Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College, was appointed to the county’s community action board during the Feb. 19 meeting of the county board of commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

The vote was unanimous, but came after Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the affordable housing component of the project. The planning process will use a $100,000 grant from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), with a stipulation that planning for the 13.5-acre property – south of Washtenaw Avenue – include consideration of affordable housing.

When debate was cut short through a procedural move, Peterson criticized commissioners for not spending more time on the topic – though it had been discussed at length during the board’s Feb. 5, 2014 meeting. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who is helping to lead the project and who serves as chair of the board’s working sessions, indicated support for discussing it further at an upcoming session.

Peterson also voiced concerns about a new Act 88 advisory committee, which resulted in a postponement of the first appointment to that group until March 19. The committee had been created at the board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, as part of a broader policy to help the board allocate revenues levied under Act 88 of 1913. No appointments have been made, however. The county levies the tax to fund economic development and agricultural activities, including Ann Arbor SPARK.

As he has in previous board discussions, Peterson expressed concern that the board was abdicating its responsibility to allocate funding. Other commissioners assured him that the committee will deliver recommendations, but the board retains authority for making the allocations.

In other action, the board gave authority to the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office to reduce the fee for expediting marriage licenses under certain circumstances – from $50 to 1 cent. The vote came over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), who argued that fees should be applied equally to all applicants – whatever the amount. He also didn’t think the criteria for applying the waiver were clear. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum cited some examples of when this fee reduction might be used. As one example, he noted that the vital records office anticipates moving later this year to the space where the deeds office currently is, so the office will likely be closed for more than three days.

Kestenbaum also reported that last year, his office had anticipated that a lot of people would want to get married right away because of a possible change in the state’s same-sex marriage law. He said he announced at that time that he intended to waive the fee, but “my authority to do that has been questioned.” He subsequently looked at the state statute, which requires a fee to be set by the county board and charged – whether it’s $5, or $50, or 1 cent. “It’s your authority to do this,” he told commissioners.

During the Feb. 19 meeting, commissioners also gave final approval to create a new dental clinic in Ypsilanti for low-income residents, and heard public commentary regarding the importance of the GED (general education diploma).

Updates and communications included news that the Sharon Township board of trustees had passed a resolution urging the board to keep the road commission as an independent entity. At the county board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, commissioners had created a seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” State legislation enacted in 2012 opened the possibility of absorbing the road commission into county operations, which would give county commissioners direct control over funding and operations now administered by the road commission.

However, it’s unlikely that will happen. During a 2.5-hour meeting on March 1, the subcommittee voted to recommend that the duties and responsibilities of the road commission should not be transferred to the county board of commissioners. Alicia Ping (R-District 3), who chairs the subcommittee, told The Chronicle that she’ll be bringing the recommendation to the board at its meeting on March 5.

Planning for Platt Road Site

At their Feb. 5, 2014 meeting, commissioners had given initial approval to a broad community planning process for the future of Platt Road property owned by Washtenaw County. The Feb. 19 agenda included a vote giving final approval to a set of recommendations made by a citizens advisory group.

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.

The resolution directed 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.

Debate on the resolution at the board’s Feb. 5 meeting had focused on a resolved clause that would commit the county to using a portion of the property for affordable housing. At that meeting and on Feb. 19, the board was acting on the assumption that including affordable housing was 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).

A resolved clause stated:

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;

However, Callan subsequently informed LaBarre via email on Feb. 27 that the $100,000 planning grant would not need to be repaid if the county decides not to use that property for affordable housing. From Callan’s email:

MSHDA, like HUD, typically has a claw back provision for funds that aren’t used for their intended purpose. In this case, the purpose of the MSHDA funding is to match/complement the $3,000,000 competitive HUD Sustainable Communities Planning Grant awarded to the county in 2011, and more specifically for a community design process that will result in affordable housing. To our surprise, MSHDA recently informed us that, because the funds were awarded for professional services to conduct planning, as opposed to acquisition, we would not be required to pay them back if the community design process doesn’t result in affordable housing development. MSHDA did reaffirm that the expectation to advance affordable housing as a part of larger community sustainability principles remains in place (though payback would not be required).

