From left: Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1); Bob Tetens, director of parks & recreation; county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie; and county treasurer Catherine McClary. (Photos by the writer.)

The board, comprised of elected officials representing nine districts, is responsible for budget decisions. The five positions that are elected by voters countywide – the sheriff, prosecuting attorney, treasurer, clerk/register of deeds and water resources commissioner – head up county departments but must have their budgets approved by the board.

The board is developing a process that will guide budget decisions regarding how to manage budget surpluses or shortfalls, including $3.9 million surplus from 2013 and about $600,000 in higher-than-budgeted property tax revenues in 2014. The county administrator, Verna McDaniel, is recommending that the $3.9 million be kept as general fund reserves. Some county commissioners would rather spend at least a portion of the surplus.

The recommendation from the electeds is to allocate a to-be-determined percentage of any surplus to these five areas: (1) unfunded liabilities for the pension fund; (2) unfunded liabilities for the retiree health care fund; (3) the county’s housing fund, which was eliminated in 2012; (4) the delinquent tax fund reserves, specifically for internal advances on county projects to save bonding costs; and (5) the capital reserve fund or unearmarked reserve fund.

Commissioners made no decision on these recommendations, other than to thank the electeds for their input.

In other budget-related action, the board gave final approval to put a 10-year parks & recreation millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot. Commissioners also set public hearings for two millages that are levied annually in December without voter approval – for support of indigent veterans and their families; and to fund economic development and agricultural activities. Those hearings, to solicit public input, will be held at the board’s July 9 meeting.

The board also gave final approval to set the county’s general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. This is an annual process that includes a public hearing, which was also held on June 4. One person spoke.

A final vote was also taken to create a new committee that will explore funding options for road repair. This follows the board’s rejection – at its meeting on May 21, 2014 – of a proposal to levy a countywide tax for this purpose. No committee members have been appointed yet.

The board was also briefed on work by the community corrections unit, which is part of the sheriff’s department. It provides services that include jail diversion and alternative sentencing options to the Washtenaw County Trial Court, pre-trial services, drug testing, and electronic monitoring. The use of electronic monitoring has increased dramatically, from an average number of cases between 25-30 at any given time in FY 2012-2013, to between 85-115 cases in FY 2013-14.

During public commentary, commissioners heard from David Schonberger, an Ann Arbor resident who thanked the board for passing a resolution last month to oppose oil exploration and drilling in the county. He urged them to use it as a starting point for more action. Specifically, he advocated that the board fund a robust public education campaign and establish an advisory committee to work with Scio Township and the city of Ann Arbor on this issue.

Budget Process

At its Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners approved a four-year general fund budget for 2014-2017. As part of that process, the board adopted a set of budget policies, which were revised at that meeting to address a process for allocating any revenue surpluses – beyond the amounts that are contributed to the county’s fund balance.

Here are the relevant policy sections:

11. The Board of Commissioners commits to long-term budget flexibility and sustainability, and an adequate level of cash flow with its attention to fund balance. A healthy fund balance is an essential ingredient and the following was considered to determine an appropriate level as a target: an appropriate level to fund at least 60 days of operations, to help offset negative cash flow (primarily from the seven month delay in property tax collections after incurred expenses), and to assist buffering any unexpected downturns. Therefore, the Board shall plan future budgets to meet the goal of a Reserve for Subsequent Years representing at least 20.0% of General Fund expenditures, net of indirect costs.

12. Any annual surplus or deficit will have options for use recommended by the County Administrator in alignment with the community outcomes and processes as outlined by the adopted Community Impact Resolution 13-TBD, presented to the Board of Commissioner for consideration and confirmed by Board action and authorization in July of each calendar year.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) has been leading the budget process for the board, as chair of its ways & means committee. On May 21, 2014, she presented a timeline for budget work in 2014. [.pdf of budget calendar resolution] Highlights are:

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

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

On May 21, Conan Smith (D-District 9) had expressed frustration at the approach, because the county administrator has already recommended to keep that amount in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves. He thought the process was “turning out to be little more than a rubber stamp of a decision that’s already been proposed by the administration.” Brabec stressed that commissioners will be discussing and making the final decision – which might differ from the administration’s recommendation.

Budget Process: Advice from “The Electeds”

On June 4, board vice chair Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was leading the board meeting in the absence of chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8). She noted that there were “special guests” at the meeting who would be making a presentation to the board – three of the five countywide elected officials: Sheriff Jerry Clayton, treasurer Catherine McClary, and prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie. Clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum and water resources commissioner Evan Pratt did not attend, but supported the written recommendation that was presented to the board. [.pdf of recommendation] These five positions are informally known as “the electeds.”

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) is vice chair of the county board.

Clayton referred to Ping’s introduction, joking that if they are viewed as guests then they should come to more meetings. He said the recommendation speaks for itself, but they wanted to frame it for the board. They understood that the board has the final authority and decision-making for the county budget, and for how revenues are spent. “We respect that,” Clayton said. But the five countywide-elected officials are part of the county leadership too, he added, and are responsible to all 340,000 residents that elected them into office. So they thought it was important to lend their perspective as the board undertakes its new budget process.

The countywide electeds are asking the board to factor in some set-asides for items that will continue to be a challenge, Clayton said. There are no recommendations regarding amounts or percentages, he noted – that determination is up to the board. “We plan on staying available and engaged in the process as you think about the budget,” he said. “We want to be seen as partners, as part of an overall collaborative effort – not as obstacles or as a group that’s trying to get in the way of the process, but quite frankly trying to enhance the process.”

McClary stressed that the recommendation is supported by all five countywide elected officials, and is presented in the spirit of partnership. She noted that several years ago, she had served on the county board, and for part of that time she served with Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). One of the most important things for the board to assert was its ability to set policy through its budget. “That is your primary responsibility and authority as a board of commissioners,” she said.

The board had taken a momentous step last year when they adopted a four-year budget, McClary continued, “and we want to commend you for that.” But a four-year budget requires being very conservative about revenue estimates. For example, the budget had projected a 1% increase in revenues this year, but the actually increase is about 2% – or about $600,000 more in property tax revenues than budgeted.

In addition, the county recently refinanced some bonds, saving more than $2 million, McClary noted. That amount had previously been budgeted for debt service. [.pdf of press release about bond re-funding] [.pdf of May 28, 2014 bond prospectus]

So knowing that there will likely be unanticipated increases in tax revenues over the next four years, the five electeds are asking that the board consider developing and adopting a formula by which to allocate that money. For example, McClary said the county has “severe” unfunded liabilities for its pension fund – a defined benefit plan called the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) – and for its Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) retiree health care fund. The county is working on a 27-year amortization to achieve 100% funding, but any money that’s put into the funds today will be compounded over that 27-year period, she noted.

In addition to allocating a percentage of any surplus to unfunded WCERS and VEBA liabilities, other recommendations for allocating surplus revenues are:

• Adding to the county’s delinquent tax fund reserves, specifically for internal advances on county projects to save bonding costs.
• Restoring the county’s housing fund. (The fund had received about $110,000 annually, but was eliminated in 2012 as the county made cuts to prevent a budget deficit.)
• Increasing the budgeted amount for the capital reserve fund or unearmarked reserve fund.

By having a plan and assigning percentages to different priorities, McClary noted, the board can strategically allocate surplus funds. She pointed out that the Ann Arbor city council had done something similar at its June 2 meeting – by voting to set aside 50% of the net proceeds from the possible sale of development rights on the Library Lane lot, and put those proceeds into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

McClary said she’d also been surprised by Ping’s description of the electeds as “guests,” calling it exceedingly polite. She again stressed that the five electeds hoped to be partners with the board, giving “on-the-ground information about what it’s like to run a department and to provide services to citizens in this county.”

Budget Process: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) responded to the presentation by quipping, “Thanks, roommates!” He asked McClary to explain the recommendation about adding to the delinquent tax fund reserves for internal advances.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

McClary replied that it’s a topic somewhat separate from any decision to allocate surplus revenues to it. She said the issue can be explored in more detail at a July 10 working session, when she and Evan Pratt – the county’s water resources commissioner – will be making a presentation.

McClary then described the proposal, which she had also mentioned in a presentation to the board at its March 19, 2014 meeting. The idea is for the county to internally fund some of its projects – for drains, roads, public works, parks – instead of bonding. The amount for internal advances would be small – in the $400,000 range or less. She noted that when the county issues bonds, it has to pay a bond attorney and financial advisor, in addition to other costs associated with a bond issue. About half of the money goes toward fees and interest payments, not for the project itself. “We believe we can save the taxpayers quite a bit of money,” she said, by taking care of these financing needs internally, which she called “self-funding.”

When she first became treasurer, McClary noted, there was about $20 million in the delinquent tax revolving fund, and delinquent taxes were about $15 million. So it would have been possible to self-fund some projects then, but the county administration at that time didn’t take that approach. Rather, any excess money above $4 million was moved to the capital projects fund – that’s how the county has been paying debt service for various projects over the last 20 years, she said.

In the past, the county board had authorized keeping up to $4 million in the delinquent tax revolving fund as reserves. Now, McClary is recommending to increase that amount incrementally so that there will be more money for self-funding. She said she already self-funds a small amount of projects, including drain projects from the office of the water resources commissioner.

As another example, McClary said she has discussed using the fund to help the road commission purchase trucks – as the commission typically need about $1 million for five trucks each year. Right now, the road commission is financing those purchases at an interest rate over 3%. McClary said her investment portfolio is earning half a percent. If the road commission agreed to a 2% interest rate in a self-funding arrangement, they’d save money and the general fund would earn more. “That’s the type of thing we want to talk with you about,” she said.

McClary noted that the four-year budget included very conservative estimates on property tax revenues, so there will likely be excess revenues. She told the board that this particular group of commissioners has been very policy-oriented, and meticulous about planning. “We’re thinking this would be a great partnership,” she said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Conan Smith agreed, saying the anticipated excess revenues provide a great opportunity to make strategic, systemic investments. It’s an opportunity that the county hasn’t had in many years, he said, and the advice from electeds is appreciated.

Other commissioners also thanked the group for these recommendations. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked about the recommendation to put a percentage of excess revenues toward unfunded liabilities in the WCERS pension fund. The recommendation includes a statement that WCERS is “now less than 60% funded, a level defined as below acceptable norms.” He asked McClary to elaborate, saying that it drew a bit of a red flag for him.

McClary said she thought the recent bond rating prospectus had mentioned that the pension funding was low. But it had also mentioned the management of the county and the strategic role that the board of commissioners is playing, she said. Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had gone with the administration to meet with the Standard & Poor’s staff prior to the bond issue, McClary said. She noted that she had participated in that meeting via conference call, and reported that Rabhi had conveyed in a very emphatic way the strategic approach that the board is taking. She pointed out that the county was successful in securing a triple-A rating.

The Government Finance Officers Association is the premier organization for assessing standards, McClary noted. LaBarre’s question would be a good one to ask of the county’s actuaries when they present to the board in July, she added. “They have indicated that anything under 60% is getting into territory that becomes problematic,” she said.

LaBarre clarified with McClary that the term “below acceptable norms” didn’t come from an audit or official statement from the actuaries.

Budget Process: Working Session

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) gave an update on the hiring of a consultant for helping the board on budget-related work. By way of background, at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, commissioners authorized county administrator Verna McDaniel to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. As county administrator, McDaniel has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts.

Two candidates were selected for interviews, but one of them subsequently withdrew, Brabec said. The remaining candidate will be interviewed on June 5, she added.

Also on June 5, the board would be holding a budget discussion at its working session, including how to use the 2013 budget surplus. Responding to a query from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Brabec said that no decisions would be made at the working session, “but we wanted to start to have that conversation.” At some point, the board will develop a document with guidelines that will direct their decisions about allocating any surplus.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Public Hearings for Millages

The board was asked to set public hearings for its July 9 meeting to get input on two millages that Washtenaw county levies without voter approval: (1) for support of indigent veterans and their families; and (2) to fund economic development and agricultural activities.

From left: Commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), standing, talk with Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management.

No increase is proposed for the economic development millage, levied under Act 88. The proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014, raising an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues. In previous years, the resolution setting this millage has outlined how the revenues would be allocated. The largest allocations have gone to the county’s office of community & economic development, and to the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK.

However, at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the board adopted a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, 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 allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. The policy also allocates up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding.

For support of indigent veterans, 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, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008, and collects the tax in December. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Since 2008, the county board has slightly increased the rate that it levies each year. In 2012, the rate was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It was raised to a rate of 1/30th of a mill in December 2013, to fund services in 2014.

The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

In previous years, the board has taken action in the fall to levy these millages. When queried by The Chronicle about the earlier timeline this year, finance director Kelly Belknap said the required documentation for these millages must be submitted by Sept. 30. “Prior to submitting the required documentation the Commissioners must first approve the levy. So it is just about timing and getting the documents submitted within the required timeframe,” she said.

Outcome: Without discussion, the public hearings for these millages were set for July 9.

Parks & Recreation Millage

The agenda included a resolution giving final approval to put a 10-year parks & recreation operations millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

From left: Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). Sizemore also serves on the county parks & recreation commission.

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: Without discussion, the board gave final approval to put the parks & recreation operations millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

General Operating Millage

The June 4 meeting included a final vote to set the county’s 2014 general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. This is an annual process that includes a public hearing, which was also held on June 4. One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke, advocating for more resources to provide services for the county’s most vulnerable residents.

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

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

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

Outcome: The millage rate was set by a unanimous vote, without discussion.

Community Corrections

A request to approve the application for a $421,900 state community corrections grant appeared on the June 4 agenda.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton talks with Judy Foy, left, and Renee Wilson, director of community corrections. Foy serves on the community corrections advisory board.

