Once again on the agenda for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting on Sept. 5 will be the articles of incorporation for a new transit authority. It’s expected to be a stamp of approval for some administrative changes, not a chance to change the document or rescind the board’s previous decision to approve the document.

Instead, the point of re-introducing the agenda item is to provide an opportunity for the board to affirm the administrative changes to the articles of incorporation that took place after the board’s Aug. 1 vote.

The administrative changes were already included in the documents by the other three parties to the four-party agreement when they subsequently ratified the document. Those parties are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is leading this effort. The Ann Arbor city council voted (for a third time) to approve the articles of incorporation at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting; the Ypsilanti city council voted at its Aug. 14 meeting (also for a third time); and the AATA board voted (for a second time) at its meeting on Aug. 16.

News of the agenda item came from an email sent by Washtenaw County board chair Conan Smith to other commissioners on the evening of Aug. 22. It’s not entirely clear whether the board will: (1) take a vote that affirms the administrative (non-substantive) nature of the changes that were made after the board approved the document on Aug. 1; or (2) take a vote that amends the document to match the version approved by the other three parties.

Previous re-votes have been driven by substantive amendments made by one of the parties to the agreement. For example, the Ypsilanti city council amended the four-party accord after the Ann Arbor city council first voted, on March 5, 2012. That amendment involved service charges applied to the respective cities’ existing millages. When the agreement went back to the Ann Arbor city council, that body amended the document further – which meant that it returned to the Ypsilanti city council for its approval again. The AATA board then ratified the agreement.

It was expected to be approved by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners without further substantive amendment. But on Aug. 1 the board made a change to the size of the majority needed, in order for the new transit authority’s board to change the articles of incorporation – from 2/3 to 4/5 of the 15 board members. That triggered the most recent round of approvals by the various bodies.

But those approvals incorporated some changes that were driven by a desire to harmonize the county board’s amendment with the rest of the document, as well as with Act 196 of 1986 – the act under which the new transit authority will be incorporated. For example, the 4/5 majority requirement for changes to the articles of incorporation is at apparent odds with one kind of change to the articles specifically mentioned in Act 196 – a change in jurisdictions that are part of the authority. Act 196 explicitly indicates that a 2/3 vote is required. So an administrative change undertaken after the board’s Aug. 1 meeting was to add the clause: “… unless another vote of Board is required under the terms of these Articles or provided for in Act 196.”

The view of legal counsel for the four parties was apparently that it’s not actually necessary for those changes to be explicitly re-voted and affirmed by the county board of commissioners. However, there is at least some sentiment on the county board that the changes might be construed as substantive and contrary to the intent of the county board, which could become an unnecessary point of contention down the road.

The AATA is current finalizing the details of a five-year service plan that will need to be published as one of several conditions that must be met before the AATA could transition into the newly incorporated authority, to be called The Washtenaw Ride. This week, the AATA board called a special meeting for Sept. 5 to unveil that service plan.

Earlier in the year, the AATA had hoped to be in a position to possibly place a transit millage proposal on the ballot this November. But at this point, that won’t be possible. Any transit millage proposal will come at a later election.

After the jump, this report describes the administrative changes in question and possible misinterpretations.

Text of the Changes

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners made the following change to the articles of incorporation on Aug. 1:

SECTION 10.01: AMENDMENTS
These Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a two-thirds (2/3) four-fifths (4/5) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority. [Amendment by Washtenaw County board]

That drove additional changes made by city of Ann Arbor legal staff before the Ann Arbor city council voted on the amended document. The staff memo from the council’s Aug. 9, 2012 meeting characterized the nature of the additional changes as following logically from the amendment that the county board had made on Aug. 1: ” … however, the implementation of 4/5th requirement necessitated changes to Section 5.01 to recognize no change was being made to the 2/3 vote of the Board related to budgets and since amendments are referenced in Section 5.01 the inclusion of the change to 4/5 vote for amendments.”

Text of Changes: Ordinary Votes

The first administrative change involves the basic rule that decisions of the board of the new transit authority require a simple majority – with two exceptions: (1) votes on the budget, and (2) votes to change the articles of incorporation. Because the Washtenaw County board changed the threshold from 2/3 to 4/5 on amendments to the articles in a subsequent section, the following section was changed to be consistent with that intent. Added text is in bold italics. Deleted text is in strike-through.

SECTION 5.01: PUBLIC MEETINGS
… Each director shall have one vote. Decisions of the Board require a majority vote of the directors appointed and serving at a Board meeting having a quorum present, except approval of the budget which requires approval of 2/3rds of all directors and amendment of the articles each which requires approval of 2/3rds 4/5th of all directors. [Administrative change.]