In her email, Callan included a reminder that the $3 million HUD grant clearly sets affordable housing as a priority, especially along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor. She included a copy of the grant application abstract in her email:

Washtenaw County is the perfect case study to address social equity issues through affordable housing choices, transportation, economic opportunities and healthy food access. Washtenaw County, Michigan is applying for $3,000,000 in HUD Community Challenge Planning Grant (CCPG) funds as the lead applicant in collaboration with several municipalities, the State of Michigan, non-profit agencies, private businesses, and educational institutions. This project focuses on the urbanized areas of Washtenaw County, with the goal of removing barriers to create a coordinated approach to expanding existing affordable and energy efficient housing options and connecting them to job centers and healthy food through an enhanced multi-modal transportation corridor.

Washtenaw County is primarily a rural county by land area. However, about 64% of the residents in Washtenaw County live in the urban core which runs from Ann Arbor (the largest City) to Ypsilanti (2nd largest City) connected by Washtenaw Avenue, a state trunk-line and business loop which runs seamlessly through Pittsfield and Ypsilanti Townships. This corridor is the busiest road in the County, with the greatest number and diversity of businesses, yet offers few housing options directly on the corridor and mostly low-density neighborhoods near the corridor. This proposed project would rectify the disparity between isolated segments of our community. It would provide a catalyst to set into motion renewed revitalization efforts with green building practices; increased energy efficiency and reduced housing costs in rental housing, and enhanced connections to job centers for low-income and working class residents by strengthening public transit and non-motorized options along the Washtenaw Corridor.

Planning for Platt Road Site: Public Commentary

Marian Laughlin, a board member of Religious Action for Affordable Housing (RAAH), hoped that the county would move forward with the study of using a portion of the Platt Road property for affordable housing. She hoped the vote that night would initiate a community planning process “that will lead to the thoughtful development of this very central property.” She knew the community advisory committee had discussed the issue, and she hoped that the conversation would become even broader to make people more aware of the issue and of how the county can contribute to increasing the affordable housing stock.

Laughlin described RAAH as a group that worked through the religious congregations in the entire county to increase awareness about housing issues, and that raises funds to support agencies that create affordable and supportive housing. Her colleagues on the RAAH board had urged her to come and speak to commissioners in support of using part of the Platt Road property for affordable housing.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Laughlin for her comments, and noted that he also serves on the RAAH board.

Planning for Platt Road Site: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked for this item to be pulled out of the agenda for separate consideration. He said he appreciated the advocacy for affordable housing in the Washtenaw Avenue area. His concern was about the cost to the county. He asked for some explanation about what the next steps would be, saying he had several questions about the process.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Peterson then criticized the previous board action to relinquish control of the Washtenaw Head Start program. [That decision was made in late 2011 after considerable debate. The Washtenaw Intermediate School District is now administering the local Head Start program.]

County government should support programs that help children, Peterson said, as well as affordable housing. But the county should be involved in affordable housing through partnerships, he added – it shouldn’t get into the affordable housing business. He said he supported Andy LaBarre’s efforts on the Platt Road property, but he pointed out that the argument for stopping support for Head Start had been that it wasn’t a core service for the county. The same is true for affordable housing, he noted.

The process being used on the Platt Road property circumvents the county’s own policy regarding the disposition of property, Peterson said, and someone needs to make sense of that. He said he wasn’t going to torpedo the proposal, but he had a lot of questions. Housing is more challenging than Head Start could ever be, he said.

As he’s done in the past, Peterson suggested selling the Platt Road property and putting the proceeds into affordable housing initiatives. He preferred that approach.

Peterson said he’d like to hear what other commissioners had to say. It’s a policy decision, he noted, so the board should discuss it.

At this point, Dan Smith (R-District) moved to call the question, a procedural move intended to force a vote. On a voice vote, the board voted to call the question, over dissent by Conan Smith (D-District 9). The board then voted on the item.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave final approval to the Platt Road planning effort.

Later in the meeting, Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he thought the issue of the county’s role in affordable housing warrants a good discussion. The Platt Road advisory committee is doing good work, he added, but it does represent a shift in how the county does business. He suggested having a working session that focused on that issue.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) talks with two Skyline High School students who were attending the Feb. 19 meeting as part of a class assignment.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) agreed, noting that this is just the first step in a process of engaging the community. “I think the board’s dialogue needs to be parallel to the community’s dialogue,” he said. No one has proposed that the county build and run affordable housing, Rabhi said. If the county does decide to pursue affordable housing, it’s a matter of partnering with other organizations, he said. The county wouldn’t be able to do it alone.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who chairs the board’s working sessions, said he’d be happy to add this as a topic for a future working session. He agreed with Rabhi that the county isn’t planning to run an affordable housing program. He emphasized that anything recommended by the advisory committee “would of course need board approval.”