The grant from the Michigan Dept. of Corrections is for the period from Oct. 1, 2014 through Sept. 30, 2015. This is part of a regular, annual grant process to fund services that include diversion and alternative sentencing options to the Washtenaw County Trial Court, pre-trial services, drug testing, electronic monitoring and “social education,” according to a staff memo. The total program of $1.18 million also includes $240,983 in county matching funds, $280,584 in estimated program revenue, and $239,554 in the use of fund balance. The community corrections program is part of the county sheriff’s office. [.pdf of staff memo] [.pdf of grant application]

This year’s program includes a new position – with a salary range between $31,912 and $43,674 – to help supervise a substantial increase in use of electronic monitoring by all Washtenaw County courts, for pretrial and sentenced offenders as an alternative to jail. According to the staff memo, the use of electronic monitoring increased 256% over the previous fiscal year. Average electronic monitoring cases for FY 2012-13 were between 25-30 at any given time, and increased to between 85-115 cases in FY 2013-14. Increased revenue from the electronic monitoring program and use of fund balance will be used to fund the increase in staffing.

The grant was submitted to the state in May.

Community Corrections: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) described community corrections as a “gem” that most residents aren’t aware of. She asked for more information about the increase in the number of people who are served through this program.

Renee Wilson, community corrections director, replied that there’s been a constant increase over the past two or three years, for a variety of reasons. Community corrections has established itself as a service for the courts and county prosecutor’s office that they have confidence in, she said, in terms of pre-trial supervision. Systemically, she added, the county is approaching the management of jail overcrowding better than in the past, diverting people who don’t need to be in jail during the pre-trial period by using community corrections.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton and commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

There’s also been an increase in drug testing. “We’ve pretty much become the sole provider of drug-testing services to all of Washtenaw County,” Wilson said. In past years, there were some private entities that provided those services, but the courts have moved to looking at community corrections for that service, she said.

The case load for electronic monitoring is another area that’s increased, Wilson noted. One factor is the increase in specialty courts throughout the county, which each have different requirements for services, including electronic monitoring. Also, the 14-A District Court no longer runs its own tether program, she noted, so that’s coming to community corrections as well.

Courts are doing risk assessment for pre-trial offenders, Wilson explained. Court magistrates, prior to every arraignment, identify people who would be appropriate to release on bond, and determine what type of supervision would be appropriate for them. Some of those people are being referred to the electronic monitoring program, she said.

Brabec asked Wilson to talk about the number of jail beds saved by this approach. According to Wilson, from 2010 to 2013, the diversion efforts resulted in 91,375 jail bed days that weren’t used, saving the county $11,513,250. Wilson noted that these figures only included “successful completions” for all pre-trial and sentenced supervision programs. That is, the figures don’t include savings from people who were initially part of a program but who were then sent back to jail for whatever reason, she said.

Between 2012 and 2013 there was an increase in the estimated per-day cost of a jail bed per inmate. Prior to 2012, the cost was estimated at $85 per day, based on a study that the county had done in 2003. That figure was updated for 2013, based on internal cost studies done by the sheriff’s office. The current estimated per-day cost of a jail bed is $126.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the grant application.

Road Funding

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to create a new committee that will explore funding options for countywide road repair.

Lew Kidder of Scio Township has been active in road funding issues.

Commissioners had given initial approval to the idea at their May 21, 2014 meeting, after rejecting a proposal to levy a 0.4-mill countywide road tax in December. The tax would have been levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval.

In arguing against levying the tax at this time, some commissioners cited the need to study funding options – including a possible Act 283 levy – before making a decision. The committee will consist of seven members: (1) a road commissioner or designee; (2) the road commission managing director or designee; (3) the county board’s road commission liaison; (4) one additional county commissioner; (5) a position representing townships; (6) a position representing incorporated municipalities; and (7) a member of the general public. Members will be appointed at a later date.

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

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

On June 4, there was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9). Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) were absent.

Board of Health

The June 4 board agenda included a resolution to create a board of health, an entity that would prove advice on public health issues for the county. Commissioners had given initial approval to the item at their May 21, 2014 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s public health officer, attended the June 4 meeting but left when she was told that the item would be postponed.

There was no discussion on this item, but Conan Smith (D-District 9) moved to postpone it until the board’s July 9 meeting. He did not give an explanation for the postponement.

Outcome: The item was postponed until the July 9 meeting.

Bonding for Malletts Creek Drain Project

The board was asked to authorize bonding for up to $650,000 to fund the Malletts Creek Springwater sub-drain project in Ann Arbor. Bond payments would be made through special assessments against the city of Ann Arbor. The project will include stormwater management improvements in the city’s Springwater subdivision. According to a staff memo, the financing will be made through the state revolving loan fund at 2.5% over 20 years. [.pdf of staff memo]

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners granted initial approval for the bonding. A final vote is expected on July 9.

Proclamations

There were two resolutions of appreciation on the June 4 agenda.

Gloria Brooks, CEO of the nonprofit Arbor Hospice.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) presented a resolution honoring Arbor Hospice on its 30th anniversary. It was founded in 1984 by Mary Lindquist, a registered nurse, to provide care for the terminally ill and their families.

The nonprofit’s CEO, Gloria Brooks, was on hand to accept a framed copy of the resolution. She thanked commissioners, saying it was “amazing to have a 30-year journey as we help families experience their end-of-life journey.” Arbor Hospice helps 50% of the residents of Washtenaw County, she said – it’s the largest provider in this county. She invited commissioners to a celebration on June 11.

Brooks received a round of applause from the board and staff.

Another resolution of appreciation honored Roy Wilbanks for his service to Washtenaw County and Eastern Michigan University. Wilbanks, a former EMU regent, did not attend the June 4 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

During the June 4 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: Oil Drilling

David Schonberger spoke during public commentary, introducing himself as a resident of Ann Arbor from the district represented by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7). He provided a handout to commissioners, in addition to his commentary. [.pdf of handout]

He thanked commissioners for passing a resolution at their May 21, 2014 meeting to oppose gas and oil drilling. He urged them to use it as a starting point for more action. Specifically, he advocated that the board fund a robust public education campaign and establish an advisory committee to work with Scio Township and the city of Ann Arbor on this issue. Schonberger noted that his research shows a gray area in relevant state laws, opening the door to “numerous creative ways to intervene and discourage that particular type of local economic development.”

From left: Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and commissioners Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Schonberger cited a 1990 summary judgment upheld by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit Court in the case of West Bay Exploration Co. v AIG et. al. [West Bay is seeking a permit for oil exploration in Scio Township.] “This citizen action is a statement about documented violations of state law, reckless irresponsibility, intentional corporate misconduct, and gross negligence at facilities located in Michigan,” he said. He added that NIMBY is particularly justified in this matter, and that the risks of such proposed activities in Washtenaw County vastly exceed any potential benefits.

Responding to his commentary, Conan Smith (D-District 9) agreed that the county could be doing more to help people restrain gas and oil exploration here. Educating residents is one of the key ways to do that, within the structure of the current state law, he added. The county “may or may not have regulatory authority that we can leverage, but we can certainly help people to organize, and to use their own property rights to protect their interests and the interests in the environment,” Smith said.

As an example, Smith stated that it takes a majority of property owners to agree to lease their land in order for the exploration to happen. There are also clauses regarding environmental protection that can be incorporated into lease agreements. He reported that the environmental health code board of appeals has been discussing these issues, “and I’ll make sure we continue the conversation at that level.”

Communications & Commentary: VEBA, WCERS Special Meeting

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that there will be a special joint meeting of the boards of the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) retiree health care fund. It will take place on Thursday, June 12 at 1 p.m. in the county administration building’s boardroom, 220 N. Main St. The actuarial reports will be presented for those two plans.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke during both opportunities for public commentary. He urged the board to keep focused on the priorities of ending homelessness, increasing affordable housing, expanding public transportation, and providing better access to health care and education. He also supported Democrat Mark Schauer for governor, so that these priorities can be addressed on a statewide level.

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

Absent: Dan Smith, Yousef Rabhi.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 9, 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!

Pat Kelly, former Dexter Township supervisor, talks with county commissioner Conan Smith and finance director Kelly Belknap before the March 19, 2014 county board meeting. The board passed a resolution of appreciation for Pat Kelly during the meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The board also heard from county treasurer Catherine McClary, who reported that foreclosures are decreasing, as are delinquent taxes. Delinquent taxes are a leading economic indicator for both mortgage foreclosures and tax foreclosures, she noted, so the decreases are good news. Commissioners gave initial authorization to the treasurer’s office to borrow up to $30 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions, an annual process.

Commissioners also authorized the county administrator to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. The vote came over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr., who felt the work could be absorbed by existing staff.

The budget was also the focus of an update from lobbyist Kirk Profit and his colleague Gary Owen at Lansing-based Governmental Consultant Services Inc., who talked about how action in the state government might impact Washtenaw County. GCSI is the lobbyist for the county and several other local governments, including the city of Ann Arbor. Their updates included the fact that legislation has been introduced to repeal Act 88, which the county uses to levy taxes for economic development and agriculture. This year, the county has budgeted $973,000 in revenues from an Act 88 levy.

In other action, the board appointed former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane to the county road commission board, to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. The remainder of that six-year term runs through Dec. 31, 2014.

Commissioners supported McFarlane, but also discussed the possibility of changing the process so that interviews with applicants would be held at a public meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who as board chair makes these nominations, described the process of nominating a new road commissioner as a difficult one, and highlighted the need for a five-member road commission. Currently the road commission board consists of three members. It’s an issue that Rabhi plans to bring up at an April 17 working session.

The board also took a step toward allowing employees to get health insurance coverage for the treatment of autism. Commissioners gave initial approval that would authorize adding an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rider to existing active employee and retiree benefits.

And a resolution to oppose a mineral mining operation in Lyndon Township drew criticism from Dan Smith (R-District 2), who objected to the county board weighing in on an issue that’s not within its purview. Other commissioners felt the county had a vested interest in formally voicing an opinion, both because of broader economic and environmental impacts that would affect residents, and because the county parks & recreation commission owns property in the township. Smith’s decision to state “present” – rather than casting a yes or no vote – resulted in brief discussion about board rules.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining

A resolution opposing a mineral mining proposal in Lyndon Township appeared on the March 19 agenda.

The resolution stated that the county board “formally opposes the establishment of the proposed McCoig Materials mining operation in Lyndon Township on the basis of the very serious negative consequences to the surrounding communities.” The company is proposing a sand and gravel mine on 189 acres north of Chelsea on M-52. The rural site is located near several parks and nature areas, including Waterloo State Recreation Area, the Pinckney State Recreation Area, Park Lyndon, the Green Lake Camping area, and the Waterloo-Pinckney Hiking Trail. Over 31,000 acres of protected land is located in that area.

McCoig is asking Lyndon Township for special land use zoning and has submitted an application for a mineral mining operation. Public hearings on the issue have drawn heavy opposition. On its website, the township has noted that its authority is limited:

Michigan State Legislators have greatly reduced township control by passing Act 110 of 2006 (125.3205). Under that law, the township must not “prevent the extraction, by mining, of valuable natural resources from any property unless very serious consequences would result from the extraction of those natural resources. Natural resources are considered valuable for the purposes of this section if a person, by extracting the natural resources, can receive revenue and reasonably expect to operate at a profit.” The township’s authority is limited to “reasonable regulation of hours of operation, blasting hours, noise levels, dust control measures, and traffic that are not preempted by part 632 of the Michigan environmental laws,” 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.63201 to 324.63223.

The county board’s resolution addresses these issues, stating in its “whereas” clauses that “the noise, dust, air pollution, and additional heavy traffic generated by the operation of the mine and the transportation of the minerals will likely have serious negative consequences for the natural environment and wildlife …” [.pdf of full resolution]

The issue was also raised during the March 11, 2014 meeting of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. WCPARC director Bob Tetens subsequently sent a letter to Lyndon Township supervisor Mark Keezer outlining several concerns with the project. [.pdf of Tetens letter] The letter indicates that WCPARC is willing to purchase the property.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: Public Commentary

A resident of Lyndon Township spoke during public commentary, saying he’s not anti-mining. “But my mama taught me there’s a right place for everything, and in the heart of the largest state recreation area in the lower Peninsula is not the right place.” He strongly encouraged commissioners to pass the resolution and to do everything in their powers to support the citizenry, “who I can tell you is very strongly against this.”

Larry Murphy, a Scio Township resident, told commissioners that he’s a candidate for the county board. [Murphy, a Republican, has filed to run for the Aug. 5 primary in District 1. The seat is currently held by Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz, who is running for re-election.] Murphy said he attended the public meeting earlier in the month about this proposal, which was held by the Lyndon Township planning commission. He said he was shocked that about 500 people attended. It’s really a disaster in terms of the environment and the effect on recreation, Murphy said. It’s also a disaster in terms of transportation, because of the trucks that would be going through downtown Chelsea. He encouraged the board to oppose this project. He wanted people to know that opposition to this is bi-partisan. “This mining company, McCoig, has no support, no friends in Washtenaw County,” Murphy concluded.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: Board Discussion

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) – who represents the county district that includes Lyndon Township – described the situation, noting that the mining would directly affect a county park. Park Lyndon shares a lake with the proposed sand mine, he noted, and the company plans to use water from the lake as part of its mining operation. He pointed to the letter by Bob Tetens, director of the county parks & recreation commission, as giving a good explanation of the objections. Martinez-Kratz also noted that about 700 people had attended two public meetings in the township, overwhelmingly opposed to this proposal. He thought the community would appreciate the county’s opposition.

From left: Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) spoke about process and the county board’s role. “It seems that this board simply can’t mind its own business. Here we are, yet again, sticking our nose in someone else’s business.” This is a matter for Lyndon Township to decide what’s best for them, he said. The planning commission is holding public hearings and getting lots of public comment. The planning commission will review that public comment, as well as the advice from their attorneys, and make a decision. The township board will subsequently weigh in as well. If voters are unhappy about that, they have a right of referendum, Smith noted. Residents can circulate petitions and perhaps overturn whatever decision is made. If a lawsuit occurs, it will be the taxpayers of Lyndon Township who’ll be paying for it, he noted.