Text of Changes: Conflicts with Act 196

The second administrative change is related to the clause in Act 196 that describes how a local governmental unit not originally a part of the authority can join it. Here’s the section from Act 196:

124.457 Membership after formation of public authority; resolution; approval, execution, filing, and publication of amendment to articles. Sec. 7.
A political subdivision or a portion of a city, village, or township bounded by lines described in section 4 may become a member of a public authority after the public authority’s formation under this act upon resolution adopted by a majority vote of the members elected to and serving on the legislative body of the political subdivision requesting membership for all or a portion of the political subdivision and upon resolution adopted by a 2/3 vote of the members serving on the board of the public authority approving an amendment to the articles of incorporation of the public authority adding all or a portion of the political subdivision. The amendment to the articles of incorporation shall be executed by the clerk of the political subdivision, all or a part of which is being added and shall be filed and published in the same manner as the original articles of incorporation.

So that section of Act 196 explicitly calls for a 2/3 vote for changes to the articles that involve the addition of another political subdivision. The amendment made by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners raises that threshold for all votes on the articles. The administrative change interprets the board’s intent as not to raise the threshold to 4/5 for that specific type of change to the articles of incorporation, by adding a kind of savings clause:

SECTION 10.01: AMENDMENTS
These Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority unless another vote of Board is required under the terms of these Articles or provided for in Act 196.

Potential for Misunderstanding

The second administrative change depends on one interpretation of the county board’s intent – that it did not mean to lump the membership decisions into the kind of votes that would require a 4/5 majority. But the legislative record of that body might support the contention that the county board’s intent was, in fact, to apply the 4/5 majority requirement to all decisions involving the articles of incorporation – even those involving admission of an additional political subdivision into the transit authority.

That legislative record includes the following amendment, which was considered by the county board but rejected on July 11, 2012:

Unless otherwise specifically allowed by law, these Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority. All amendments must comply with applicable state and federal laws. All amendments to the Articles of Incorporation become effective only after they are executed jointly by the Chairperson and by the Secretary of the Board of the Authority, ratified by each member political subdivision and the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, filed with the recording officer of the Washtenaw County Clerk, and filed and published in the same manner as the original Articles of Incorporation.

Based on that rejected amendment – which was supported by only 4 of the 11 county commissioners – it’s possible to imagine an argument that the board’s failure to include the savings clause in a later amendment, which it actually passed, was in fact a conscious and deliberate choice by the board.

Had the board made that conscious choice, and had the other three parties ratified the articles without that savings clause, it’s possible to imagine a dispute arising out of the following scenario:

Township A opts out of the new Act 196 transit authority when it’s initially formed. Later, the township board of Township A decides that it would like to be admitted into the new authority – and takes a unanimous vote. Then the board of the new transit authority votes 10-5 to admit Township A into the authority.

Does Township A get in?

The board of Township A might well argue that under 124.457 Sec. 7 of Act 196, the conditions have been met for admission into the transit authority, and that it’s therefore entitled to be admitted. But a resident of Township A, who is opposed to paying the associated property tax, might well argue that the requirement in the articles of incorporation that a 4/5 majority be achieved has not been met for changing the articles of incorporation – a change made necessary by the admission of Township A.

That kind of legal dispute would be settled through interpretation of Act 196. Does Act 196 set forth conditions under which a political subdivision is entitled to be admitted into the transit authority? Or does Act 196 set forth minimum conditions that must be met before a political subdivision can be admitted into the transit authority?

The administrative change made by city of Ann Arbor legal staff eliminates the possibility of that kind of dispute.

And by taking some kind of vote on Sept. 5, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners has an opportunity to make its intent absolutely clear.

Coda

The text of the document attached to the Ann Arbor city council’s agenda on Aug. 9, which the council voted to approve, was the following, including the trailing extra period:

These Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority unless another vote of Board is required under the terms of these Articles or provided for in Act 196..

It’s not clear if on Sept. 5 the county board will undertake an administrative change to eliminate the extra punctuation, and if so, which one of the two periods will be struck from the text.

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

From left: Mayor John Hieftje and city administrator Steve Powers before the start of the Aug. 9, 2012 council meeting.

But the council transacted several other pieces of business as well, some of which could be grouped into the general thematic pattern of land and property use. Most obviously connected to land use was the council’s initial approval of a rezoning request in connection with an expansion proposal from Knight’s Market, at the corner of Miller and Spring streets. The rezoning would allow a house to be converted into a bakery. It would also allow for eventual approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot.

The council also passed a resolution to deal with an issue stemming, in part, from land use decisions made decades ago that resulted in residential development in the area of the Malletts Creek drainage district. Recently, residents in the area have been faced with severe localized flooding. The council’s resolution directed staff to start negotiations with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to identify “opportunities for stormwater conveyance and stormwater quality improvement in the area of the Malletts Creek drainage district.”

Related at least tangentially to land use at the level of a specific parcel was a resolution the council passed establishing the property at 317 Maynard in downtown Ann Arbor as an industrial development district. The move sets the stage for an expected application from the future tenant of the space, owned by First Martin Corp., for a tax abatement that would be worth around $85,000. The tenant is Barracuda Networks.