LaBarre felt that some of the board’s conversation was “talking about this as if it’s happened” – but it hasn’t, he said.

Peterson joked that he was pleased when Dan Smith had made the motion to approve the Platt Road planning project, because as a Republican, Smith had “changed his spots” regarding the typical Republican stance toward affordable housing. “He’s just as close to a Democrat as he can be tonight, and I’m grateful for that,” Peterson said.

He then referred to Smith’s calling of the question, and described it as a “rude process to use.” He noted that the board spent less than 10 minutes talking about the disposal of land that’s worth at least $2 million – “and six of those minutes I took up,” he said. He cautioned against calling the question, when other commissioners still wanted to discuss the issue. He said if other commissioners wanted rude treatment, he was capable of that as well.

The property is worth millions of dollars, Peterson said, and deserves more discussion. If a developer is interested, he felt the board has basically closed the door on that possibility. “Let’s follow our policies – not by calling the question.”

Peterson concluded by saying he appreciated that Dan Smith supported this effort, adding that it was “good to have a Republican on our team.”

Appointments

Commissioners were asked to approve several appointments to various county board and committees. Nominations were brought forward by board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8). Several openings remain and will be reposted on the county’s website.

The nominations made on Feb. 19 were:

• Act 88 Advisory Committee, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Todd Clark.
• Community Action Board, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2016: Ivory Gaines (consumer); James Horton (consumer); Elizabeth Janovic (private sector); Jason Morgan (public sector).
• Local Emergency Planning Committee, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2016: Daniel Barbossa (broadcast media); Samantha Brandfon (hospital); Linda Dintenfass (first aid).
• Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), for terms ending March 31, 2017: Mark Creekmore and Linda King (county representatives).
• Washtenaw County/City of Ann Arbor Community Corrections Advisory Board, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2016: Judy Foy (communications/media).

Several openings remain, and have been reposted on the county’s website. Those include:

• Act 88 Advisory Committee: One position for a resident with experience in agriculture and/or tourism.
• Agricultural Lands Preservation Advisory Council: One position for an environmental/conservation group/natural resource professional.
• Community Action Board: One position for a consumer slot.
• Local Emergency Planning Committee: Several openings for people representing health and law enforcement (2), owner/operator of a Title III facility (2), firefighter (1), elected state official (1), first aid (1), civil defense for the city of Ann Arbor (1), transportation (1), print media (1), agricultural (1), and agricultural/Farm Bureau (1).
• Workforce Development Board: Two openings for people in the private sector.

Appointments: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked for Todd Clark’s nomination to the Act 88 advisory committee to be pulled out for a separate vote.

Outcome on all appointments other than Todd Clark: The appointments were approved unanimously.

Peterson recalled that the board had discussed the creation of an Act 88 advisory committee, but he’d been under the impression that more details about it would be forthcoming.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

By way of background, for the past few years the county has been levying a tax to fund economic development and agricultural activities, under Act 88 of 1913. The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 0.5 mills under Act 88 without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation enabling the county to levy this type of tax predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The amount levied by the county in December 2013 was 0.07 mills, raising about $972,000 to fund Ann Arbor SPARK, heritage tourism, and the Detroit Region Aerotropolis, among other entities.

As part of developing the 2014-2017 budget, the county board approved a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The policy was drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9). [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy included creating an Act 88 advisory committee to make recommendations to the board and prepare an annual report that assesses how Act 88 expenditures have contributed toward progress of goals adopted by the board.

The policy also allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. That was the subject of some discussion on Nov. 6, 2013, with Dan Smith (R-District 2) noting that Act 88 authorizes only the board to direct how revenues are spent. Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger had told the board that by approving this policy, commissioners would be providing that direction – in essence, delegating it to the advisory committee.

The policy also allocated up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding. The Nov. 6 vote on the Act 88 policy was unanimous.

During discussion on Feb. 19, Peterson said he didn’t recall passing a resolution that gave criteria for the advisory committee in determining how to allocate the Act 88 revenues.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded, saying that the resolution creating the Act 88 advisory committee stipulated that the membership would include three commissioners and two residents – one least on of them having a background in agriculture or tourism.

