in equitable treatment.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the accommodation ordinance amendments. A final vote is expected on Oct. 17. The board also set a public hearing for that meeting, to seek input on the proposed changes.

Animal Control Services

At their Oct. 3 meeting, commissioners considered a resolution outlining a general set of recommendations for animal control services, put forward by a policy task force that’s been meeting since May. It was an item brought forward during the meeting by Barbara Bergman, and had not been part of the published agenda. [.pdf of Bergman's resolution] The commissioners also received a more detailed report from the task force. [.pdf of policy task force report]

County commissioner Barbara Bergman.

The recommendations are intended to work in concert with a directive already passed by the board at its Sept. 19 meeting. At that meeting, commissioners approved a resolution also brought forward by Bergman that directed county administrator Verna McDaniel to begin negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley toward a new contract for animal control services. The resolution also stated that if McDaniel doesn’t believe sufficient progress is being made by Oct. 30, then she’s authorized to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to seek bids from other organizations.

The issue of how to handle animal control services – including state-mandated services as well as non-mandated services – dates back to budget cuts proposed in 2011. The county now has a contract with HSHV through the end of 2012. Early this year, the board formed a policy task force and a separate work group, led by Sheriff Jerry Clayton, to analyze costs for services that HSHV now provides. For the most recent Chronicle coverage of this effort, see: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”

At the board’s Sept. 19 meeting, much of the debate centered on the fact that formal recommendations from the task force hadn’t yet been presented to the board. Those recommendations are intended to guide negotiations with HSHV, and to serve as the foundation for a possible RFP. There were also questions over how much flexibility McDaniel would have in her negotiations. The current 2013 budget has allocated $250,000 for animal control services. This year, the county is paying $415,000 to HSHV, down from $500,000 in 2011. Commissioners expect that the final amount negotiated for 2013 will be higher than the budgeted $250,000 – and if that’s the case, the board will need to amend the budget.

The service recommendations described in the Oct. 3 resolution include: (1) licensing all dogs at the point of adoption or recovery; (2) holding all stray animals for only the minimum number of days required by state law; (3) providing animal cruelty investigations; (4) holding animals for bite quarantine or other court-mandated reasons for the minimum time required by state law; (5) specifying by contract the required holding period, medical attention and basic humane care for animals; (6) posting information on the county website regarding animals that are available for adoption or recovery; (7) supporting county policies for registration and licensing of animals; and (8) establishing a monthly report for the county board of commissioners regarding animal control operating metrics.

HSHV board vice president Mark Heusel attended the Oct. 3 meeting, but did not formally address the board.

Animal Control Services: Board Discussion

Barbara Bergman began by thanking everyone who’d worked on this project. The recommendations warrant further discussion, she said, but not that night – the first presidential debate was being held later in the evening, and people wanted to get home to watch it, she said. But county administrator Verna McDaniel needed more than “fluff” to begin negotiations, Bergman said. The recommendations are intended to provide guidelines for those talks.

From left: Mark Heusel of the Humane Society of Huron Valley board talks with county commissioner Yousef Rabhi before the Oct. 3, 2012 county board.

When some commissioners started asking about items in the task force report, Bergman reminded them that the motion on the floor related to her resolution of recommendations – not the report. Rob Turner asked a question about process: Is this just a starting point for a fuller discussion about animal control policy?

Conan Smith replied that the board will need to take a series of steps. The first thing is for McDaniel to negotiate with HSHV, based on the set of recommendations that the board would be voting on that night.

Dan Smith made a series of comparisons intended to put the cost of animal services in context. The HSHV has estimated that the total cost of housing an animal is $53.13 per day, he noted. If you do a Priceline.com search, you can find hotel rooms in the Ann Arbor area for $50 a night. Or multiplying that amount by 30 days, you can find a pretty nice apartment in the area for $1,500 per month, he said. And if you use it as a monthly mortgage payment, that would get you a $333,860 house based on 4% interest and a standard 30-year mortgage.

Turner pointed out that this task force report was sent to commissioners at a late date. What’s more, some of the information is incorrect, he said, and as a task force member, he wanted to go over it and make sure it accurately reflects the group’s work. He agreed with Bergman that it wasn’t the right time to discuss the report. They need more time to review it before bringing back questions and comments.

Leah Gunn noted that the resolution before the board gave direction to McDaniel. Time is of the essence, she said. The county needs to find out whether it can negotiate a deal with HSHV. If not, the county needs to take other steps, she said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the recommendations related to animal control services.