And the council took another step in implementing a strategy to eliminate blight. The city had previously set aside funds that could be used to demolish blighted buildings – if the city is unsuccessful in getting property owners to demolish them. The council’s action last Thursday authorized the city to sign contracts with four different companies to do such demolition work on an as-needed basis. It was announced at the meeting that the houses on North Main – at the site of the planned Near North affordable housing project – will likely be among the first to be demolished under the contracts authorized by the council.

To the extent that transportation systems have an impact on future land use, another item related to land use was a reapproval of the articles of incorporation for a possible new countywide transportation authority. The articles of incorporation are part of a four-party agreement to establish a framework for possibly expanding the governance and service area of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

The four-party agreement is between the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. The Ann Arbor council changed the minimum threshold of votes required on the proposed new 15-member transit authority board, an action that brought the council in line with a version that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners had approved earlier this month. That threshold was increased from a 2/3 majority (10 votes) to a 4/5 majority (12 votes).

In other business, the council authorized the hiring of three additional firefighters for the next two years, using a federal grant. It also authorized the purchase of a new aerial fire truck.

Nominations to city boards and commissions made at the meeting included reappointment of Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt and Keith Orr to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. And Sally Petersen, who won the Ward 2 Democratic primary on Aug. 7, was nominated for the city’s commission on disability issues.

The council also heard public commentary on a range of topics, including smart meters and the idea of corporations as people. 

Knight’s Market Rezoning

The council was asked to consider a rezoning request that would allow for expansion of Knight’s Market.

Knight’s Market Rezoning: Background

The market is located at the northeast corner of Spring and Miller. The market’s owner, Ray Knight, also owns two separate, adjacent parcels. (Knight is perhaps best known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.) The grocery store is on land zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Another parcel at 306-308 Spring St. is zoned R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1, and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. is zoned R2A and MI, and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels are currently non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

The proposal from Knight’s involves several steps. The request calls for 306, 308 and 310 Spring to be rezoned to C1. That rezoning would allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning would also allow for approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand and reconfigure the existing parking lot. In addition, the plan requests that 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery – also be rezoned to C1.

The proposed work to the parking lot includes providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curbcut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring would remain a single-family dwelling. The city planning commission recommended the rezoning on a 6-1 vote at its June 19, 2012 meeting.

Knight’s Market Rezoning: Council Deliberations

When the council came to the item, mayor John Hieftje looked first to Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) to move the item, but Sabra Briere (Ward 1) interjected, noting that the market was on the Ward 1 side of the street. So Hieftje gave Briere and her wardmate Sandi Smith the privilege of moving and seconding the motion.

Briere noted that both Ward 1 and Ward 5 residents shop at the market and ventured that there are also people who drive to the market as well. She had attended one public meeting about the proposal. She noted that neighbors were very supportive of Knight’s Market, but had questions about the potential impact on the neighborhood. Generally, their concern is about what happens if the property is rezoned and then changes hands, so that Knight’s Market is no longer the owner.

Left to right: During a break, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) joke about the smartphone app Smith uses to time speaking turns of other councilmembers. There have been occasions when Smith has not been joking when she has raised the point of order on Lumm’s speaking turns.

Smith said she’d had a number of conversations with people in the neighborhood – and they’re very supportive of having a local grocer right there and available. That fits well into the zoning, she said, and the idea of fringe commercial abutting the residential area. She heard strong support for it, she said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, noted that the commission had had a thorough discussion of the issue. He called the characterizations by Briere and Smith as very accurate. It reminded him of the proposal that Zingerman’s Deli had made, when the neighbors had been carefully consulted. Neighbors had raised some issues – not in an attempt to stop the project – but there’d been an outpouring of approval, he said. Questions had been asked and answered, he said. He felt that “commercial crawl” could not occur because of the natural boundaries that would preclude it.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the goal was to establish a bakery that would serve the restaurant and the retail store. He noted that it’s meant to strike a balance between land use goals. He said he lived in a neighborhood where he could, without a car, still walk to places and find places to buy enough to eat and drink. But there are neighborhoods where that’s not possible. He said that Knight’s Market is a place that makes that possible, and that Knight’s is a good neighbor.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also indicated his support for the rezoning request. There used to be a store on Miner between Hiscock and Felch, he recalled, and he was not sure if the city’s zoning still allows for such mom-and-pop type stores. It’s important that the city have opportunities for a walkable, diverse and sustainable community. It’s not something the council would do frequently, he said, but in this case it’s important to do.

Hieftje noted that Knight’s Market has survived for a long time and is kind of a throwback to the past. If you look around Ann Arbor you can find buildings that were at one time a corner store in a neighborhood. As zoning changed, we’ve moved away from that concept, but in select areas, it might be possible to move back toward that approach, he said. Neighborhood stores like Washtenaw Dairy, Jefferson Market and Knight’s Market are a real asset, he said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) added she was the “daughter of a grocery man” and called the market a wonderful amenity that everyone in Ann Arbor values. When she goes there, it’s a reminder of what her father did. She appreciated the discussions that had occurred and the support that people were showing for it.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the Knight’s Market rezoning request. Because the request involves a rezoning – a change to the city’s set of ordinances – the council will need to give a second, final approval at a subsequent meeting, following a formal public hearing.