Specifically, the policy adopted in 2013 outlined these guidelines regarding the advisory committee:

III. Act 88 Advisory Committee

a. An Act 88 Advisory Committee is created as a subcommittee of the Board of Commissioners and shall include three members of the Board as recommended by the Chair and approved a majority of the Board. The Committee shall have two additional residents of Washtenaw County, with at least one of those residents having expertise in agriculture and/or tourism. No recipients of Act 88 funds shall be a member of the Committee.

b. The Advisory Committee is charged with annually reviewing applications and recommending funding for Act 88 funds and overseeing and evaluating funding recipients.

c. As a committee of the Board of Commissioners, the Advisory Committee shall be governed by the Open Meetings Act.

d. The Advisory Committee shall annually prepare and present to the Board of Commissioners a report summarizing expenditures of Act 88 funds and assessing progress towards the goals adopted by the Board of Commissioners.

e. The Advisory Committee will annually recommend to the Board of Commissioners a process for evaluating applications that identifies priority outputs and includes a numerical scoring system for comparing applications.

f. The Office of Community and Economic Development will staff the Advisory Committee.

As he has in previous board discussions, Peterson expressed concern that the board was abdicating its responsibility to allocate funding. He said he could see supporting the work of the advisory committee if it were to develop criteria for allocating funds, which the board could then discuss and use in its own decisions. But he didn’t support having a committee that would receive grant applications on behalf of the board. He didn’t care who was appointed to the committee – the responsibility for allocating funds still rested with the board.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith responded, saying that it was never the intent for the advisory committee to take on the board’s responsibilities. Rather, the role of the committee would be to recommend the criteria and priorities for allocating Act 88 funds, he said. The board would then need to adopt those criteria, Smith continued. The committee would then develop a scoring matrix, based on the board-approved criteria. After the board approved that scoring matrix, Smith said, the committee would collect applications from entities that seek funding, evaluate those applications, and make recommendations about which entities should receive funding. All of this would happen annually.

The board would retain complete control over those Act 88 funds, Smith said. To date, he noted, there hasn’t been an application process for funding. “I think that the committee has the potential to be very powerful and abuse its power, but I hope we put in enough oversight opportunities to make sure that doesn’t happen,” he said.

Peterson replied that the process Smith described sounded good, but he wondered where that was codified. There should be a document that clearly explains the committee’s charge, Peterson said, and that makes clear what the role of the committee is. Without that, he said he wasn’t comfortable voting for the appointment to the Act 88 committee.

Smith offered to amend the appointment resolution, incorporating the description of the committee that had been included in the policy passed by the board in November. His amendment included these elements as a charge for the committee: (1) annually reviewing applications and recommending funding for Act 88 funds and overseeing and evaluating funding recipients; (2) annually preparing and presenting to the board a report summarizing expenditures of Act 88 funds and assessing progress towards the goals adopted by the board; (3) annually recommending to the board a process for evaluating applications that identifies priority outputs and includes a numerical scoring system for comparing applications; and (4) recommending annual priorities for the use of Act 88 funds.

Peterson stressed the importance of stating that it was an advisory committee. Smith proposed adding a sentence to the advisory committee’s charge, stating that it’s an advisory committee to the board of commissioners and that the committee won’t be making decisions about the allocation of funds.

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) made a motion to postpone the item until the March 5 meeting. Rabhi noted that one of the Act 88 committee positions was being reposted, and he didn’t expect a nomination would be made until March 19. So D. Smith withdrew his original motion, and moved to postpone until the March 19 meeting.

Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone Todd Clark’s appointment to the Act 88 advisory committee until March 19 passed on a 5-1 vote, over dissent from Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Marriage License Fees

A proposal giving authority to the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office to reduce the fee for expediting marriage licenses under certain circumstances – from $50 to 1 cent – was on the Feb. 19 agenda.

From left: County board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and county clerk Larry Kestenbaum.

Currently, the $50 fee is charged if applicants want to waive the statutory three-day marriage license waiting period. The resolution would authorize the county clerk, consulting with the county administrator, to establish a ”fee holiday” on the day preceding a period during which the office’s vital records division would be closed for four or more days, or when an unusual number of marriage license applicants are expected to appear. During a “fee holiday,” the charge for immediately processing a marriage license would be 1 cent.

According to a staff memo, waivers of the waiting period are requested between 5-15 times each month. Without a waiver, marriage licenses cost $20 per couple for Michigan residents, and $30 per couple for out-of-state residents – but the marriage must occur within Washtenaw County. More information is available on the county’s website.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, county clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum reported that marriage license revenue is about $40,000 annually. Last year, 1,938 licenses were issued, compared to 1,830 in 2012.