It’s not the job of the county board to sort out these issues, Smith said. This isn’t under the county’s control, he added, “and I wish you would stop having things in front of us that are not under our purview.” [In general, Smith has consistently objected to resolutions weighing in on issues – usually at the state level – that are outside the purview of the county board.]

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he appreciated Dan Smith’s position that the township board will be making the decision. But Washtenaw County is a significant landowner in Lyndon Township, he noted, with properties including Park Lyndon and West Lake Preserve. The resolution that the board is considering plainly articulates the impacts on natural resources as being the main driver of the county’s concern, C. Smith said. The township is gathering public opinion, and the county as a landowner has an interest in that land and the possible impacts of the mining facility. “It’s right for us to articulate our concerns,” he said. The resolution doesn’t carry any more weight than other landholders, he said, and he supported it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) asked whether the Lyndon Township board supported or opposed the mining proposal. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) didn’t think the township board had made a determination – that’s why they’re soliciting public comment. Sizemore wondered what the county board’s resolution would do. Rabhi replied that it expresses the board’s opposition to the mining operation.

Sizemore said Dan Smith had a point about it being the township’s business. But Sizemore noted that he served on the county parks & recreation commission, which has a lot of land there, so he’d support the resolution. [Dan Smith and Conan Smith also serve on the parks & recreation commission.]

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) talks with former Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly.

Rabhi thanked Martinez-Kratz for advocating on this issue. Rabhi noted that his own personal interest in it stems from his background in environmental studies. He’s heard from people at the University of Michigan that they also have concerns about this project. Rabhi called Tetens’ letter well-stated, outlining many concerns that people share. It’s a community-wide issue, he said, not just isolated to the township. Lyndon Township is within Washtenaw County, and the county has a duty to take a stance on this – because the environment in the county is a countywide asset to all citizens. “We are doing the right thing by passing this resolution in opposition of the mining operations in Lyndon Township,” Rabhi said. It should be a concern for all of Washtenaw County.

Dan Smith countered that if the state wanted the county board to have control over land use, then the legislature could amend the zoning enabling act. In some states, land use is a county matter, he said. If that were the case, then the question of this mining operation would rightfully be before the county board, and it would make the determination.

The proper response, D. Smith continued, is in Tetens’ letter, where Tetens indicated the willingness of the parks & recreation commission to buy the property. It makes perfect sense for natural areas preservation, he said.

Martinez-Kratz thought the state would want the county board to advocate on issues that are important to the county. This issue is important for economic and environmental reasons, he said. It won’t be resolved quickly, and he thought that township officials would look for guidance from the county as well as from the township residents.

Outcome: The resolution passed. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent, and Dan Smith (R-District 2) stated “present.”

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: The Vote – Coda

Kent Martinez-Kratz asked corporation counsel Curtis Hedger for clarification about how Dan Smith’s vote would be recorded. The board rules state that a commissioner must vote yes or no unless there’s a conflict of interest, but Hedger noted that there’s no mechanism to enforce the rule.

Hedger said he did some research, because Smith had indicated that he would be making the “present” statement. It will be recorded that Smith stated “present,” Hedger said. But because it takes an affirmative vote to approve a resolution, then anything else is considered a “soft no.” Yousef Rabhi recommended making a note next to the vote, indicating that it’s not in keeping with the board rules.

Specifically, the board rules – as adopted unanimously by commissioners at their Jan. 8, 2014 meeting – state:

O.
 VOTING:

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

1.
 Roll
 Call
 Vote:

Roll
 call
 vote
 shall 
be 
taken
 when 
called 
for 
by 
any
 member 
of 
the 
Board, 
and
 on 
board actions 
to 
adopt 
ordinances, 
resolutions
 and 
the
 appointment 
or 
election 
of 
officers.

2.
 Votes 
Required:

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

Ronnie Peterson noted that commissioners are individually elected, and they can choose to vote or not vote. Every commissioner stands by their individual commitments to vote, he said. The resolution passed with majority support, he noted. The board establishes its practices and norms by example, Peterson said. Whatever the board finds acceptable is how it will function, regardless of what the official rules state, he added. “I don’t like that, but we’ve established that in the past.”

Appointments

At the board’s March 19 meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) made nominations to six county committees, commissions and boards. [.pdf of application packet] Nominations are made by the board chair, with confirmation of the appointments made by a vote of the full board.

Appointments: Road Commission Board

Yousef Rabhi nominated former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane to the Washtenaw County road commission board, to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. The remainder of that six-year term runs through Dec. 31, 2014. Unlike most other county-appointed boards, road commissioners receive annual compensation of $10,500.

Superior Township supervisor Ken Schwartz, a former road commissioner.

McFarlane was among 10 applicants for the position. Others who applied included former county commissioner Rob Turner; Mike Henry, chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party; and University Bank CEO Stephen Ranzini.

During the evening’s first opportunity for public commentary, Ken Schwartz – a former county commissioner, former road commissioner and current supervisor of Superior Township – spoke briefly in support of McFarlane’s appointment. He noted that McFarlane was very experienced in local government. McFarlane had served as Superior Township’s supervisor for 22 years and before that worked for the sheriff’s department. “Bill is more than qualified to step in,” Schwartz said. McFarlane has worked with municipal budgets, and understands the difference between primary roads and local roads. He’d be an excellent choice, Schwartz concluded.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he was glad that McFarlane would be back working for the county. He described McFarlane as very bright and “super genial,” and as someone who is trusted by the communities that are impacted by decisions of the road commission.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) described McFarlane as a personal friend, and said there was no question about his integrity. He was pleased that McFarlane was willing to serve, and he supported the nomination.

However, Peterson said he was concerned about following proper procedures, and that the board hadn’t always done that. In the past, they’d gotten rid of a 24-year veteran on the road commission, Peterson said, “through a process that was very questionable.” [Peterson didn't mention any names, but was possibly referring to Steve Puuri, who retired as managing director of the road commission in 2011 after nearly 25 years.]

Following the rules and procedures is the only way that people know that something is being done in a fair, consistent way, he said. Peterson questioned why there hadn’t been public interviews of potential candidates to the road commission board.

Peterson also said he hadn’t yet heard about the recommendations regarding the future of the road commission, which a board subcommittee had undertaken. He wanted to have some discussion about that. If the nomination were anyone else besides McFarlane, Peterson said he might not vote for that person, because he didn’t think the process had been fair, clear or consistent.

Conan Smith responded, saying that candidates for the road commission in the past had been interviewed, but that hadn’t happened for at least seven years. The more recent appointments to the road commission hadn’t been made that way, he noted, and perhaps the board should return to its past practice. He said he knew how rough it was for the board chair to have to make the decision.

C. Smith noted that since the current appointment runs only through the end of 2014, there would be a chance soon to implement an interview process when the county board makes an appointment for the term that begins on Jan. 1, 2015. He thought it would be very valuable for the public to have input.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he supported McFarlane. He disagreed with Peterson and C. Smith, saying that citizens elected the county commissioners so that the commissioners would make decisions. It’s the board’s job to make these appointments, he said, not to set up an advisory committee to make recommendations. He thought the board was letting go of its authority, and letting residents decide “when they don’t know a third of the story.”

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that the road commission would be the topic of an April 17 working session, which he chairs. He suggested continuing discussion of the issue at that time. The working session will also include a report from the subcommittee that is making recommendations on the future of the road commission. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission.”]

Rabhi described the process of nominating a new road commissioner as a difficult one. He appreciated the diversity of backgrounds among the applicants. He said he called all 10 applicants for 15-30 minutes or more, to talk about their interests and qualifications. “It was a very hard and stressful process for me.” McFarlane has the qualifications necessary to fill this vacancy, Rabhi said, and he was happy to put his name forward.

Rabhi said it would be great to find a way to engage all the applicants, who are passionate about roads and road funding. Perhaps there’s a way to do that in an ongoing basis, he said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the county board.

Noting that this might be extremely controversial, Rabhi then said the county needs a five-member road commission. Currently the road commission board consists of three members. “This process highlighted that need” to expand, he said. With five members, the road commission would have more representation from more backgrounds and more parts of the community. That would result in a more productive dialogue than three commissioners can have, Rabhi said, especially given the restrictions of the state’s Open Meetings Act.

It’s an issue that Rabhi plans to bring up at the April 17 working session.

Rabhi said he’d love to hear about how the public interview process has worked in the past, noting that he wasn’t on the board when those kind of interviews occurred. He’d like to review that process, as long as it’s not taking away the decision-making from the board.

In this case, given the vacancy and the need for a full road commission board, a new commissioner needed to be appointed quickly, Rabhi said. He again stressed that he’d spent a lot of time talking to applicants as well as to fellow county commissioners, to get their input. He hoped the board would support McFarlane.

Sizemore wanted to know when the county board could change the pay of the road commissioners. Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said it can’t be done during a road commissioner’s current term. It would have to be done and take effect at the beginning of the new term. Sizemore said that if the road commission board is expanded to five members, perhaps the salary should be reduced to $6,000 each. Hedger pointed out that there would be varying salaries for a period, because the terms for the road commissioners are staggered.

Peterson said he didn’t know where the idea of having a citizens advisory committee had come from, and emphasized that the appointments are made by the board. Whatever process is put in place should also be decided by the board, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously appointed Bill McFarlane to the Washtenaw County road commission.

Later in the meeting, Ronnie Peterson asked whether expanding the road commission to five members would actually mean dissolving the existing road commission and establishing a new one. He asked corporation counsel Curtis Hedger to research that question. He said he wasn’t advocating for it, and joked that he hoped people wouldn’t call him about it.

Yousef Rabhi also suggested that the board might consider designating positions on the road commission board based on specific skills – like community outreach, or technical expertise – so that there’s more diversity of background, especially if the road commission board is expanded to five members. It might even include geographic designations, he said. That might be something else that Hedger could explore.

In general, Rabhi said he wanted to move road commission appointments away from being political and more toward being policy-driven.

Appointments: Other Commissions & Committees

Yousef Rabhi made several other nominations on March 19:

• Accommodations ordinance commission, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).
• Agricultural lands preservation advisory committee, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Erica Bloom (environmental/conservation group/natural resources professional).
• Workforce development board, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2016: John Haberthy (private sector) and Matthew Sandstrom (private sector).

In addition, five nominations were made to the Act 88 advisory committee, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2014. Three county commissioners – Conan Smith (D-District 9), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – were appointed, along with citizens Todd Clark and Art Serafinski.

Action on appointing the Act 88 advisory committee had been originally considered at the board’s Feb. 19, 2014 meeting. The item was postponed after Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns over the policy governing the committee’s role. 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 had been made at that time, however. The county levies the tax to fund economic development and agricultural activities, including Ann Arbor SPARK. [.pdf of March 19 staff memo on Act 88]

Outcome: All appointments were approved by the board.

Staff for Budget Work

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a proposal to hire a contract position that would support budget-related work for the county board and administration. The item had been originally considered, but postponed, at the board’s meeting on Feb. 5, 2014. It was subsequently given initial approval on March 5, 2014.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

This process started on Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, when commissioners gave 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 it 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 had been included in the Feb. 5 board packet. The person would report to the county administrator in terms of daily operations. [.pdf of job description] [.pdf of scope of services]

The issue was debated at some length during the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when commissioner 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, which led to the postponement. There was no discussion about the item on March 5, when it was given initial approval on a 7-1 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had been absent.

Staff for Budget Work: Board Discussion

On March 19, Ronnie Peterson asked for the item to be pulled out for a separate vote. He said he supported the staff position, but wanted to clarify some things. He joked that the chair, Yousef Rabhi, “took me to the back room, to make sure I did not waver.”

Peterson referred to the following “whereas” clause, highlighting a reference to the board leadership:

WHEREAS, upon approval, the Administrator is directed to work with Board Leadership to contractually engage a qualified professional to assist the BOC to develop strategies and provide oversight for the integration of Board-defined community impacts and outcomes into organizational and departmental programs, policies and budget priorities and;

Peterson said he wasn’t part of the board leadership, and he wanted to know how they perceived the role of this new employee. [The leadership includes board chair Yousef Rabhi; vice chair Alicia Ping; Felicia Brabec, chair of the ways & means committee; and Andy LaBarre, chair of the working sessions.] How would the communication flow from the leadership to the rest of the board? Peterson asked. He noted that the new staff person would be under the supervision of the county administrator, but would report to the board.

Felicia Brabec said that the “whereas” clause relates to hiring the person, and she encouraged all commissioners to be involved in that process. She was open to changing “board leadership” to simply “the board.”

Regarding the flow of information, Brabec said the person would regularly come to board meetings to update commissioners about the work. That way, commissioners would be on the same page when they needed to make decisions for the budget reaffirmation later this year, she said.

Rabhi supported an amendment to strike the phrase “to work with Board Leadership.” But Conan Smith said he thought the board should be involved in the hiring. Peterson agreed, saying the board should be very open about this hiring, and should let other employees know what this person will be doing. The role should be clearly defined, he said. Peterson agreed that the entire board should be involved, not just the leadership.

The proposed amendment changed the “whereas” clause to state [emphasis added]:

WHEREAS, upon approval, the Administrator is directed to work with the Board to contractually engage a qualified professional to assist the BOC to develop strategies and provide oversight for the integration of Board-defined community impacts and outcomes into organizational and departmental programs, policies and budget priorities and;

Outcome on amendment: On a voice vote, commissioners approved the amended “whereas” clause.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wondered whether in the future he should contact county administrator Verna McDaniel, or the new staff person that would be hired. He was skeptical about the need to hire someone new. “We’ve already got 1,300 employees, but you guys feel we need to hire somebody else to do Verna’s job, and Verna’s job is to tell somebody on her staff to get some work done.”

Sizemore also asked why there were no dollar amounts specified in the resolution for this new hire, or a timeframe for this work. Finally, he asked whether the county would also need to hire someone to implement the recommendations made by the new employee. He didn’t support the hire, saying that the county already had staff who could do this work.