Development District 317 Maynard

On the Aug. 9 agenda was a resolution to establish a new industrial development district for the downtown Ann Arbor property at 317 Maynard St., which sets up the opportunity for Barracuda Networks to apply for a tax abatement as it moves from its current location on Depot Street to the downtown site.

Under Michigan’s Act 198 of 1974, the next step for that abatement, on application from Barracuda, will be for the city council to set a public hearing on the abatement. After the public hearing, the council could then grant the abatement, which is estimated to be valued at around $85,000.

At its July 2 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had voted to set the Aug. 9 public hearing on the industrial development district. A letter dated June 1, 2012 from First Martin to the Ann Arbor city clerk requested the establishment of the district. First Martin is the owner of the property at 317 Maynard.

From Act 198, it’s the property owner – in this case, First Martin – that files for the establishment of the IDD.

207.554 Plant rehabilitation district or industrial development district; establishment; number of parcels; filing; notice; hearing; finding and determination; district established by township; industrial property as part of industrial development district or plant rehabilitation district also part of tax increment district; termination; notice.
Sec. 4. (1) A local governmental unit, by resolution of its legislative body, may establish plant rehabilitation districts and industrial development districts that consist of 1 or more parcels or tracts of land or a portion of a parcel or tract of land. (2) The legislative body of a local governmental unit may establish a plant rehabilitation district or an industrial development district on its own initiative or upon a written request filed by the owner or owners of 75% of the state equalized value of the industrial property located within a proposed plant rehabilitation district or industrial development district. This request shall be filed with the clerk of the local governmental unit.

And according to Act 198, the tenant – in this case, Barracuda Networks – can file an application for the tax abatement.

207.555 Application for industrial exemption certificate; filing; contents; notice to assessing and taxing units; hearing; application fee.
Sec. 5. (1) After the establishment of a district, the owner or lessee of a facility may file an application for an industrial facilities exemption certificate with the clerk of the local governmental unit that established the plant rehabilitation district or industrial development district.

Development District 317 Maynard: Public Hearing

Only one person spoke at the public hearing on the establishment of the IDD – Thomas Partridge. He lamented the loss of vitally-needed tax money through abatements, and contended that because of this, schools are becoming challenged to maintain standards of education and retain adequate numbers of teachers, especially special education teachers. Partridge asked recipients of tax abatements to voluntarily curtail the period of the tax rebates or forgo them. He allowed that the community needs jobs, but also needs to support our most vulnerable residents.

Development District 317 Maynard: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the council’s budget committee, reported that the committee had met to consider the issue, but several committee members had not been able to attend. [Higgins participated in the committee meeting by speaker phone. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) attended in person, and was joined by city administrator Steve Powers, chief financial officer Tom Crawford, and Luke Bonner, an economic development specialist with Ann Arbor SPARK.]

317 Maynard is highlighted in yellow.

Aerial photo of 317 Maynard. The office space is located under the Maynard Street parking garage.

Higgins reviewed the distinction between the establishment of the district and the granting of the tax abatement: The parcel’s owner had applied for the establishment of the district, while the tenant, Barracuda, would be applying for the abatement.

The council was only authorizing the establishment of the district, she stressed. Only when the district is established, she said, would Barracuda be able to apply for the abatement. At that point, the city council’s budget committee would meet and review the application for an abatement.

Briere noted that some members of the community had been confused about who gets the benefit of the tax abatement, so she appreciated the explanation Higgins had offered. She noted that in the past, some districts had been established where no tenant had taken up the opportunity to apply for an abatement.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he was sorry that he couldn’t attend the budget committee, but wondered if there were some preliminary figures. Higgins told him that some preliminary figures had been submitted, but she didn’t have them with her – but they looked promising, she said. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed her support for the district, saying that the new jobs that Barracuda would be bringing is a positive development for the downtown.

Lumm agreed that the incentives being offered to Barracuda are warranted. Ann Arbor is an attractive location for businesses, she ventured, and it was not necessary to constantly offer tax incentives to attract businesses. Ann Arbor only does that on an infrequent and selective basis. She thinks this proposal is worthy of the support. She also pointed to a $1.2 million expansion grant from the Michigan Economic Development Corp. to Barracuda, and how the MEDC generally expected a local match.

Lumm had some remaining questions about the parking commitment. Higgins cautioned against diving into the details of the possible Barracuda proposal, until the application was final.