Marriage License Fees: Board Discussion

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) was concerned that by passing this resolution, the county board would be abdicating its responsibility for setting fees. He noted that the decision would be made by two individuals – the county clerk and county administrator. He said some of his constituents have indicated that the criteria for declaring a fee holiday are unclear. His sense is that this resolution was designed to help one particular group.

County clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum came to the podium to respond. He told commissioners that when he came into office, the fee for waiving the three-day waiting period was $5, based on a resolution adopted by the county board. [Kestenbaum was first elected as clerk/register of deeds in 2004.] He subsequently recommended that the board raise that fee to $50, and the board did that, he said.

It’s been the practice that when his office will be closed for a longer-than-normal period – like four days or more around the holidays – then his office would make some allowances for individuals who come in and want to get married before the office will reopen. He noted that the vital records office anticipates moving later this year to the space where the deeds office currently is, so the office will likely be closed for more than three days.

Kestenbaum said it’s come to his attention that under state statute, he doesn’t have the authority to waive that fee completely. The statute states that a fee, set by the county board, must be charged.

Kestenbaum was referring to this section of Michigan’s Public Act 128 of 1887:

551.103a Marriage license; time of delivery; solemnization of marriage required.

Sec. 3a. A marriage license shall not be delivered within a period of 3 days including the date of application. However, the county clerk of each county, for good and sufficient cause shown, may deliver the license immediately following the application. If the county clerk delivers the license immediately following the application, the person applying for the license shall pay a fee to be determined by the county board of commissioners, which the county clerk shall deposit into the general fund of the county. A marriage license issued is void unless a marriage is solemnized under the license within 33 days after the application.

So in consultation with his staff and some commissioners, including the board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Kestenbaum said they came up with the idea to instead impose a 1 cent fee under certain circumstances. The fee would be dropped to a penny when someone needed an expedited process, through no fault of their own, he said.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Kestenbaum said that several years ago he’d asked to raise the fee for expedited processing to $50 because previously, people would just pay the $5 fee even if they didn’t need a quick turnaround. “The $50 was designed so that people would at least think about it before asking for it,” he said. Generally, people request an expedited process because they’ve forgotten to get the license, and the wedding is being held before the three-day waiting period, he noted.

The other circumstance that might result in dropping the fee, which Kestenbaum said he didn’t expect to happen, is when a larger-than-normal number of people apply for licenses at the same time. For example, last year, his office anticipated that a lot of people would want to get married right away because of a possible change in the state’s same-sex marriage law. He said he announced at that time that he intended to waive the fee, but “my authority to do that has been questioned.”

He subsequently looked at the state statute, which requires a fee to be set by the county board and charged – whether it’s $5, or $50, or 1 cent. “It’s your authority to do this,” he told commissioners.

At this point, Kestenbaum expects that various legal challenges to same-sex marriage bans will wind their way through the federal court system, and there will either be a decision that affects every state, or not, he said. “There would be nothing unique about Michigan, in that circumstance,” he said, “and there won’t be any anxiety that the court would change its mind.” That means his office is unlikely to see a sudden influx of requests for same-sex marriage licenses.

Realizing now that he doesn’t have authority to waive the fee, Kestenbaum said, he’s asking the board for these changes. He noted that the original draft had stated that a waiver would be made in consultation with the county board chair, but it had been suggested to him that the county administrator should be consulted instead, and he agreed to that change.

Martinez-Kratz said Kestenbaum had answered some of his questions, but he didn’t see the urgency to finalize the change that night. [Typically, resolutions are given initial approval at a ways & means committee meeting, on which all commissioners serve, and then the item is brought back for a final vote two weeks later, at a regular board meeting. This resolution was on the Feb. 19 agendas for both the ways & means committee and the regular board meeting that same night.]

Martinez-Kratz said fees should be appropriate to the community as a whole, based on the same rationale for everyone. Setting the fees at $50 but waiving them to 1 cent sometimes is like “ping pong,” he said. “That doesn’t sit right with me.” He wasn’t going to support the resolution, because he didn’t think it wasn’t setting fees appropriately for all members of the community.

From left: County commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9), Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office, and corporation counsel Curt Hedger.