Brabec and McDaniel clarified that the contract would likely be between $50,000 to $75,000, and would not exceed the amount that the county administrator is allowed to spend without board approval – a $100,000 limit. In terms of a timeframe, McDaniel said it would likely be a contract at least through 2014. The board would need to decide whether the work would continue beyond that, she said.

Sizemore noted that not long ago, the county was poised to borrow up to $350 million “because we were in such desperate straits,” but now there’s money to hire someone new. He would not support the resolution. [Sizemore was referring to a bond proposal that had been floated in early 2013 to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations. McDaniel had initially said the bond was crucial to the county's financial health, but the proposal was dropped in July of 2013 amid concerns over cost and process, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that was required for this type of bonding.]

Outcome: The resolution on hiring a contract employee for budget work passed on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. Dan Smith was out of the room when the vote was taken, and Alicia Ping was absent.

Autism Coverage

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) brought forward a resolution from the floor, authorizing the county to provide health insurance coverage for the treatment of autism. The resolution would authorize adding an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rider to existing active employee and retiree benefits. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Adding the rider would cost the county an estimated $182,589 this year, according to staff – to be paid to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. To cover that cost, each county department will be charged on a per-employee basis. In addition, the county will pay for claims made by employees for this benefit, with the assumption that most if not all claims would be reimbursed by the state. LaBarre described the amount of claims that the county might be required to pay as a “moving target, but one I think we can meet.” He said the policy is needed for employee recruitment and retention, as well as for the “basic moral argument” that coverage should be provided.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

The board has been discussing this possibility for several months. LaBarre noted that Conan Smith (D-District 9) had brought up the issue last fall, pointing out that the county didn’t provide full mental health parity. That was because of budgetary constraints, LaBarre said.

At its Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, the board received a staff presentation about the possibility of offering such coverage. Colleen Allen, CEO of the Autism Alliance of Michigan, attended that meeting to answer questions and advocate for coverage. The board created a committee to explore the cost to the county for providing employee health insurance coverage for autism. Committee members were LaBarre, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). The committee’s charge was to (1) investigate the cost and sustainability of coverage of autism spectrum disorders; and (2) recommend a policy providing and funding coverage if the state reimbursement fund is exhausted.

The federal Mental Health Parity & Addiction Equity Act of 2008 mandates that any group plan with 50 or more members – like Washtenaw County government – must offer both medical and mental health benefits. Under more recent federal health care reform, there’s been an expansion of benefits, and mental health benefits are considered a mandatory part of basic health care, starting this year. However, autism isn’t included as part of that mental health mandate.

On the state level, in October 2012 a state of Michigan mandate took effect stating that all fully insured plans must provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The county is not a fully insured plan, however. Because the county is self-funded, it was exempt from this state mandate.

The costs of treatment are estimated to be about $60,000 a year to cover a child with autism. The state of Michigan has made coverage a priority, and has started setting aside funds to reimburse organizations that provide coverage. In fiscal year 2012-13, $15 million was made available, with an additional $11 million in fiscal 2013-14. Of that, only about $500,000 has been expended on reimbursements. The program is handled by the Michigan Dept. of Insurance and Financial Services.

The state program provides for reimbursement of up to $50,000 per year per child between the ages of 0 to 6, up to $40,000 per year from ages 7-12, and up to $30,000 per year for ages 13-18.

County staff have estimated that offering the coverage would result in up to a 5% increase in medical expenses, or up to $1 million annually. This year, medical expenses are budgeted at about $20 million. The county is expected to be fully reimbursed by the state of Michigan for the amounts that are allowed under the autism program.

The resolution given initial approval on March 19 included two resolved clauses:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the implementation of the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ADS) rider to existing active and retiree as soon as feasibly possible through Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, providing mental health and physical health parity.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Washtenaw County commits to a review of claims paid and/or reimbursed on an annual basis as our individual experience is not yet known. Such review would occur prior to the annual review process with Blue Cross/Blue Shield to determine if such benefit (rider) would be continued in the next year of benefits.

Autism Coverage: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked the committee and staff for their work. He asked Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, what percentage of costs the county could be expected to bear for this coverage.

Heidt described the annual payment to Blue Cross Blue Shield – of about $182,000 – as a kind of “permission slip” that would allow the county to offer the coverage. That amount will be pre-funded from the county’s medical fund reserves, and it will then be charged out to each county department based on the number of employees in each department – both general fund employees and non-general fund employees.

Employees that take advantage of the coverage would pay if there’s a deductible on their current insurance plan, or if there’s co-insurance, Heidt explained. The majority of employees pay 10% as co-insurance. She reminded the board that the administration is still negotiating with unions that represent about 300 employees at the sheriff’s office, so the benefits for those employees are different at this point.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The remainder of the claim would be paid by the county, with the expectation that the county would be reimbursed from the state, based on the age of the child that’s receiving treatment. The annual state reimbursement levels are $50,000 through age 6, $40,000 from ages 7-12, and $30,000 from ages 13-18.

Rabhi noted that Lansing is “a very dynamic place,” and he wondered what the impact would be if the state reimbursement program is eliminated. Heidt replied that currently about $25 million is available in the state reimbursement fund. The committee recommends that the county review the benefits and claims annually, to determine if the coverage would continue to be offered in the following year, Heidt said.

Rabhi noted that once the county offers a benefit, it’s hard to take that benefit away. If for some unforeseen reason there’s suddenly no money available from the state, he said, the county would need to evaluate if it’s a benefit that they can continue to pay for. But it’s hard to see the county removing that benefit, he said. Heidt stressed the importance of annually evaluating the county’s expenses, because at this point it’s unclear how many employees will take advantage of the coverage.

Rabhi supported offering coverage, but wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t a guarantee every year. He was concerned about what might happen if state funding disappeared, and what impact that would have on employees as well as on the county budget. He also noted that a lot of the county’s departments that get funding primarily from non-general fund sources are short on cash. What kind of burden will this coverage place on those departments? Heidt replied that of the $182,000 total, about $102,000 of that will be charged to non-general fund departments, based on the number of employees in each of those departments.

But this year, that $182,000 total would be pro-rated based on when the coverage begins, she noted – so that total amount will likely be only about $75,000 this year, since the coverage won’t be started until well into the year.

Rabhi said he wanted to be clear that the families who access this benefit aren’t a burden – that’s not what he meant. He was simply trying to understand the dollars that the county will be spending.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the $182,589 payment to Blue Cross Blue Shield, noting that it effectively doubles the cost of providing the coverage. He wondered what BCBS was doing with that money. Heidt replied that BCBS is charging that amount in anticipation of the claims that might be made. Based on whatever the county’s actual experience is with autism claims, that annual payment to BCBS might be less in the following year, she said. Smith asked what the dollars are used for within the insurance company. County administrator Verna McDaniel said that the basic understanding is that the money goes into an insurance pool, but beyond that, it’s not clear how it is allocated.

Smith said the issue of autism coverage didn’t arise because there’s state funding available for reimbursement. It came up because of the desire for mental health parity, and because many commissioners thought the county already provided autism coverage and were surprised when that wasn’t the case. Every other mental health issue is covered. Heidt noted that autism is the only mental health issue that doesn’t have coverage mandated by the state. Smith wondered how it’s possible that this relatively minor coverage is costing the equivalent of $15 per employee per month to add to the county’s health care costs. Heidt said it’s probably because there are so many unknowns.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Smith asked how the cost of the autism rider compares to other riders that the county has with BCBS. Heidt said it’s been a long time since the county added a new rider, so she didn’t have those costs broken out. Smith replied that he “loved the Blues” and has been covered by that entity his entire life. But he wanted some sort of explanation about how BCBS calculates the autism rider. Heidt said she’d talk to the county’s BCBS agent to get more information.

LaBarre agreed with Rabhi about the county needing to go into this with “our eyes wide open.” The county can leverage state funds now, but it’s not a given in the future. LaBarre noted that some commissioners wonder why this isn’t being done as part of the budget reaffirmation later this year. It’s not without risk in terms of cost, he said, but the merits of doing it as soon as possible make it worth supporting.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he hoped the county never takes back the benefits offered to employees. They should figure out how to finance this benefit, regardless of state aid. It’s about making a commitment to employees who have made previous sacrifices, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he was happy to move this item forward for an initial vote. But because of the budgetary impacts it has, and the fact that the county is barely three months into a four-year budget, he hoped that it would come back to the board for final approval not on April 2 but rather as part of the board’s budget reaffirmation process later in the year. At that time, they’d have a better handle on the county’s finances for the year and how the county could fund this benefit, he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) thanked the staff for working on this issue, saying it was important to “right this wrong.” She agreed that it was important to figure out how to pay for the benefit if the state fund is eliminated, but it’s important to move this forward so that families who need this benefit can access it.

Brabec noted that Heidt is working on how families can get coverage for older children, from ages 18-26, who aren’t eligible for reimbursement from the state.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to offering autism coverage.

2013 Year-End Financial Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the year-end financial update by telling commissioners that “I think you’ll be pleased.” [.pdf of financial update]

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, delivered the report. She noted that the audit is still in progress so these are preliminary results. It’s unlikely that anything will change drastically, she added.

From left: Washtenaw County finance director Kelly Belknap and finance analyst Tina Gavalier.

The county had a projected general fund revenue surplus of $2.356 million for the year. Surpluses in several areas contributed to that result, including intergovernmental revenue ($1.3 million, primarily due to payments in state revenue-sharing), fees and service revenue from the county clerk/register of deeds office ($591,000), and the sheriff’s office ($495,000).

On the expenditure side, the county spent $1.564 million less than budgeted. The bulk of that comes from $1.338 million in personnel savings from attrition, position vacancies, and planned reductions. Over $1 million of that was in the sheriff’s office, Gavalier reported, where there are 25 vacancies.

The total year-end surplus for the general fund was $3.92 million. Total revenues were $105.797 million, with total expenses of $101.876 million.

Looking ahead, Gavalier noted that there are several areas to monitor, including child care fund expenditures that are rising due to caseload and placements. [The child care fund is a joint effort between state and county governments to fund programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth in Michigan. Fifty percent of the fund comes from state dollars.]

Other issues to watch that could have a financial impact include fringe benefit projections and trends, personal property tax reform, the possible legislative repeal of Act 88, and state revenue-sharing/county incentive program payments. Regarding Act 88, Gavalier noted that the county has budgeted $973,000 in revenues from an Act 88 levy in 2014, to fund economic development and agricultural-related programs. “So if that’s repealed, there are some decisions that will need to be made,” she said.

Gavalier outlined the next steps for budget-related action that involves the board. The 2014 equalization report will be presented in April, along with a year‐end audit and financial statement. Quarterly budget updates for 2014 will occur in May, August and November. And this fall, the board will make a budget affirmation, with possible amendments to the remaining years of the four-year budget that was adopted in late 2013, for the period from 2014 through 2017.

McDaniel told the board that the county was recently notified that it’s receiving a national Alliance for Innovation award for its four-year budget. [Former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel previously served on the board of that group, which is based in Phoenix.]

2013 Year-End Financial Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked Tina Gavalier for more details about the intergovernmental revenue line item. She replied that the surplus of about $1.3 million comes from combining federal, state and local government revenues going into the general fund. Most of that came from a $1.495 million surplus in state revenue-sharing. The county received $9,602,028 in state-revenue sharing in 2013, compared to the budgeted amount of $7,665,098. The $1.495 million surplus in state-revenue sharing was offset by a $238,046 shortfall in local government revenue.

The $1.495 million in state revenue-sharing reflects the first two payments for 2014 that were actually made in October and December of 2013. There will be six payments in total for 2014, including those two, she said, but the payments that were made in 2013 had to be recorded in that year. She described it as a “one-time windfall.”

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, pointed out that the state and county are on different fiscal years. The state’s fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The county uses a calendar year as its fiscal year. That difference resulted in the timing of the payments, she explained, and the way in which they are accounted for in the county’s budget.

Gavalier also noted that the state Dept. of Treasury issued a guidance letter (No. 2013-1) stating that revenue-sharing is no longer based on statewide sales tax revenue, but instead will be a state appropriation.

C. Smith asked that the upcoming steps in the budget schedule reflect a supplemental budget update in the May-June timeframe, to reflect the updated revenue projections that will be coming in the equalization report. The board would be looking to adjust the budget at that time, based on any revenue shortfall or surplus. When Gavalier replied that it would be part of the budget update in August, Smith stressed that it should happen earlier – in May or June.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Delinquent Tax Borrowing

In an annual action to help the cash flow of local governments in Washtenaw County, the county board was asked to give initial authorization to county treasurer Catherine McClary to borrow up to $30 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions. [.pdf of delinquent tax resolution]

Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary.

The estimated amount of delinquent taxes is lower than in recent years, possibly reflecting a recovering economy. Last year, the board authorized borrowing up to $40 million, and the treasurer’s office ended up actually borrowing much less.

After March 1, taxing jurisdictions – including cities, townships, schools systems and libraries, among others – turn their delinquent taxes over to the county, and are reimbursed for that amount. The county treasurer then assumes responsibility for collecting these delinquent taxes. This is a standard procedure that’s conducted annually at this time of year. The borrowed funds are used for cash flow purposes, to fund operations for the first half of the year.

Under the state’s General Property Tax Act, the county treasurer is required to collect delinquent taxes. Section 87 of the act allows the county to set up a revolving fund – which was done several decades ago – so that the county can borrow the estimated amount of delinquent taxes, then pay in advance to all the taxing jurisdictions the amount that they would have collected if there had been no delinquent payments.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) thanked McClary for making this happen, saying this was very helpful to the townships and other municipalities that can get all their taxes upfront and then settle up after properties are foreclosed.

McClary noted that foreclosures are going down, “which is very, very good news.” It also appears that there will be a slight drop in delinquent taxes, she said. Delinquent taxes are a leading economic indicator for both mortgage foreclosures and tax foreclosures, so that’s also good news, McClary said. There’s also been a definitive drop in forfeitures, which is the step immediately preceding a foreclosure.