Mayor John Hieftje also said he didn’t think parking spaces would be presented to the council – because Barracuda would simply be taking advantage of a “special” being offered by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which manages the city’s public parking system. [The DDA has offered incentives generally, not just to Barracuda, in the form of reduced rates on monthly passes for the new underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue, which opened in July.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to establish the industrial development district at 317 Maynard.

Water Resources Commissioner: Flooding Solutions

The council considered a resolution directing city staff to start negotiations with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to identify “opportunities for stormwater conveyance and stormwater quality improvement in the area of the Malletts Creek drainage district bounded by Ann Arbor-Saline Road upstream to I-94 and Scio Church Road.”

Partial map of the area of study for the Malletts Creek drainage district.

The city council had heard complaints from residents in that area during public commentary earlier this spring about localized flooding.

The Aug. 7 primary election results from that precinct in Ward 4 were nearly decisive enough in favor of challenger Jack Eaton to win the Democratic nomination over incumbent Margie Teall – but his total fell short of Teall’s by 18 votes across the ward. [On Aug. 16, Eaton filed for a recount, which will likely occur later this month.]

The resolution considered by the council on Aug. 9 directs staff to bring an agreement to the city council with the water resources commissioner by Oct. 1, 2012.

Flooding Solutions: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was intrigued by the proposal and asked Cresson Slotten to answer some questions. Slotten is a senior project manager with the city. He told Kunselman that there’d been similar studies done in other areas of the city. The area described in the resolution, he said, is part of an existing drainage district, Malletts Creek, that’s within the county’s jurisdiction.

Kunselman ventured that outside the city limits, drain improvements get assessed to property owners, but inside the city, the cost is paid for out of the city’s stormwater utility fund. Slotten explained that one of the benefits of working with the water resources commissioner’s office is the ability to work within the state’s “drain code,” which is the statute that establishes the water resources commissioner’s office. [.pdf of Act 40 of 1956]

Malletts Creek is a Chapter 20 drain under that code, Slotten said. A key point is that costs are assessed to the governmental entity, the city of Ann Arbor, based on how much of the area is in the city. Some of it would be in an area owned by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation near I-94, he said, so MDOT would also contribute a small share. The city could choose to assess property owners as well, but typically has chosen to treat it as a “system cost,” especially if it’s a broad project area. And by working through the county, it’s also possible to arrange financing over time, so that there’s not a large up-front cost, Slotten said.

Kunselman noted that the city owns most of the stormwater conveyance – streets, gutters, storm sewers – and at some point there’s an outfall into Malletts Creek. So he wondered how much is really under the county’s jurisdiction. Slotten described the portion of Malletts Creek that’s under the county’s jurisdiction – the open creek visible down by Briarwood Mall and Ann Arbor-Saline Road, where there is “open creek.” In addition, if you continue past Ann Arbor-Saline Road, you see some ponds, and upstream of that is a large pipe that’s a part of the drain. That drain continues up to Scio Church Road and then even up to Maple Road.

That’s the reason the partnership between the county and the city that has evolved over the years – given the intermingling nature of the physical systems – is so beneficial, Slotten said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted to know how many dollars in damage Ward 4 had experienced during the localized flooding. Slotten was not certain, but ventured that those claims would have been made through the city’s insurance board. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) pointed out that the insurance board report had been included in the consent agenda.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that this project had been discussed as part of the Malletts Creek coordinating committee meeting the previous day. She clarified that the agreement would come back to the council on Oct. 1 for approval.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution giving direction to start negotiations with the county water resources commissioner.

Demolition Contracts

The council was asked to approve two-year contracts with four different companies, to perform demolition services on an as-needed basis. The four companies are Bierlein, DMC Consultants, Beal, and Van Assche.

At its Feb. 21, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had approved a $250,000 allocation for demolishing buildings that the city deems dangerous under Chapter 101 of the city code. The city would like to target buildings that are diminishing the quality of neighborhoods, dragging down property values and attracting nuisances. The city expects to be able to reimburse the general fund for that allocation, from the proceeds of a lawsuit settlement related to the old Michigan Inn property on Jackson Avenue.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) described the resolution as giving the city some flexibility by having predetermined contractors that the city can call on, to demolish some blighted properties and allow the city to move quicker when the city gets to that stage. As an example, she gave the house on First and Kingsley. It’s located on property that the city purchased earlier this year – the vacant house is expected to be demolished later this month.

Mayor John Hieftje then asked Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, to talks about Avalon Housing‘s Near North affordable housing project, located on North Main. Houses on the site of the expected development have long stood vacant.