Future discussions about this issue will likely prove contentious. In an email sent to the board and HSHV representatives on Oct. 2, Gunn outlined her position this way:

Since the Board has instructed the County Administrator to negotiate with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, I would suggest that we vote to accept the report as prepared by Conan, and then vote on the resolution presented by Barbara. Her resolution is more succinct, is in resolution format, and contains language saying that we (the BOC) authorize the “purchase of the listed services” to be provided by a vendor. These are the minimum required by law. As part of this process, Verna has already suggested that she talk with those jurisdictions which have animal control ordinances. I would leave this in her good hands.

The other parts of the report are merely for reference, and I simply do not agree with the numbers that were provided to the Sheriff’s Dept. We are still in the dark about exactly how many dogs are our responsibility. I emphasize the we are NOT responsible for people’s pet dogs. If someone owns a dog, that is their responsibility, not that of the taxpayers’ of Washtenaw County.

As long as one child in Washtenaw County goes to bed hungry, I am not much interested in dogs.

Environmental Awards

Four environmental excellence awards were given out by the Washtenaw County commissioners at their Oct. 3 meeting. The awards ”honor local businesses and non-profit organizations who provide exceptional leadership in environmental protection during National Pollution Prevention Week.” The winners were chosen by the county’s environmental health division and the office of the water resources commissioner.

The University of Michigan’s Radrick Farms Golf Course received the 2012 Excellence in Water Quality Protection Award for its “innovative water and energy conservation measures, environmental stewardship programs, and stormwater management systems.” The 2012 Excellence in Waste Reduction and Recycling Award was given to Wylie Elementary School of Dexter, for its “extensive recycling program, purchasing of recycled products, and educating their students in waste reduction and conservation ethics.” And The Trenton Corp. of Ann Arbor received the 2012 Excellence in Pollution Prevention Award for “reducing the use of toxic substances and preventing pollution before it is produced.”

The overall winner, covering all three categories, was the village of Dexter. Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, gave the award, which was accepted by village manager Donna Dettling.

After the presentations, Bobrin received a standing ovation from the board and audience. She had noted that this will be her last time presenting the awards – she did not run for re-election, and will leave office later this year.

Misc. Communications

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

Misc. Communications: Appointments Caucus

Board chair Conan Smith announced that there are a number of appointments to be made to various county boards, commissions and committees, so there will be an appointments caucus on Wednesday, Nov. 7 starting at 5:30 p.m. in the conference room of the county administration building. [The building, where board meetings are held, is located at 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor. The caucus meetings are open to the public.]

Commissioners will meet in caucus to review applications, he said. For the appointments on which there’s consensus, those names will be brought forward to the board at its meeting that same evening. The rest would be considered at the board’s Dec. 5 meeting. He noted that in November, there will be only one meeting of the board.

A listing of all vacancies, as well as an online application to apply for an opening, can be found on the county’s website.

Wes Prater noted that there are two vacancies on the veterans affairs committee. He wondered if those vacancies have been posted. Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office reported that he’d spoken with Michael Smith, director of the county department of veterans affairs, and that the positions would be posted in the Washtenaw Legal News. He also confirmed that all of the VFW posts in the county would be contacted.

Ronnie Peterson then asked where exactly the caucus would be held. When Smith repeated the location, Peterson replied that it’s important for citizens to know the appointments process. Smith explained that as board chair, he is responsible for making nominations to the board for their approval, but before he does, he solicits feedback from commissioners. It’s not a necessary part of the process, he said – that is, the caucus isn’t required. The required public part happens at the board meetings, when nominations are put forward and commissioners vote on them.

Peterson contended that he didn’t know that appointment caucuses were being held. Why are some people appointed and others aren’t? It’s important to do this work in the public eye, he said. Peterson was sure that some commissioners already had lined up votes for the candidates they wanted to appoint, but he said he doesn’t do those kind of deals.

Leah Gunn observed that notices about the appointments caucus meetings are posted and the meetings are open to the public and attended by the press. [Since late 2008, The Chronicle has attended most of those caucuses, which typically occur twice a year.] Gunn pointed out that some appointments require specific qualifications, which means that not everyone who applies is qualified. She described it as a fair, open process.

Peterson reiterated his complaints about making deals in back rooms. [Peterson periodically raises this issue. He objects to holding any meeting outside the main boardroom where proceedings are televised.]

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

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

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

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

On Oct. 3, two people – both members of the local hotel association – spoke in support of the proposed change.

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