Last year, the county had authorized the treasurer’s office to borrow up to $40 million, but there ended up being only $21 million in delinquent taxes, McClary said. And only $16 million was borrowed, because there was a small reserve in the county’s tax revolving fund – about $4 million. So a small amount of self-funding is possible, she said, which saves the county money. Approximately 4% of what the treasurer’s office borrows represents either interest or fees. “So any time we can reduce the amount of delinquent tax borrowing, we’re doing a favor for the taxpayers,” McClary said.

She noted that the $4 million in the tax revolving fund is the result of a county board decision. Commissioners could decide to put that money into a capital projects fund or the county’s general fund, she said, but they’ve chosen to keep it as reserves. That helps the county when credit rating agencies make their evaluations, she said. It would help more if there were more money in those reserves, she added.

McClary noted that the county board recently approved a new way to pay off debt incurred from bonding, typically for public works projects in local municipalities. [At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the board authorized the change to allow local units of government to repay bonds early via the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund. The intent is to reduce interest rate payments while posing no financial risk to the county. At the same meeting, the board approved restructuring debt held by Bridgewater Township, which owed $585,000 on $1.095 million in bonds issued in 2004 to fund a sewer system.]

The treasurer’s office agreed to loan Bridgewater Township money to pay off the bonds, with the township repaying the treasurer’s office at a lower interest rate than it was paying for the bond debt, which was averaging 4.1%. The interest rate that is being used to repay the treasurer’s office is slightly above the average weighted yield that the county was getting on its portfolio, McClary reported, “so it’s a very good deal for the county coffers as well.”

McClary also told the board that she’s been working with Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner. That office has a lot of small bond issues for drain projects, in the range of $200,000 to $400,000. Depending on the size of the issue, they might be spending as much as half of any issue on fees and interest. If the $4 million in the delinquent tax revolving fund could be raised, she said, the county would gain more stability from the credit rating agencies and would be in a position to do more internal loans. She said she hasn’t yet made a formal proposal about that, but that’s where she’s headed.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the authorization, with a final vote expected on April 2.

Treasurer’s Report

County treasurer Catherine McClary gave a report on investments in 2013. [.pdf of 2013 treasurer's report] [.pdf of 2012 treasurer's report]

Investment earnings were $637,866 for the year. That compares with $755,681 in 2012. Fees and interest on delinquent taxes totaled $3.72 million in 2013, compared to $5.046 million in 2012. Fees for dog licenses were $62,718 last year, up from $59,748 in 2012. And income from tax searches was $23,052 compared to $31,760 in 2012.

Chart showing three-year historical comparison of Washtenaw County investments.

Total cash and investments reported as of December 2013 was $145.226 million, down from $156.081 million at the end of 2012. The 2012 figure included $4.67 million in funds related to the county accommodations tax, which at that time was administered by the treasurer’s office. In October 2012, the board approved an ordinance change that shifted control over administering and enforcing Washtenaw County’s accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director.

McClary noted that the average weighted yield of the county’s investments was 0.476% in 2013, compared to the three-month Treasury benchmark of 0.07%.

McClary highlighted three other items during her remarks to the board. The social workers in her office – who work with residents with delinquent taxes – have been certified by the state Dept. of Human Services to do intakes for residents in a range of programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. Her office is also participating in the Step Forward Michigan program, which uses federal mortgage prevention funds to also prevent tax foreclosure. It’s the only state in the country to do that, she said.

Finally, McClary reported that property assessments are increasing. She told commissioners that she had prepared a brochure for residents about how to appeal their assessments.

Resolution of Appreciation for Pat Kelly

The March 19 agenda included a resolution of appreciation for former Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly. [.pdf of resolution]

Pat Kelly, former Dexter Township supervisor.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District8) began by wishing Kelly a happy birthday.

Rabhi noted that Kelly had stepped down from her role as Dexter Township supervisor, after serving in that role for 12 years. He said he had served on many boards and committees with her, and knows that she’s someone who cares about all residents of Washtenaw County. He read aloud the resolution, which highlighted Kelly’s work on the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, the Washtenaw County Transit Master Plan, Washtenaw County Police Services Steering Committee, and several other public entities.

The resolution also noted that Kelly “led Dexter Township’s response to a devastating tornado in 2012 and worked tirelessly and diligently to establish communication channels with affected residents, safely coordinate volunteer efforts to aid in the massive clean-up, and, with significant and important assistance from the County and Road Commission, supported and led township efforts to remove debris and fallen trees from private property at little or no cost to residents…”

Kelly was visibly emotional when she responded, saying she was touched by the recognition. Almost two years ago, she said, she’d stood at the same podium and thanked commissioners for helping her community after the 2012 tornado. “It’s been a good partnership,” she said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) praised Kelly’s negotiating skills in representing her township as well as the entire county. When he first was elected, Smith said, the tension between the county and townships over police service contracts, provided through the sheriff’s office, seemed insurmountable. “It seemed like we were going to be at war for a generation,” he said. At one of his most frustrating moments during his first term, Smith recalled, Kelly called him and “very gently explained the interests that your colleagues in the townships had and concerns in a way that just opened my eyes to the possibility of a real partnership.” The county could not have reached a resolution without Kelly’s leadership on that issue, he said. “You’ve been a calming force in huge turmoil, and a passionate deliverer of messages without creating conflict in that process.”

Smith said he knew the county would find some way to keep her deeply engaged with policy work and community leadership.

Outcome: The board unanimously passed a resolution of appreciation for Pat Kelly.

Report from Lansing Lobbyist

Lobbyist Kirk Profit and his colleague Gary Owen at Lansing-based Governmental Consultant Services Inc. gave a presentation to the board about action in the state government that might impact Washtenaw County. GCSI is the lobbyist for the county and several other local governments, including the city of Ann Arbor.

The state budget is actually in good shape, Profit said, with about $52 billion in expenditures and a surplus of about $970 million. He commended the state legislators who represent districts in Washtenaw County, saying that they represent the local interests very well, even though they’re in the minority, as Democrats. He said it was great to have the state Senate majority leader representing part of Washtenaw County as well. [Sen. Randy Richardville, a Republican, represents District 17, which includes six southern and central townships in the county, and the city of Saline.]

Kirk Profit, a paid state lobbyist for Washtenaw County, and commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Revenue sharing is moving in the right direction, Profit said. This year the county will get about $5.5 million, and he expected the county would get about $6.9 million in 2015. The state doesn’t have a good track record in terms of the county’s ability to count on state revenue-sharing, he said. It’s good to understand that going forward.

He noted that the personal property tax referendum will be on the ballot in August of 2014. [The tax is being phased out starting in 2014 through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for Aug. 5, 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources.]

Eliminating the PPT removes about $576 million statewide, which primarily are revenues that fund local municipalities. The voter referendum would authorize a use tax to be collected by a new Michigan Metropolitan Areas Metropolitan Authority, which would distribute the funding by statute.

Profit noted that TIF (tax increment finance) capture is “hot” in Lansing right now. State Rep. Eileen Kowall has drafted legislation that addresses several issues related to TIF, including the ability to opt out, resetting the base for TIF capture, and sunset clauses. “It’s going to receive a lot of attention and a lot of dialogue,” Profit said, but it wasn’t clear whether it will pass.

While noting that the state budget is in great shape, Profit said there are also some areas that have holes, including health care funding, education and roads. Some legislators would prefer to give the entire surplus back to taxpayers as refunds, he noted. Profit said he wasn’t sure how these issues will be resolved, but the legislature will be addressing these matters over the next 60-90 days.

The legislature recently approved about $215 million in supplemental funding for roads, which will bring about $1 million to Washtenaw County, Profit said. The city of Ann Arbor will get about $450,000. Other cities and villages will get much less, he said. Profit praised Gov. Rick Snyder, saying that Snyder is “right there on roads” and had demanded that the legislature produce funding for roads.

The southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), which includes Washtenaw County, received close to $2 million for operating expenses to fund it until an anticipated millage vote in 2016, Profit said.

Profit told the board that Act 88 is under some attack, with legislation introduced that would repeal it. [The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 0.5 mills under Act 88 without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax was enacted in 1913, which predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county currently levies 0.07 mills under Act 88.]

Profit said that GCSI’s Gary Owen was working aggressively to make sure legislators understand the significance of Act 88 funding for Washtenaw County. Profit said the target of the repeal legislation is Gratiot County.

The state’s supplemental budget included $750,000 for indigent defense, and Profit credited Washtenaw County public defender Lloyd Powell for successfully advocating for that funding.

Collective bargaining continues to draw a lot of attention in Lansing, Profit said. He also noted that GCSI is working with judge Donald Shelton and Dan Dwyer, court administrator of the Washtenaw Trial Court, on implementing e-filing statewide.

Breastfeeding in public is another issue that GCSI is following, Profit said. He noted that state Sen. Rebekah Warren introduced legislation that was passed in the Senate to guarantee a woman’s right to breastfeed in public places.

Profit also mentioned interest at the state level regarding the Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act. Pending legislation “would dramatically limit your ability recoup costs that you might incur for FOIA responses, and also perhaps to dramatically limit your ability to have certain protected conversations from open meetings requirements.” Profit said GCSI would work closely with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger on that.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Profit highlighted an increase in state arts funding from $2 million to $10 million, which translates into about $590,000 coming to Washtenaw County for a variety of arts organizations.

Gary Owen of GCSI said he’d been working with Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, regarding action at the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) that will affect the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane cleanup in Washtenaw County. The MDEQ is updating its cleanup standards, and Mike Gebhard has been participating in that process and is on the MDEQ’s toxicity committee. Gebhard is a former environmental analyst/hydrogeologist with Washtenaw County who now works for the county’s information technology department.

The MDEQ will make a recommendation to the state’s Office of Regulatory Reinvention in July, which will include the new standards, Owen said, but those recommendations will be known before then. “It will most likely be a drastic difference than what it is today, but the process will determine that,” he said.

Regarding the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund, Owen cited the county’s success in getting grants in the past few years. He credited Bob Tetens, director of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, with that success, which Owen said is probably unparalleled across the state. Owen cited several grants, including $300,000 for the Rutherford Pool in Ypsilanti, $300,000 for the Ann Arbor skatepark, and over $1 million for the acquisition of 54 acres near Domino’s Farms.

Regarding the possible repeal of Act 88, Owen said GCSI is working to make sure that Washtenaw County’s interests are addressed.

Report from Lansing Lobbyist: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said the comments regarding Act 88 are “misplaced.” It’s not about what the money is spent on in Washtenaw County, he said. “It’s about how the money is collected, and what the law says that money can be spent on.” In his opinion, Smith said, the Washtenaw County board hasn’t done its proper due diligence, “despite my repeated requests.”

Regarding roads, D. Smith noted that legislation has been introduced to repeal the sunset clause on the ability of a county board of commissioners to absorb the duties and responsibilities of a road commission. He asked for a prognosis of that bill. Kirk Profit replied that the outcome is hard to read. GCSI will continue to watch it, but Profit didn’t think legislators had made up their mind yet.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

D. Smith noted that a subcommittee of the board had recently finished a process regarding what the county would do, but the recommendation hadn’t yet been brought forward to the full board. A working session on that is scheduled for April 17. But Smith’s take on the bill is that it would provide the board with a lot of tools, while forcing the board to dramatically alter things right now. It would be productive to have a longer time to discuss how to best manage this critical transportation infrastructure, he said, noting that it’s not something that can quickly be decided. People are very resistant to change, Smith said, and need more time to work on it. He hoped the legislature would repeal the sunset clause.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) agreed with Dan Smith on the road commission issue. Removing the sunset wouldn’t mean that the county would get rid of the road commission, he said. Statewide, not many counties have taken advantage of the current ability to do that. But he hoped that option would be made available for a longer period.

Regarding Act 88, C. Smith said he had a different perspective from Dan Smith. But he thought they might agree on the fact that Act 88 is just one response that the county has to a “broken municipal finance system.” The state took millions of dollars of state revenue-sharing away from the county over the past several years. If that hadn’t happened, he said, perhaps the county wouldn’t be scraping to find other revenue sources.

C. Smith said he understood why some people want to repeal Act 88, but they should be beating the bigger drum of fixing the system. Lots of cities are on the cusp of financial insolvency, he noted, so he’d advocate not to mess with Act 88 until this bigger problem is fixed.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) echoed C. Smith’s sentiments on Act 88. The county needs tools to address the needs of citizens, Rabhi said, “and right now the state is just tying our hands.” Personal property tax repeal is another example, he said. Rabhi said that Act 88 funding works and benefits the community, and he didn’t think legislators understood that.

Urban County Plan Public Hearing

The March 19 meeting included a public hearing to give input for the Washtenaw Urban County 2014-15 action plan. The hearing was set to solicit feedback about proposed projects and programs that the county intends to implement with federal funding – through community development block grant (CDBG), HOME and emergency shelter grant programs – from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [.pdf of action plan]

Computer screen: Notes being taken by Brett Lenart of the county’s office of community & economic development during a public hearing on the Urban County action plan.

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

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

One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke during the public hearing. He said the Urban County organization is isolated, like many county organizations. Meetings are held at locations outside of Ann Arbor and aren’t televised on the Community Television Network, he said. The body should be very prominent, Partridge said, because it gets funding for affordable housing. But that funding is under attack, he noted, and more financing from the private sector is needed. Homelessness can’t be eliminated without more attention to this issue.

Thompson Block Brownfield Public Hearing

The board agenda included a resolution to set a public hearing for input on the brownfield development plan of the Thompson Block redevelopment in Ypsilanti. The street addresses for the block are 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St. The hearing will be held at the county boardroom in downtown Ann Arbor, 220 N. Main, during the April 2 meeting, which begins at 6:30 p.m. [.pdf of staff memo]

Outcome: Commissioners voted to set the public hearing, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Communications & Commentary

During the March 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: Regional Transit Authority

Jim Casha spoke about the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA). He lives in Canada, and noted that Ann Arbor reminds him of Canada – “except for the roads.”