Bahl explained that if Avalon doesn’t move to demolish the buildings, then the city will. He explained that the city might start the process soon. It might take up to two weeks to finalize the contracts with the demolition companies and to make sure all the right types of insurance are in place, he said. In the meantime, the city will look disconnecting at the water utilities. There has to be a 10-day notice of any demolition, he said. So even if the city starts the next day with the process, you won’t see a bulldozer then. But in 45-60 days, the city will have the buildings down, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that in the last year or so, she’d heard concerns from several councilmembers about houses that aren’t being maintained in the community. Being able to move forward as quickly as possible is a catch-phrase they’ve talked about, but she noted that it’s hard actually to move quickly. The contract approvals, which are not tied to any particular building, mean the city won’t have to jump through that extra hoop. It’s a tool that won’t be used lightly, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said, “This is great.” He noted that the fund had been set up but he recalled that the amount of the fund was less than the $600,000 that you get when you multiple four contractors times $150,000 apiece. [The fund was set at $250,000.] So he wanted an explanation. Bahl explained that he would not be spending more than $250,000, but that the multiple contracts give him flexibility.

Bahl picked up on remarks by Smith and Briere that these demolitions would not be undertaken lightly. He described the due process that had to be used to demolish derelict houses.

Kunselman noted that the follow-up on the demolitions involves liens on the property and the proper paperwork so that the city can get reimbursed.

Kunselman also wanted to address the issue of the former St. Nicholas Church on North Main Street, which is currently under county tax foreclosure. Given that it’s in “the public hand,” Kunselman felt the city should be able to move quickly on that and take it down, because it’s no longer a private property. He noted that there’d been a house on Sharon Street when the county had cooperated with the city in that way.

City administrator Steve Powers observed that up to now, the city’s fund for demolition has been used as an incentive to property owners to do the work themselves – it’s a way to get a property owner’s attention. Regarding the St. Nicholas Church, Powers said that county treasurer Catherine McClary is well aware of the situation. She’d indicated that the county would be proceeding with demolition on the “county dime” but would be putting a lien on the property against that cost.

Smith asked Mike Appel, senior developer with the nonprofit Avalon Housing, to speak to the question of the Near North development. Appel told the council he appreciates the city’s patience and the whole community’s patience with the situation that he described as taking “too many months.” They’ve been working very hard to move the project forward, he said. They thought they could get the buildings taken down earlier, but now have been cooperating with city staff – by providing them with the asbestos surveys and the electric and gas utilities shutoffs. He said Avalon is doing everything in its power to get the houses down.

1992 FEMA floodway in light crosshatched blue, with the green lines indicating the boundaries of the floodplain. The intersection shown is Main and Summit. Red parcels are those that are now in the floodplain but previously were not. Green parcels were previously in the floodplain and now are not.

2012 FEMA floodway in dark blue, with the green lines indicating the boundaries of the floodplain. The intersection shown is Main and Summit. Red parcels are those that are now in the floodplain but previously were not. Green parcels were previously in the floodplain and now are not.

At this point, it appears that having the city do the demolition is quicker than doing it themselves, Appel said. The most recent event that’s slowed down the project is that in April of this year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had issued new floodway and floodplain maps. The floodway had expanded considerably, he reported. The proposed building is not in the floodway, but some of the activities associated with the building are – like parking. The state would allow the project to be built, but the federal funds they’d been planning to use won’t be available. So now Avalon is trying to find a way to substitute non-federal funds for federal funds.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contracts with demolition companies.

Transit Articles of Incorporation

In front of the council for the third time were the articles of incorporation for a possible new countywide transit authority. The council had approved them twice before.

The articles of incorporation are part of a four-party agreement to establish a framework for possibly expanding the governance and service area of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The four-party agreement is between the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

This most recent iteration on the Aug. 9 agenda came in response to an amendment made by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at its Aug. 1, 2012 meeting.

The county board’s amendment changed the minimum threshold of votes required on the proposed new 15-member transit authority board to change the authority’s articles of incorporation. That threshold was increased from a 2/3 majority (10 votes) to a 4/5 majority (12 votes). With a 7-4 vote, the Ann Arbor city council adopted the county’s change. Dissenting were Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

The council had already reapproved the transit documents once before, at its June 4, 2012 meeting, in response to a change to the four-party agreement that had been made by the Ypsilanti city council. The Ann Arbor city council had initially given its approval to the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012.

Transit Articles of Incorporation: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reviewed the history of the document approvals and the nature of the change that was being requested.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) offered a possible explanation for wanting one super majority (4/5) compared to another (2/3). A concern she’d heard was urban versus rural. The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, along with Pittsfield Township, would together have 10 members of the board. They could “conspire” to reduce the impact of the other members by changing the articles of incorporation. By asking for 12 instead of 10, it’s necessary to have a mix of urban and rural in order to change the articles of incorporation. The proposal of a 4/5 majority is a compromise between requiring unanimous approval and the original 2/3 majority, she said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked Michael Ford, the AATA’s CEO, if the 4/5 majority were acceptable to the AATA. Ford said it was.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she had no issue with the specific change. Her concern remains with the agreement itself. She suspected no one had changed their fundamental position on that question. She then reviewed her standard objections to the proposal.