Kestenbaum replied, saying that the overwhelming majority of people coming into the office to apply for a marriage license won’t be affected by the fee waiver change. He said that the state statute would allow the county board to decline to set a fee for an expedited process. In that case, everyone would have to wait three days. “I would be opposed to that,” Kestenbaum said, “but that’s within your authority.”

It’s optional for the board of commissioners to set a fee, he added. But if there’s a fee, his office must collect it.

Martinez-Kratz reiterated that the problem for him is the non-standard way in which the fee could be applied. He wasn’t concerned about the amount of the fee. “But you want the power from our board to at times assess it at $50 and at times assess it for a penny,” Martinez-Kratz told Kestenbaum.

Kestenbaum noted that the board has the authority to adjust the fees based on “administrative practicalities.” When someone is putting a burden on the office by needing the license to be typed, proofed and processed – and there’s a line of people waiting behind them – then “the $50 fee is to inhibit them from asking for that casually,” he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he totally agreed with the premise put forward by Martinez-Kratz. The fee should be set appropriately and used appropriately. But he heard from Kestenbaum that the actual cost of processing is more burdensome on the office when it’s done arbitrarily and you can’t plan for it, Smith said. So when the clerk’s office can see in advance that there’s likely to be an influx of license requests, the office can staff up appropriately for that. In that case, they shouldn’t need to charge an “excessive” fee, Smith said. It might happen after the office has been closed for a long period, he said, or it might be brought about by other circumstances – like people wanting to get married on Valentine’s Day. Smith said he thought the fee structure was thoughtful and addresses these conditions.

Outcome: The proposal was approved on two 5-1 votes at both the ways & means committee meeting and at the regular board meeting later that evening. In both cases, Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) cast the only dissenting vote. Three commissioners – Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) – were absent.

Dental Clinic

Final approval for new dental clinic for low-income residents of Washtenaw County was on the Feb. 19 agenda. The project had received initial approval on Feb. 5, 2014.

Ellen Rabinowitz, interim health officer for Washtenaw County.

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.

Staff from the county’s public health department attended the Feb. 19 meeting, but did not formally address the board.

Outcome: Without discussion, the resolution was approved on a 5-1 vote over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Three commissioners – Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) – were absent.

“Prescription for Health” Grant

A resolution on the Feb. 19 agenda was for initial approval to apply for accept a two-year $226,357 ”Prescription for Health” grant from the Kresge Foundation. It will fund a part-time staff position and requires a $54,250 match from the county’s public health department.

The county had previously received funding for this program, in the form of a two-year, $361,519 Kresge grant from Jan. 1, 2011 through Dec. 13, 2012. According to the program’s website, the purpose is ”to increase fruit and vegetable consumption among patients with low income, and to build capacity of clinics to expand the traditional medical model to include the food system.” The program also aims to strengthen relationships between clinics, farmers markets and the local food system. [.pdf of grant application]

According to a staff memo, analysis of feedback from 930 participants in 2011-2012 showed the following results:

Both years, the average daily consumption of fruits and vegetables increased by nearly one cup per day among patients who visited their local farmers market as measured by a pre- and post-program survey.

Participants overwhelmingly agreed that visiting the farmers market helped them and/or their family members eat more fruits and vegetables (96% Year 1; 94% Year 2).

Participants increased their awareness of other resources in the community. Both years, the number of participants who said they were aware that food stamps (Bridge/EBT cards) could be used at local farmers markets greatly increased from pre- to post-program (48% difference from pre to post Year 1; 43% difference Year 2).

Participants indicated that they were very likely to visit the farmers market again in the future at the conclusion of the program (98% Year 1; 97% Year 2).

The program had a positive economic impact on the local farmers markets, generating over $26,000 in new sales ($5,967 Year 1; $20,279 Year 2). Prescription for Health represented 9% of total sales at the Downtown Ypsilanti Market and accounted for 23% of the total sales at the Chelsea Bushel Basket Market.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave initial approval to this grant application. A final vote is expected on March 5.

Communications & Commentary

During the Feb. 19 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: Gravel Mining

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) highlighted a proposal by McCoig Materials Inc. to do gravel and sand mining in Lyndon Township, near Chelsea.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

He said he’s very concerned about this for the environment in Washtenaw County, and plans to learn more about the proposal. He said he’s likely to oppose it, because it’s near one of the “jewels” of parkland in the county – the Pinckney State Recreation Area and Waterloo Recreation Area. There are also county parks in that area too, he said. “I think it would be very damaging to the future of our community, Washtenaw County’s recreation opportunities, and the environment as a whole to allow that project to move forward,” Rabhi said. It would also impact the quality of life in Chelsea, with gravel-hauling trucks going through the city, he added.