He’d attended the recent Michigan senate transportation committee hearings in Lansing, and listened to the RTA board chair, Paul Hillegonds, ask for more money for that organization. He also attended the transportation appropriations committee meeting and heard Amtrak’s presentation about service between Chicago and Detroit, through Ann Arbor.

From left: Jim Casha and county commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Casha said he’s still confused about why the RTA board isn’t making a fight for the 163-acre state fairgrounds. He’d just attended the RTA board meeting, and he thought that RTA board members are confused as well. One of the big supporters of the state legislation that created the RTA, state Sen. John Pappageorge, is a “military guy,” Casha said. “He understands that it’s always cheaper to hold what you have than to retake what you’ve lost – and there’s no reason to give up the fairgrounds.” Even if the fairgrounds turns out not to be a great property to own, though Casha said he thought it was, there’s no reason to give it up now. “We should retain it and evaluate it,” he said.

The situation is rather perilous, Casha said. He reported that Hillegonds had been surprised by the lack of knowledge that state legislators had regarding the RTA. Casha found that the same thing was true with the state fairgrounds. They pass legislation in Lansing, but then don’t keep up with its impact, he said.

Casha asked commissioners to talk with the state legislators and with Washtenaw County’s representatives on the RTA board to keep people informed about what’s happening. [The two RTA representatives from Washtenaw County, who were appointed by the county board, are Liz Gerber and Alma Wheeler Smith, the mother of county commissioner Conan Smith.] Legislators are making some serious mistakes that could seriously impact the ability to have a regional transportation system, Casha said.

Later in the meeting Casha spoke again. At the recent transportation appropriations committee meeting, the RTA presented documentation showing that state legislation allows for the RTA to generate revenue from the sale, exchange, mortgage, lease or other disposition of property acquired by the authority, he said. So his question was: Why doesn’t the RTA take advantage of it? One reason is that the RTA has been misled by people in the governor’s office, Casha contended. There was misinformation, he said, and the state fairgrounds was transferred to private individuals. “It’s definitely not a done deal yet,” Casha said. There are ways out of any legal contract, he added.

Casha noted that the Michigan Land Bank has a new director, “and maybe she has a different opinion of what the land bank’s done so far with this land.” The state owes it to the people in the four-county RTA district to look after their interests in this matter.

Communications & Commentary: Roads in Manchester

Allison Tucker of Manchester, who had spoken to the board at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting about the GED (general education diploma), began by reporting that the Washtenaw Community College’s adult transitions program recently secured $3,000 in funding. It reinstated her faith that one person can make a difference. But she was there that night to talk about the condition of roads in Manchester. She had hoped to address commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3), whose district includes Manchester, but noted that Ping was absent. There are a lot of potholes, and many of them are deep, Tucker said. The situation could kill someone, she said. For smaller communities, it’s difficult to have funding for plowing and salting the roads, she noted. Tucker hoped that the county could help, so that someone like her who travels to class wouldn’t face that problem.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge addressed the board during both opportunities for public commentary. He urged commissioners to come up with a fundamentally sustainable agenda for county government, with top priorities of eliminating homelessness, funding affordable housing and countywide public transportation, and supporting human rights. He said Washtenaw County has a programmed way of doing business that leaves out a substantial number of residents in making decisions about these issues.

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, April 2, 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 resolution passed on Feb. 5 established that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions. It also set 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 Jan. 22, 2014 resolution and memo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the county board hasn’t yet taken the additional step of authorizing the issuance of a civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. There was no agenda item put forward for a vote on this issue at the Oct. 16 meeting, nor was there any resolution on the agenda regarding a new fee structure for dog licenses.

The county treasurer’s office is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. More information about current dog licenses are on the county website.

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

Three of the hearings that will take place on Oct. 16 relate to:

• An increase to the Act 88 millage from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills. The millage would be levied in December 2013 and would raise an estimated $972,635.
• The proposed 2014-2017 budget, which was presented by county administrator Verna McDaniel on Oct. 2. The board is required to approve the $103 million general fund budget for 2014 by the end of this year. [.pdf of draft 2014-2017 budget]
• A proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog, and to establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions. The public hearing on Oct. 16 would also cover proposed licensing fee changes.

The fourth hearing, set for Nov. 6 also on Oct. 16, is for a proposed brownfield plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix. The plan relates to a renovation of an abandoned warehouse at 140 Buchanan in Chelsea. The company plans to invest more than $4 million in the project. If the project is given brownfield status, it would allow the company to be reimbursed for up to $376,805 in eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). The total amount to be captured through TIF over 16 years is $580,677, which includes fees paid to the county brownfield program administration and the county’s local site revolving remediation fund.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) cast the lone vote against setting the Oct. 16 brownfield public hearing. He said he continues to be concerned about the lack of an overall policy regarding the creation of TIF districts.

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

After March 1, taxing jurisdictions – including cities, townships, schools systems and libraries, among others – turn their delinquent taxes over to the county, and are reimbursed for that amount. The county treasurer then assumes responsibility for collecting these delinquent taxes. This is a standard procedure that’s conducted annually at this time of year. The borrowed funds are used for cash flow purposes, to fund operations for the first half of the year.

This year, the estimated amount of delinquent taxes is about $25 million, though McClary told commissioners on Feb. 6 that she expects the amount to be lower than that. The exact amount won’t be determined until the middle or end of March. The notes will likely be issued in April or May, she said. McClary also pointed out that the resolution limits the amount that can be borrowed to $40 million, down from a limit of $45 million last year.

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

From left: Greg Dill, Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton, and Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary. (Photos by the writer.)

On a 6-1 vote – over dissent by Republican Dan Smith – the county board passed a resolution directing the administration to negotiate new four-year contracts “to protect and extend each bargaining unit’s union security provisions.” The resolution also directs negotiations for a separate letter of understanding to cover a 10-year period. The letter would relate to agency fees paid by non-union members based on the idea that they benefit from the union’s representation of their interests during collective bargaining.

Unions represent 85% of the 1,321 employees in Washtenaw County government.

The resolution was brought forward by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), one of three Ann Arbor commissioners on the nine-member board. Two commissioners – Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – were absent.

Deliberations were relatively brief. Dan Smith, who said he found some of the language in the resolution offensive, also pressed for estimates on possible legal expenses, if the county is sued over these new labor agreements. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, was reluctant to speculate, indicating there are still too many unknowns. Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, told commissioners that the 10-year letter of understanding would have a strong indemnification clause. The union would indemnify the employer for any legal challenges relative to the right-to-work agency shop issue.

The lengthy closed session at the end of the meeting reflected some urgency in negotiations, which must be completed before the new law takes effect in March.

Also at the Feb. 6 meeting, commissioners gave initial authorization to county treasurer Catherine McClary to borrow up to $40 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions. It’s a standard practice to help the local jurisdictions manage their cash flow. The estimated amount of delinquent taxes is lower than in recent years, possibly reflecting a recovering economy.

McClary also gave the board a year-end report for 2012. Her office brought in $9.96 million during the year from the following sources: delinquent taxes and fees ($5.046 million), accommodation tax ($4.067 million), investment earnings ($755,681), dog licenses ($59,748) and tax searches ($31,760). McClary reported that the county’s investment portfolio totaled $156.08 million at the end of 2012. The non-cash portion of that amount is $147.855 million, which brought in an average weighted yield of 0.456%.

In other action, the board voted to amend an interlocal agreement that will create the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office Community Alliance. The new alliance – affiliated with the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, led by county commissioner Conan Smith – is being formed to set up a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. The community alliance includes six partners: Washtenaw County, and the cities of Lathrup Village (in Oakland County); Sterling Heights and Roseville (in Macomb County); and Lincoln Park and Southgate (in Wayne County). No other communities in Washtenaw County are part of this alliance. The city of Ann Arbor has already set up its own PACE program.

Also during the Feb. 6 meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he was working with community members and human services providers to establish a Washtenaw County ID card. It would provide a way for residents who don’t have a driver’s license or other photo ID to access services that require such an identification card, such as opening a bank account.

Felicia Brabec reported from the Sustainable Revenue for Supportive Housing Services Task Force, on which she serves. The group is looking at the possibility of an endowment campaign. It’s estimated that about $17 million would be needed “so it’s a big undertaking for us,” she said. That amount would support an additional 116 units of supportive housing throughout the county.

Right-to-Work Response

Washtenaw County commissioners considered a resolution related to Michigan’s new right-to-work legislation – including direction to renegotiate union contracts. The resolution was brought forward by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), one of three Ann Arbor commissioners on the nine-member board. [.pdf of LaBarre's resolution]

From left: Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton and county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) of Ann Arbor.

In addition to condemning the right-to-work law and urging the state legislature to pass SB 95 and SB 96 – bills that would repeal the law – LaBarre’s resolution also “directs the county administrator and the director of human resources to engage in expedited negotiations, as requested by the unions, with the goal of reaching four (4) year agreements to protect and extend each bargaining unit’s union security provisions, as well as enter into a letter of understanding separate from the existing collective bargaining agreements for a period of ten (10) years.” The letter would relate to agency fees paid by non-union members based on the idea that they benefit from the union’s representation of their interests during collective bargaining.

This is the same approach recently authorized by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board at its Jan. 17, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of AATA's letter of understanding. Also see Chronicle coverage: "AATA OK's Labor, Agency Fee Accords"]

LaBarre, who took office in early January, had previously indicated his interest in bringing forward a resolution opposing the right-to-work law. As chair of the board’s working sessions, he led a meeting on Jan. 3 with a lengthy discussion of that issue. [Chronicle coverage: "County Board Weighs Right-to-Work Response"]

The controversial right-to-work law was passed late last year by the Republican-controlled House and Senate, and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. The law, which takes effect in March, will make it illegal to require employees to support unions financially as a condition of their employment. It’s viewed by Democrats as a way to undercut support for labor organizations that have historically backed the Democratic Party. On the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, seven of the nine commissioners are Democrats, including LaBarre.

Unions represent 85% of the 1,321 employees in Washtenaw County government.

At the Feb. 6 meeting, Dan Smith asked that this item be pulled out from the consent agenda for separate consideration.

Right-to-Work Response: Public Commentary

One person – George Lawrence of Whitmore Lake – addressed the board during public commentary about this issue. He said he had been a union member for a long time, and had been forced to pay dues that went to a political party that he didn’t agree with all the time. That was all he wanted to say, Lawrence told commissioners. He also pointed out that the board had forgotten to say the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of their meeting.

Yousef Rabhi, chair of the board, responded to Lawrence’s comment about the pledge, noting that it is made at the start of the regular board meeting, which is held immediately following the ways & means committee meeting. Lawrence had made his public commentary during the ways & means committee meeting.

Right-to-Work Response: Board Discussion

LaBarre began the discussion by saying the resolution was his best attempt to confront this issue “that’s been put upon us.” He felt it was worthy of discussion and debate, but hoped the board would pass it and find some tangible benefits from it.

Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2, standing) with Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

Dan Smith asked Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, to comment on the legality of the 10-year letter of understanding.

“I won’t comment on that tonight,” Hedger replied. If the board as a whole wants him to, Hedger said he’d be happy to look at the issue. There are a lot of areas that will be scrutinized about the state’s right-to-work law, he said, but he didn’t have an opinion on the issue that Smith raised right now.

Smith then asked Hedger what the cost might be if the county’s actions are challenged in court. If the board passes this resolution, Smith wondered what would happen if someone finds the 10-year letter of understanding or the new four-year union agreement illegal and sues the county. What would it cost to defend that? Would it be in the range of $50,000 or $100,000 or $1 million?

That’s hard to say, Hedger replied, because it would depend on the tenor of the lawsuit or how aggressively someone decided to pursue the case. He didn’t feel comfortable hazarding a guess. In cases that are more of a legal question, each side briefs the issue and it goes right to court, he explained. If the case doesn’t get appealed, it could be fairly inexpensive, he said. But if it’s a more complicated case that goes all the way to the Supreme Court, that could cost significantly more.

Hedger noted that lawsuits have already been filed in connection with the right-to-work law, and that Gov. Rick Snyder has asked the Michigan Supreme Court to get involved. So there might be answers fairly quickly on a lot of these issues, he said.

Smith suggested looking at a worst case scenario, with a lawsuit going all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court, against which the county must defend itself. What might the cost be for that?

Hedger again said he couldn’t speculate. It might be only $10,000 if only briefs are filed. When Smith expressed surprise at that amount, Hedger said it’s less costly since there would be no discovery phase in this situation. “This is just a legal issue, so it’s going to be in the nature of a declaratory judgment, I believe.” A declaratory judgment would simply state whether the legislation is legal. The biggest expense in any litigation is during the discovery phase, Hedger said.

Hedger added that if the case went all the way to the state Supreme Court, then it would likely be more than $10,000 but probably less than $100,000. He restated his opinion that it was “almost impossible” to try to guess. Smith summarized Hedger’s position by saying that the county is looking at an “unknown cost” to defend this. Hedger agreed, saying it would be true of any litigation that was speculative.

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, told commissioners that the 10-year letter of understanding would have a strong indemnification clause. The union would indemnify the employer for any legal challenges relative to the right-to-work agency shop issue.

Moving to a different issue, Smith characterized the language in the resolution as “over the top” and said it contained offensive rhetoric. He told commissioners that he had crafted two alternative versions of the resolution – one that eliminated the offensive rhetoric [.pdf of Dan Smith's alternative resolution #1], and another that removed language that was extraneous to county policy [.pdf of Dan Smith's alternative resolution #2]. “I’ve been quite clear that we need to stick to the county’s business, and I’ve shown a way we can do that,” he said.

Smith did not formally offer the resolutions for consideration.

LaBarre defended his own resolution, saying he agreed with the importance of sticking to the county’s business. He argued that “this is the county’s business,” due to the effect it would have on the workforce and on their ability to continue to provide excellent customer service for taxpayers, unionized and non-unionized. It’s “entirely within the scope of rational thinking,” LaBarre said, for one unit of government to weigh in on something that another unit has done that will change the original unit’s operations or affect its workforce.

Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, the largest union representing county employees.

LaBarre said he agreed with Smith’s general principle that the county board should not be overly eager to weigh in on issues at other levels of government. “But I think this is a special case,” he added, “and thus requires a response.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr. highlighted the resolution’s reference to reaching a new four-year agreement. Does that indicate that the county will be developing a four-year budget? County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that the county has had a five-year contract with its unions in the past, even though it “didn’t marry up with the budget.” So there is precedence for union contracts that don’t match the county’s two-year budget cycle, she said. The contracts can include clauses that will build in protections against any unforeseen budgetary changes, she said.

Outcome: On a 6-1 vote, commissioners passed the right-to-work resolution. Voting against the resolution was Dan Smith (R-District 2). Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) were absent.

The board later entered into a nearly three-hour closed session for the purpose of discussing labor negotiation strategy. They were joined by several senior staff members – including county administrator Verna McDaniel; finance director Kelly Belknap; and Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. Also participating in the session was the county’s bond counsel, John Axe of Axe & Ecklund of Grosse Pointe Farms. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m., without additional action by the board.

Delinquent Tax Borrowing

Commissioners were asked to give initial authorization to the county treasurer to borrow up to $40 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions. [.pdf of delinquent tax resolution]

After March 1, taxing jurisdictions – including cities, townships, schools systems and libraries, among others – turn their delinquent taxes over to the county, and are reimbursed for that amount. The county treasurer then assumes responsibility for collecting these delinquent taxes. This is a standard procedure that’s conducted annually at this time of year. The borrowed funds are used for cash flow purposes, to fund operations for the first half of the year.

County treasurer Catherine McClary told commissioners that although this process is conducted each year, “I don’t handle it just pro forma.” She reported that under the state’s General Property Tax Act, as county treasurer she is required to collect delinquent taxes. Section 87 of the act allows the county to set up a revolving fund – which was done several decades ago – so that the county can borrow the estimated amount of delinquent taxes, then pay in advance to all the taxing jurisdictions the amount that they would have collected if there had been no delinquent payments.

This year, the estimated amount of delinquent taxes is about $25 million, though McClary said she expects the amount to be lower than that. The exact amount won’t be determined until the middle or end of March. The notes will likely be issued in April or May, she said. “The earlier we can issue, the earlier we can advance” funds to the local units of government and the county’s general fund, she explained.

McClary also pointed out that the resolution limits the amount that can be borrowed to $40 million, down from a limit of $45 million last year.

Delinquent Tax Borrowing: Board Discussion

Dan Smith thanked McClary, saying the process really helped local municipalities with significantly smaller budgets to manage their cash flow. He noted that some municipalities actually purchase these delinquent tax bonds, citing Ann Arbor Township as an example. So these local entities are investing in the county, which is another reason to keep the county’s finances in order, he said, and to keep the county’s bond rating high. A higher bond rating means that the county can borrow at lower interest rates, he noted.

Smith also pointed out that interest rates on CDs are “abysmal” now and it looks like they’ll remain that way. He asked if there’s any way he could purchase a delinquent tax bond too, when they are issued?

McClary replied that in 1975, when she served as a county commissioner, she investigated whether delinquent tax bonds could be sold over-the-counter to the public. Bonds are traditionally issued in amounts of $5,000, she said, but at that time, the county was looking at issuing $1,000 bonds. Selling to the public proved to be an insurmountable problem, she explained, having to do with securities laws, regulations about broker-dealers, and the expense of splitting the bonds into smaller amounts.

When she became treasurer 16 years ago, McClary said, she looked at the county’s cash flow, and realized that the county could issue these delinquent tax bonds, advance the necessary amounts to the local units of government, then use the remaining cash on hand from the bonds to purchase the county’s own delinquent tax bonds through a broker-dealer and hold them in the county’s investment portfolio. It was a “win-win-win” for everyone, because the county was holding its own “very safe” securities. “Talk about buy local,” she joked.

In 2010 and 2011, the delinquent taxes were so high – because of the economic crisis – that she didn’t have the additional cash to buy back the securities. Last year, there was enough extra cash to purchase some but not all of the delinquent tax bonds. So she made an offer to the treasurers of other local units of government, as well as to some other county treasurers. The result was that Washtenaw County, Kalamazoo County and Ann Arbor Township split the purchase of Washtenaw County’s delinquent tax notes. “It was a fabulous way to go,” she said. This year, she’ll try to hold all the notes in Washtenaw County’s portfolio. “If I can’t, I’ve got some buyers.”

Smith said he was sorry he couldn’t buy any of the bonds himself. In his opinion, it would be one of the safest bonds he could purchase.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the delinquent tax borrowing. A final vote is expected on Feb. 20.

Treasurer’s Report

During the Feb. 6 meeting, county treasurer Catherine McClary also gave the board a year-end report for 2012. [.pdf of 2012 treasurer's report]

She began with an overview of the importance of civic infrastructure, noting that it includes the elements of fiscal stability and the safety of public funds, as well as fair and equitable tax systems, honest elections, and the maintenance of accurate land and vital records. The equalization department, which reports to the board, as well as the elected positions of treasurer and clerk/register of deeds are responsible for these aspects of civic infrastructure, she explained.

These three units of county government are interlocking, McClary said. She gave an example from the housing sector. When someone buys or sells a home, the deed must be certified by the county treasurer’s office to attest that the taxes on that property are paid. The paperwork then goes to the register of deeds, where the deed gets recorded. If the treasurer’s office is behind on certifications, then the deed recording gets backed up. In another county in Michigan, she said, fraud occurred because deeds weren’t recorded quickly and the property was sold multiple times to different people.

After the deed is recorded, a copy is sent to the local assessors, who can then “uncap” the assessment, because the property has changed hands. The uncapping means that the taxable value can be raised to equal the assessed value. Determining the assessed value is part of the job of the county’s equalization department, McClary said. That assessment, in turn, is the basis on which each local treasurer levies taxes. Uncollected taxes come back to the county treasurer, “so it really is an interlocking cycle,” she said.

McClary also described in more detail the roles and responsibilities of the treasurer’s office, linking each area to the county’s guiding principles. Related to the principle of ensuring the county’s long-term fiscal stability, McClary pointed to the treasurer’s role of generating revenue by collecting taxes, noting that property taxes make up 61% of the county’s general fund. In addition to property taxes, the treasurer’s office handles other millages – for parks and natural areas, for example – and special assessments for drains, public works and road projects. All other revenue, from grants and other sources, flows through bank accounts that are managed and reconciled by the treasurer. In addition, the treasurer’s office invests surplus funds for the county.

The office also works to prevent foreclosures, McClary said – both mortgage foreclosures and tax foreclosures. These prevention programs have served as a model throughout the state, she said. In addition to an emphasis on prevention, the treasurer’s office will foreclose when necessary, she said, with the goal of returning the property to productive use, preserving neighborhoods, eradicating blight and enforcing local ordinances. She noted that the treasurer’s office and the city of Ypsilanti received a National Association of Counties (NACo) award for an open house project to market tax-foreclosed properties. She also pointed to the former Greek Orthodox church on Main Street in Ann Arbor, saying that the county made “nice excess proceeds” from selling that tax-foreclosed property.

McClary also noted that her office sometimes intervenes in bankruptcies. Although it’s is not mandated by state law, she said it’s a way to get the taxes paid for the public benefit. As an example, she cited a bankruptcy intervention last summer with a “well-known slum landlord” in Ypsilanti. McClary said her office was able to convince the bankruptcy judge and bankruptcy trustee to abandon 13 of the properties, and the county was able to recover over $400,000 in taxes. The properties were foreclosed and sold at public auction.

Delinquent taxes are an early indicator of foreclosures, she said. There was a time when the county averaged 12 foreclosures a year out of about 10,000 properties with delinquent taxes. But for the last four or five years, those numbers have been much higher, she said, although now delinquencies are decreasing.

Chart showing Washtenaw County investment allocations.

Turning to financial data, McClary noted that her office brought in $9.96 million during the year from the following sources: delinquent taxes and fees ($5.046 million), accommodation tax ($4.067 million), investment earnings ($755,681), dog licenses ($59,748) and tax searches ($31,760).

She said the investment earnings in recent years have distressed her. In 2006, total revenues for her office were $11 million – not much off the roughly $10 million that were brought in during 2012. But in 2006, investment earnings accounted for about $6 million of the total revenues from her office, she noted – much higher than the $755,681 in 2012. However, now other categories – including the accommodations tax and dog licenses, which her office administers – have increased since then. That reflects the counter-cyclical nature of revenues from the treasurer’s office, McClary said.

She highlighted the diversification of investments and maturity dates, which will put the county in a good position when interest rates rise – although she didn’t see that happening in the immediate future.

McClary also reported that the county’s investment portfolio totaled $156.08 million at the end of 2012. The non-cash portion of that amount is $147.855 million, which brought in an average weighted yield of 0.456%. Even though that’s low, she said, it performed well against the three-month Treasury benchmark, with a return of 0.05%.

McClary noted that at the end of 2012, a third of the county’s investment portfolio was in Michigan municipal bonds.

Treasurer’s Report: Board Discussion

Conan Smith thanked McClary for her attentiveness to both the rate of return as well as the need for financial security, saying it was hard to balance those two things, but he thought she did a great job of it. He was interested in knowing the relative difference in interest earnings, based on the maturity dates of the county’s holdings. He said he assumed she kept a blended portfolio.

McClary replied that although the county’s portfolio is blended, in general the county doesn’t get a better rate of return by holding longer-term investments. Rather, the different rates of return are more dependent on the different types of securities. In this market, municipal bonds deliver the highest rate of return, McClary said. She noted that in the current portfolio, CDs (certificates of deposit), CDARS (certificate of deposit account registry service), and commercial paper are making 1% or less. Federal agency investments vary, based on how long they’re held, she said – with returns ranging from 0.15% to 1.625%.

Dan Smith asked McClary to comment on the Wayne County airport bond, which was showing a 4% rate of return – the highest of the Michigan municipal bonds. He noted that the Washtenaw County tax notes, which mature on Dec. 1, 2013 – at the same time as the airport bond – have only an 0.85% return.

McClary replied that she had purchased the airport bond through a broker-dealer. In contrast, on the Washtenaw County tax notes she had entered into negotiated bidding. Because she was working with two other units of government on that deal – Kalamazoo County and Ann Arbor Township – “we needed to make sure everything was squeaky clean and fair in terms of setting the rate,” she said. They worked with an underwriter to come up with suggested rates, she explained, then she and the other two treasurers figured out “who wanted the long ones and who wanted the short ones” – a reference to maturity dates.

Andy LaBarre noted that he, McClary and others from the county had attended a recent community capital forum featuring economist Michael Shuman, sponsored by the county’s office of community & economic development. He asked McClary to speak about the secondary positive benefits of local investments, and why she’s taken that step of investing in Michigan municipal bonds.

McClary replied that everyone has likely thought about buying local on a personal level, whether it’s food or clothing or other items. Shuman had talked about three different areas, she said. One is whether the county might have a role in matching local businesses with capital. The second area would be making local investments from the county’s retirement fund. To do that, you’d need to look at the goal of the retirement fund and at what’s permissible under the law, she said. Shuman had also stressed that the investments wouldn’t be made in start-ups, she said, but rather in well-established firms that are looking to expand.

Another issue is how to define “local,” McClary said – is it Michigan, the Midwest or the U.S.? She said the county has had success in investing in Michigan municipal bonds, as long as they meet the criteria of safety and liquidity to meet the county’s cash needs.

McClary concluded her presentation by offering to answer any additional questions commissioners might have in the future regarding the treasurer’s office work.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Energy Alliance Accord

Commissioners were asked to approve amendments to an interlocal agreement to form the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office Community Alliance.

Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9).

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

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

Specifically, the community alliance will be setting up a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, which is enabled by state legislation – the Property Assessed Clean Energy Act 270 of 2010. The program allows property owners to take out loans to make energy improvements that would be repaid through regular installments as part of their taxes. The city of Ann Arbor has already set up its own PACE program, and the city council is expected to vote soon on authorizing up to $1 million in bonds that would help owners of commercial property make energy improvements.

The interlocal agreement requires the approval of Gov. Rick Snyder. The state attorney general had reviewed the original agreement and requested some changes.

According to a staff memo, the amended interlocal agreement includes 13 changes, summarized in the county board’s resolution. [.pdf of interlocal agreement resolution] Changes include: (1) clarifying local government appointment and removal powers; (2) allowing video conferencing for quorum and voting; (3) allowing teleconferencing for participation, but not voting or quorum; (4) adding forms and rules for additional parties to join the alliance; and (5) clarifying the entity that determines how costs and expenses are to be distributed. A full copy of the amended interlocal agreement was not provided in the board’s Feb. 6 meeting packet. Offen emailed it to The Chronicle following the meeting. [.pdf of amended interlocal agreement]

Washtenaw County was the last of the six partners to authorize the amendments. In an email sent to commissioners on Feb. 1, Smith expressed some frustration about the process. [.pdf of Smith's email] From the email:

The Regional Energy Office requested the BOC address this on December 11, 2012. Understandably, we were not able to take it up in December or at our first meeting in January. I had expected staff to bring it to our last meeting but that did not happen. At the Working Session, I requested this be included on the BOC agenda, but again staff did not expeditiously prepare the very brief cover memo that is necessary. I communicated directly with staff in person and by email about this, but the memo was not provided until yesterday. I learned today that it has been included on the Ways & Means agenda rather than the Board agenda, despite our agreement at Working Session to send it to the BOC and the fact that this is not, at least in my opinion, a change in County policy.

I am very frustrated by this process. I feel I have been patient and supportive, but not received prompt attention to what is a minor ministerial matter. At this point, all the other communities have approved the amendments and Washtenaw is holding up the process. I would very much appreciate it if we can complete action on this item next week.