Left to right: Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Ann Arbor Transportation Authority CEO Michael Ford.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) felt that the “countywide” initiative would not be countywide at all and would end up being a regional Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor system. He felt there are better ways of accomplishing that. Kunselman then accused Ford of knowing the answers to some questions that Kunselman asked the last time Ford appeared in front of the city council. Kunselman said Ford had chosen not to share those answers. [Kunselman may have been alluding to the lack of specificity Ford provided when asked by Kunselman about the AATA's plans in case Ypsilanti was not able to meet the terms of its purchase-of-service agreement.]

Kunselman felt like the AATA has not been working in good faith and has been dropping the ball. He said it was not a countywide proposal, so he asked people to stop calling it that.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated that he’d vote against it because of the inclusion of Fuller Road Station as part of the plan. Having watched the county board of commissioners vote just 6-4 in favor of the agreement, he was not sure of the strength of the buy-in.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wanted to know what would happen if the council did not approve the change. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales explained that the document was binding only if all parties agreed to it. Hohnke indicated he was not interested in “belaboring the debate.”

Taylor indicated he’d support it for all the reasons previously discussed.

Outcome: The council voted to reapprove the articles of incorporation for the new countywide transit authority, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Firefighters, Fire Truck

The council considered two agenda items directly related to fire protection: hiring three additional firefighters and authorizing the purchase of a new aerial truck.

Firefighters

The council was asked to authorize a revision to its FY 2013 budget that will allow for staffing of three additional firefighters for the next two years, bringing the budgeted staffing level for firefighters from 82 to 85. The positions will be funded with a $642,294 federal grant through the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), which was announced earlier this year on May 30, 2012.

According to fire chief Chuck Hubbard, the city currently has three vacancies – which means 79 firefighters on staff.

The $321,000 from the SAFER grant for each of the next two years will be allocated for three firefighter positions, which the city estimates will cost $255,000 (at $85,000 per position). The remaining $66,000 per year will be spent on other unspecified fire services needs, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – including overtime and fleet expenses. Hiring a fourth firefighter would require using $19,000 of the city’s fund balance, according to the memo.

The budget amendment was anticipated based on the city council’s budget deliberations and final FY 2013 budget resolution earlier this year, on May 22, 2012, which directed the city administrator to submit a proposal to amend the budget and hire additional firefighters if the SAFER grant were to be awarded.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asks to be recognized to speak during the council’s Aug. 9 meeting. On the left is Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know what the $66,000 would be spent on. City administrator Steve Powers indicated that part of it would go toward overages already incurred. It would also be used to help pay for overtime, fleet expenses, and other fire service operations. The city is projecting a tight budget for FY 2013, Powers said.

Lumm wanted to know if the department was fully staffed at the budgeted level of 82. Hubbard indicated to Lumm that the approved budgeted level was 82. Powers clarified the question, which was essentially: Are we fully staffed? Hubbard indicated that right now the fire department has 79 firefighters – due to a retirements and recalled firefighters who did not return.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) expressed concern about funding for firefighters in future years after the grant expires: What happens in two years? Hubbard indicated that in 2014 the city has the option to apply for another grant. Powers indicated that part of the rationale for hiring three firefighters instead of four is that the city’s projections are that it can sustain the staffing level of 85 when the two-year grant program is over. He allowed that one possibility is to reapply for the SAFER grant, but the city would prefer to fund the positions on its own.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the budget change to allow the hiring of three additional firefighters.

Fire Truck

The council was also asked to authorize $1,043,685 from its fleet fund to purchase a new 2013 Sutphen model SPH100 mid-mount aerial platform – a “tower truck.” The department currently has two aerial trucks. The new purchase replaces a 1999 Emergency One brand 100-foot ladder truck – but it will be kept as a “reserve” aerial truck in the department. The department also has a 1996 Emergency One brand 100-foot aerial truck, which will be kept as a secondary aerial truck. Whichever Emergency One aerial truck first starts to have maintenance and repair costs that exceed its value will be retired from service – and the other truck will remain as a reserve.

The new truck is expected to arrive in 10-12 months.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that some constituents of hers who live in tall buildings were concerned about the city’s current tower truck functioning well. She wanted to know the difference between a ladder truck and a mid-mount truck.

Fire chief Chuck Hubbard explained that “mid-mount” is related to the way it’s built – on a mid-mount vehicle, the aerial component of the truck is mounted to the area just behind the cab. Responding to a question from Briere, Hubbard indicated that it’s not mid-mount versus rear-mount that determines how high the aerial platform can go, but rather the angle of inclination.

Briere said she’d heard that the city’s existing ladder truck had a weak piece that broke and couldn’t easily be fixed. Hubbard indicated that the new truck is very well built, made by a 100-year-old company. He felt that the issues with the existing truck had been well addressed in the purchase of the new truck – and indicated that replacement parts would be easy to acquire.

Mayor John Hieftje was keen to stress that the city’s ladder truck and tower truck were both currently back in service. And during the period when they were not in service, the “box-alarm” could have been used to get a tower truck from a neighboring jurisdiction. He ventured that long-term, it would make sense to think about a regional approach to those types of vehicles, saying that in many departments they are rarely used.