Rabhi said about 200 people had shown up to a public hearing earlier in the month, and he hoped to be involved in the process as it moves forward.

The site is located on M-52 across from Green Lake. Another public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 13 at 7 p.m. at the Washington Street Education Center Auditorium, 500 Washington St., 100 Building in Chelsea.

Communications & Commentary: Road Commission

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d received a letter from the Sharon Township supervisor, Peter Psarouthakis, indicating that the township’s board of trustees had voted not to support efforts to dissolve the Washtenaw County road commission.

By way of background, at their Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, commissioners created a seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” Members appointed at that time included four county commissioners: Alicia Ping of Saline (R-District 3), Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9), Dan Smith of Northfield Township (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. of Ypsilanti Township (D-District 5). Ping serves as chair. Other members include three township supervisors: John Stanowski of York Township, Ken Schwartz of Superior Township and Pat Kelly of Dexter Township. For more details about this work, see Chronicle coverage: “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

The subcommittee’s most recent meeting was on Saturday, March 1 at 9 a.m. in the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. During the 2.5-hour session, the group voted to recommend that the duties and responsibilities of the road commission should not be transferred to the county board of commissioners. Ping told The Chronicle after the March 1 meeting that unless given further direction from the board, the subcommittee’s work is done.

Communications & Commentary: Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) reported that a committee has been working on policy recommendations regarding tax increment financing (TIF) projects, and will be bringing forward its recommendations soon.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked LaBarre for “throwing yourself on a grenade there for us.”

The county’s need for a policy to guide decisions related to TIF proposals was discussed last year in the context of Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA), which the county board agreed to participate in. From Chronicle coverage of the board’s Nov. 20, 2013 meeting:

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked whether a policy would be developed to guide the review of TIF proposals when they come forward. The board had previously discussed that approach. He noted that the board’s vote on the Pittsfield Township CIA still stands, and he’s in support of that. But a lot of questions have been raised by other commissioners, he added, and any community could come forward with the same kind of TIF proposal.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he’s spoken to staff members who are working on a policy. The staff from the county’s equalization department, the office of community & economic development, and the brownfield authority board are collaborating to develop a TIF policy. He hoped that staff would have something for the board to review later this year or in early 2014. It’s important to have a good rationale for approving these agreements, Rabhi said.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary – GEDs

During the evening’s first opportunity for public commentary, Allison Tucker of Manchester spoke about the GED (general education diploma), saying she wanted to share some insights about how the GED can improve society. She said she was a GED graduate, and it’s helped her tremendously. She’s able to attend college now and subsequently will have more job opportunities. The GED is essential to the economy, she said, because it allows people who have aged out of school to continue working when new educational requirements are imposed. Children of graduates are less likely to be taken into a foster program due to having parents who aren’t able to provide for them.

Bonnie Truhn, manager of adult transitions programs at Washtenaw Community College.

The GED should be more affordable, Tucker said, because it’s essential for people who are in a bad financial situation, if they want to improve their lives. It can provide a second chance for people with substance abuse issues or who are ex-prisoners to discontinue their cycle of self-harm and build a better future, she said. Tucker concluded that the GED is a great way to improve the economy, people’s skills and general lives, because the most effective way to do all these things is through education. It’s time for the stigma around the GED to stop, and for it to be presented as what it is, she said: A stepping stone in life.

In responding to Tucker’s commentary, Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked her for raising this issue. He reported that Washtenaw County is in the early stages of a regional effort that also involves Livingston and Jackson counties to look at how adult education is delivered. For a lot of people, the system is difficult to access, he said, because it’s fragmented in terms of where services are delivered. He said he was in a meeting recently about this with Mary Jo Callan, the county’s director of the office of community and economic development, and the issue of certification programs also was addressed. Such programs should step beyond what the GED has to offer. He told Tucker that if she’s interested, the county could find a way for her to be involved in this project.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also thanked Tucker, and noted that he’d met her at a recent YouthSpeak forum that was held in the county administration building earlier this year. Elected officials had come to hear students speak about their experiences and to give suggestions for improving the education system.