Energy Alliance Accord: Board Discussion

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

The item was voted on at both the ways & means committee meeting, and the regular board meeting that immediately followed. It had been added as a supplemental agenda item for the regular board meeting. Typically, resolutions are voted on initially at ways & means, then two weeks later at the regular board meeting – rather than on the same night.

Before the final board vote, Smith introduced Sam Offen, SEMREO director and co-director of the SEMREO Community Alliance, saying that Offen had been shepherding the interlocal agreement through the process in the attorney general’s office and the governor’s office. Smith described the process as “onerous.”

Smith noted that Washtenaw County was the last government entity to vote on approval of the revised agreement. He asked Offen if the agreement then had to get the governor’s signature. Yes, Offen replied. All of the changes that the board was adopting that night had already been approved by the attorney general.

Outcome: Without further discussion and in separate votes, commissioners unanimously gave both initial and final approval to the amendments for the interlocal agreement.

After-School Program Grant

Washtenaw County commissioners were asked to give final authorization to apply for a $20,000 grant to fund expansion of an after-school program called “Telling It” in the West Willow and MacArthur Boulevard housing developments, low-income neighborhoods on the county’s east side. Initial approval was received on Jan. 15, 2013. [.pdf of grant application]

According to a staff memo, the Telling It program focuses on developing creative writing and literacy skills for at-risk youth. It would support an effort to fight gang-related activity – specifically, the dozen or so “cliques” in the Ypsilanti/Willow Run area. The memo defines cliques as gangs “without by-laws, or a code of ethics, ultimately heightening the threat. Criminal behavior is viewed as a rite of passage as youth longing to belong to something in some areas where they are being offered very little positive influence during the school year. The sheriff’s office has recognized the need to provide after-school enrichment programs that are not purely sports based.”

One of the main concerns in West Willow is an underground culture of “fight clubs,” according to the sheriff’s office – where teenage boys promote fighting between teenage girls, with the fights videotaped and uploaded to YouTube.

The grant application is unusual in that it’s the first time a county unit has sought funding through the coordinated funding pilot program, which was designed to support human services more effectively in this community. The coordinated funding is a partnership of the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the United Way of Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

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

The grant application for Telling It would help pay for four program facilitators, a program director, and a psychotherapist to serve as a training consultant. It would fall under the coordinated funding category of capacity building.

Commissioner Conan Smith had previously raised concerns about using the coordinated funding program, which was designed to support local nonprofits, to pay for a county-sponsored initiative. He felt the county should find a way to pay for it without using money that’s meant for outside agencies. However, he raised no objection at the Feb. 6 meeting.

After-School Grant Program: Board Discussion

Board chair Yousef Rabhi told commissioners that he has asked Mary Jo Callan – who leads the county’s office of community & economic development, which administers the coordinated funding program – to develop a policy that addresses whether county programs can apply for funding from the coordinated funding program.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the grant application.

Changes to Board Rules & Regulations

On the Feb. 6 agenda was an item to change the board rules and regulations that commissioners adopted at their Dec. 5, 2012 meeting. The proposal was to amend the list of boards, committees and commissions that are eligible for stipend payments, adding the Detroit Region Aerotropolis board to the list and removing the Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA). The stipend for service on the aerotropolis would be $100.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had been appointed to serve on the aerotropolis at the county board’s Jan. 16, 2013 meeting. Sizemore’s appointment on Jan. 16 came in the context of the annual county commissioner appointments made at the start of each year. [.pdf of 2013 appointments listing]

The original list of eligible boards, committees and commissions for which stipends are paid was approved at the county board’s Dec. 5 meeting, but the aerotropolis had not been included in that list.

At that Dec. 5 meeting, commissioners had voted to alter their compensation to receive stipend payments based on the number of meetings that a commissioner is likely to attend for a particular appointment. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increase based on the number of meetings. Each commissioner typically has several appointments. In the past, commissioners had to request per diem payments for their work. Now, stipend payments will be made automatically, unless commissioners waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk.

According to the county clerk’s office, Dan Smith (R-District 2) is the only commissioner who has waived all of his stipends. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) waived the $150 stipend for the accommodations ordinance commission. She serves as an alternate for the AOC. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) does not receive any stipends because he was not appointed to any boards, committees or commissions.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved the change to the board’s rules & regulations.

Board Budget Calendar & Guidelines

On Jan. 16, the board had given initial approval to a timeline and guidelines for developing the county’s budgets through 2017, setting a goal for the county administrator to submit budget recommendations on Sept. 4, 2013 with final adoption by the board on Nov. 20, 2013. [.pdf of budget guidelines]

The item was up for final approval on Feb. 6. Dan Smith (R-District 2) moved to make a minor amendment related to policies and procedures [italics indicates added text, strikethrough indicates deletion]:

Department Heads are directed and Elected Officials are requested directed to review all programs for continuing relevance and priority as a County service, and discuss the possibility to delete or modify programs where possible with the County Administrator.

Outcome: Smith’s amendment passed unanimously, without discussion. The amended item was later passed as part of the board’s consent agenda.

Community & Economic Development Grants

Several items were on the agenda related to grants and programs administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED). Those items included:

• the Michigan Works! system plan for 2013 [.pdf of 2013 MWSP]
• $20,000 in federal funding (Community Services Block Grant discretionary funds) to conduct a needs assessment of the New West Willow Neighborhood Association.
• $20,000 in federal funding (Community Services Block Grant discretionary funds) for tax preparation services to low-income customers, in partnership with Avalon Housing, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County, Housing Bureau for Seniors and Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan.
• $299,821 in federal funding for the foster grandparent program, plus $104,208 in county matching funds. The program serves 80 limited-income individuals aged fifty-five and over, who’ll mentor children with special needs. The funds provide foster grandparents with a stipend, transportation, meals, uniforms, community involvement and training, and an annual physical exam.
• $46,900 in state funds to provide emergency heating deliverable fuels to about 45 households.
• $94,901 in state funds to help low-income families pay their home energy bills, and to provide emergency deliverable fuels to residents at or below 200% of the federal poverty limit.

Community & Economic Development Grants: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that there were a number of agenda items related to OCED, and he wanted to thank OCED director Mary Jo Callan and her staff for all their work.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked about the needs assessment for the New West Willow Neighborhood Association and for the senior nutrition program – another item on the agenda for final approval on Feb. 6. She wondered if there would be funding available to implement the recommendations from the needs assessments.

Callan said the needs assessments are definitely planning activities. The point is to inform future investments, she noted. The staff can’t yet say if there will be money available to fund everything that needs funding, Callan added, but it’s useful to look at how their current funding is deployed and to make sure it’s doing the most good for the most people.

Regarding the New West Willow neighborhood assessment, there aren’t currently operating dollars to fund programs there, Callan said. But the county receives an annual allocation of federal Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funding. The county is making sure they invest those dollars in the places that they know there’s need, she said.

Outcome: All items were approved unanimously by commissioners as part of the consent agenda.

Tech Agreement

County commissioners were asked to give initial approval to amend a three-way agreement with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and the city of Ann Arbor. The three-way accord – an interagency agreement for collaborative technology and services (IACTS) – is meant to provide a way to procure and maintain common technology platforms and services centrally.

The modification to the agreement allows for adding other entities into the agreement in a more streamlined way. It gives each founding member the ability to add new participants administratively, without modifying the agreement itself. The original IACTS was approved in May of 2011. [.pdf of IACTS amendment]

The Ann Arbor city council approved the amendment at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting. According to city of Ann Arbor IT director Dan Rainey, responding to an emailed query, one of the entities interested in participating in the IACTS is the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. Also responding to an emailed query, Washtenaw County IT manager Andy Brush explained that certain IT services are already provided by Washtenaw County to various entities – like the city of Ypsilanti, Dexter’s fire department, and the 14B District Court – although they aren’t yet parties to the IACTS agreement.

Tech Agreement: Board Discussion

At the Feb. 6 meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) highlighted this project as one of the county’s “shining stars” in terms of collaborative efforts. It’s an example of collaboration between the city and county, saving money and being “excellent stewards” of public dollars, he said, “and really making those public dollars go as far as possible.” He thanked the county’s infrastructure and IT staff for their work.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the IACTS amendment. A final vote on this item is expected at the board’s Feb. 20 meeting.

Debt Refinancing for Township Sewers

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to refinance debt for a sewer system in Lyndon and Sylvan townships, on the county’s west side. The action is intended to save about $110,000 in interest payments. [.pdf of bond resolution]

The resolution authorizes 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 remains to be repaid. According to a staff memo, 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.

The staff memo also states that additional funds might be available from special assessment prepayments and connection fees paid by the state of Michigan. These funds might reduce the total refunding bond amount even more, and would increase the savings.

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 unanimously approved the debt refinancing. A final vote is expected on Feb. 20.

Miller Avenue Drain Project

Funding for a drain project along Miller Avenue in Ann Arbor – in the Allen Creek drainage district – was on the county board’s Feb. 6 agenda.

Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

The request was to authorize the backing of up to $1.58 million in bonds for the project, which will repaid through a special assessment against the city of Ann Arbor.

The project is being handled by the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, led by Evan Pratt. It’s the first project brought forward by Pratt, who was elected in November 2012 and took office in January. Pratt attended the Feb. 6 meeting but did not formally address the board.

According to a staff memo, the funds will be used “to clean out, widen, deepen, straighten, tile, extend, or relocate along a highway, construct branches, relief drains, or connections to the Miller Avenue portion of the Allen Creek Drain to reduce downstream flooding and improve water quality to increase the public health benefit.”

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the Miller Avenue Drain project. A final vote is expected on Feb. 20.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: County ID Card

Yousef Rabhi reported that he was working with community members and human services providers to develop a new program about a Washtenaw County ID card. The project is being overseen by a task force of the following members and entities:

• Yousef Rabhi, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners
• Jerry Clayton, Washtenaw County sheriff
• Catherine McClary, Washtenaw County treasurer
• Larry Kestenbaum, Washtenaw County clerk
• Melody Cox, assistant to the county clerk/register of deeds
• Synod Community Services
• Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights
• Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
• Casa Latina
• Law Enforcement Citizens Advisory Board
• Home of New Vision

It provides a way for residents who don’t have a driver’s license or other photo ID to access services that require such an identification card, Rabhi said. Actions and services that require a photo ID include renting an apartment, opening a bank account, and proving residency for things like library cards. People who are elderly, immigrants, ex-offenders, or homeless often face discrimination because they don’t have a photo ID, Rabhi said. It’s also important for law enforcement, he added, because sometimes immigrants don’t feel comfortable reporting crimes – they fear repercussions if police ask for their ID.

Funding this kind of program is a huge issue, Rahbi noted. It’s important to minimize the impact on the county, he said, but there are lots of opportunities for partnerships. People involved in this effort will be reaching out to local officials in the coming weeks, he said, and he hoped the program would move forward.

Communications & Commentary: Liaison Reports

Felicia Brabec reported from the Sustainable Revenue for Supportive Housing Services Task Force, on which she serves. The group is looking at the possibility of an endowment campaign. The nonprofit Washtenaw Housing Alliance is paying for  a consultant (Hammond and Associates) – to explore how such a campaign might fare. It’s estimated that about $17 million would be needed “so it’s a big undertaking for us,” she said. That amount would support an additional 116 units of supportive housing. An existing endowment has $2 million, Brabec reported – $1 million from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, and $1 million from St. Joseph Mercy Health System, in honor of Sister Yvonne Gellise.

Brabec also reported that TCC Group, the consultant hired to evaluate the county’s coordinated funding pilot program, has finished its work. She, Yousef Rabhi and Andy LaBarre were briefed on the initial findings and “overall it looks good,” she said. TCC representatives indicated that they haven’t seen this kind of public/private model being done anywhere else. The full report will be shared with other commissioners, policymakers and the public when it’s completed, she said.

Brabec also updated commissioners on the status of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), a partnership between Washtenaw County and the University of Michigan Health System. The organization has completed its relocation into county office that it’s leasing on Zeeb Road, she said. She thanked Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management, for his help in making that transition.

Communications & Commentary: Introductions

Several other elected officials attended the Feb. 6 meeting, in addition to county commissioners.

Felicia Brabec, chair of the board’s ways & means committee, noted that sheriff Jerry Clayton, county treasurer Catherine McClary, and Evan Pratt – the county’s water resources commissioner – were attending the meeting. Also in the audience was Brian Mackie, the county prosecuting attorney.

Dan Smith introduced Oakland County commissioner Phil Weipert. [Weipert, a Republican, represents District 8 in Oakland County, which includes the cities of South Lyon and Wixom, the village of Wixom, and the townships of Lyon and Milford.]

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke at both opportunities for public commentary during the evening. He told commissioners he was there to advance the cause of the most vulnerable, and called for them to add to the agenda a funding plan to provide housing to everyone who was outside on this cold night. He said the “right-wing” Republicans in the Michigan legislature and the U.S. Congress have the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over the nation as the deadline approaches at the end of February, when he said the economy will be hit by the impact of sequestration. Partridge also called for the county board to put forward a resolution calling for gun and ammunition control.

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

Absent: Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

After March 1, taxing jurisdictions – including cities, townships, schools systems and libraries, among others – turn their delinquent taxes over to the county, and are reimbursed for that amount. The county treasurer then assumes responsibility for collecting these delinquent taxes. This is a standard procedure that’s conducted annually at this time of year. The borrowed funds are used for cash flow purposes, to fund operations for the first half of the year.

County treasurer Catherine McClary projects needing to much borrow less than the $40 million authorized – likely about $25 million. [.pdf of delinquent tax resolution]

During the Feb. 6 meeting, McClary also gave the board a year-end report for 2012. Her office brought in $9.96 million during the year from the following sources: delinquent taxes and fees ($5.046 million), accommodation tax ($4.067 million), investment earnings ($755,681), dog licenses ($59,748) and tax searches ($31,760). McClary also reported that the county’s investment portfolio totaled $156.08 million at the end of 2012. The non-cash portion of that amount is $147.855 million, which brought in an average weighted yield of 0.456%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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