During the second opportunity for public commentary, Bonnie Truhn, a Milan resident, said she was there to support Tucker, who is in the adult transitions program at Washtenaw Community College. Truhn is manager of that program. She noted that Tucker had spoken at the recent Washtenaw Alliance for Children & Youth (WACY) event, and had been encouraged to share her views with the county board, too. The program at WCC is not just for GED, Truhn said. It’s a career guidance program, and she thought commissioners would agree that this is what they want for the county. People should fully understand the challenges that are faced by students as well as those who are trying to provide instruction in the program. It’s important to provide opportunities for people who will earn their GED, as well as for those who won’t earn it, Truhn said, but who also need jobs.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) replied that Truhn’s comments are well-received. He noted that Jason Morgan, WCC’s director of government relations, was attending the meeting for another reason. [Morgan was appointed during the meeting to the county's community action board.] LaBarre said he was sure that Morgan would take back Truhn’s remarks to the WCC administration.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said that sometimes people wonder how their tax dollars are spent. Someone like Tucker shows that the county is able to lend support to “those who sometimes have those trips and falls along the way,” Peterson said, and to make sure they had a second chance.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge complained about the huge amounts of snow that had piled up at intersections and parking lots. He advocated for a countywide public transit system, and more funding for education, services for homelessness, and affordable housing. Partridge also called for a countywide public art program. He urged commissioners to address these issues.

During the evening’s second opportunity for public commentary, Partridge called for a more people-friendly democratic society, and to fully fund affordable housing. He asked how a county as wealthy as Washtenaw County could stand by when there are so many people who can’t afford a place to live. There needs to be a countywide affordable housing commission to address this problem, he said, as well as a countywide affordable public transportation commission, and a countywide justice commission to oversee the courts.

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

Absent: Felicia Brabec, Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

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

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

The 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.

Debate on the resolution at the board’s Feb. 5 meeting had focused on a resolved clause that would commit the county 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 stated:

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;

On Feb. 19, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised some of the same concerns he’d voiced on Feb. 5, but discussion was cut off when Dan Smith (R-District 2) called the question – a parliamentary move to force a vote. Peterson then voted along with other commissioners in support of the resolution.

The resolution also directed 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.

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

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 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.

Debate on the resolution focused on a resolved clause that would commit the county 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 stated:

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 directed 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Platt Road Property

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion

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

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion – Amendment

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

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

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion – Final Debate

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

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Smith moved to postpone the resolution.

Outcome: The motion to postpone passed unanimously.

Trial Court Software

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Final Vote

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Software: Final Approval

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Child Care Fund

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Child Care Fund: Board Discussion

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

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Micro Loan Program for Small Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Micro Loan Program for Small Business: Board Discussion

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

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increase in Parks Stewardship Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increase in Parks Stewardship Staff: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

Non-Discrimination Policy

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

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

The resolution’s three resolved clauses state:

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

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

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

Non-Discrimination Policy: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding for Office of Community & Economic Development

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

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

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

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

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

Funding for OCED: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hearing for Indigent Veterans Services Tax Hike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSTS Budget

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

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

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

CSTS Budget: Board Discussion

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

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

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

Public Health Budget

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

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

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

Public Health Budget: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013 Budget Adjustments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming of Head Start Building

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming of Head Start Building: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Naming of Head Start Building: Commissioner Response

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

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

Dawn Farm 40th Anniversary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several commissioners praised Balmer and Dawn Farm for their work.

Honoring Bill McFarlane

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

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

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

Township Sewer Contract Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Budget Update

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Repeal “Stand Your Ground” Law

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Human Services

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Miss America

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

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brett Lenart, OCED’s housing and infrastructure manager, was on hand to field questions, and told commissioners that the Platt Road site seemed like a good opportunity to marry a county asset with the affordable housing goals supported by the grant. However, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) spoke at length about his concerns regarding the amount of money being used for this process, when there were other needs in the community. He also felt that the option of selling the property – which he said might bring in $2 million – should be explored. Other commissioners also expressed interest in exploring a broader set of options, beyond affordable housing.

An amendment that added four slots to the committee for Washtenaw County residents, including at least one with experience in real estate, passed on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7). LaBarre had been instrumental in crafting the original resolution. The site is located in his district.

After further debate, board chair Yousef Rabhi suggested tabling the item until the board’s Sept. 18 meeting. Dan Smith (R-District 2) moved to postpone the resolution, and that motion was passed unanimously. Rabhi directed Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to work with commissioners and staff to bring forward an alternative resolution on Sept. 18.

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