Responding to a question from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Hubbard said there are more than 100 buildings in the city that are considered “high rises.” Smith asked if it wasn’t the case that they were likely fully-sprinkled – equipped with sprinkler systems under city code. Hubbard allowed that the codes are fairly strict. Hieftje asked city administrator Steve Powers to track down the percentage of high rise buildings that have sprinkler systems.

Responding to a question from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Hubbard said that the preference for a platform instead of a ladder was based on ease of rescue. A ladder would require that a firefighter assist someone all the way down the ladder.

Kunselman got confirmation from Hubbard that the fire truck purchase is not connected at all to the possibility that the city will adopt a new station plan – operating out of three stations instead of the current five.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered if the number of firefighters required for operation of the truck was related to the “sway” of the truck. Hubbard said it has nothing to do with that, but rather with the number of tasks that have to be performed in connection with an aerial truck.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the purchase of the aerial fire truck.

Nominations

The usual pattern for appointments to various boards and commissions is that their nominations are made at a council meeting and a vote is taken at a subsequent meeting.

Disabilities Commission: Petersen

Among the nominations for boards and commissions made by mayor John Hieftje at the city council’s Aug. 9 meeting was Sally Petersen to fill a vacancy on the commission on disability issues. Petersen will likely be joining the Ann Arbor city council itself in November, having received more votes than incumbent Tony Derezinski in the Aug. 7 Ward 2 Democratic primary. No other candidate will be on the ballot for Ward 2 on Nov. 6.

In announcing Petersen’s nomination, Hieftje said there was no reason to delay it. Petersen had also applied for appointment to the park advisory commission at the same time she’d applied for a spot on the commission on disability issues.

The commission on disability issues dates back to 1969, but has undergone several name changes since that time, including various forms of the word “handicap.” The commission was established to “promote and advocate for equal opportunities for all individuals with physical, mental and/or emotional disabilities.”

The city council will vote on confirmation of Petersen’s appointment at its Aug. 20 meeting.

DDA Nominations: Smith, Hewitt, Orr

Nominated for reappointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority are Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt and Keith Orr. Those nominations were placed before the city council by mayor John Hieftje at the council’s Aug. 9 meeting.

This year’s DDA board officer elections, held  two months ago at the DDA’s July 2, 2012 annual meeting, again featured abstention on some votes by board member Newcombe Clark – because the future composition of the board was not yet clear. Hieftje’s custom for many reappointments to city boards and commissions has been to provide no public indication of his intentions on those nominations.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about important issues that are coming before the council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Community Center

Orian Zakai addressed the council as an organizer for the Imagine Community – a nonprofit that promotes solidarity between homed and homeless people, she said, through skill-sharing and creativity. In the last four months, she said, they’ve been cooperating with an educational program at the local homeless shelter, the Delonis Center. Their goal for this year is to open a community center in Ann Arbor, where homed and homeless people can create social lives, learn from each other and stay out of the cold together. They’re waiting for someone to address what they see in the streets – growing desperation, more people out on the streets, insufficient social services, public health care and metal health assistance. They’ve proposed to the city to lease the empty 721 N. Main city-owned building and to take over responsibility for the maintenance of the building in order to make it a hospitable space for a community. She claimed that the city is more interested in costly business plans that would serve business owners and corporate interests than about creating community.

Addressing the contracts with companies that would perform demolition, she wondered what would be built in place of the houses to be demolished – parking lots, high rises and business centers? She said that mayor John Hieftje had been quoted as saying that we’re going to hand the city off to the younger generation and that he thinks young people want to live in a city center with a lot of activity. Contrasting with that sentiment was one expressed by Rose, a Groundcover News vendor, who said that community and not consumption is the next big thing. Zakai said that as a young-ish person, she wanted to live in a community – where people care about each other and no one is left out in the cold to fend for themselves – not a city center. If she had wanted that, she would have chosen to live in Chicago, Tel Aviv, or New York.

Comm/Comm: Democratic Progressive Agenda

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as resident of Ann Arbor and the 53rd District of the Michigan house of representatives. He called on the council and the public to stand up for democratic progress, and build a new Michigan by building affordable housing and re-electing Barack Obama. We need to take courage and stand up and call on our leaders to adopt significant agendas that will benefit the majority of residents. He called on the council to turn away from special interests and the charter amendment protecting city parks, and to focus instead on providing adequate funding to end homelessness, access to affordable housing and to city, countywide and regionwide affordable transportation.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Practices

Kermit Schlansker recalled his time as a soldier in Germany during 1945-47 after World War II. What he saw was extreme poverty and food shortages, he said. People would trade cameras, radios and jewelry and other items for food. The German farmer was king, he said. His German wife told of going to cut a designated tree for fire wood and having to transport it a long distance in a pull-wagon.

Schlansker indicated that could happen in this country as natural resources get scarcer, and poverty will grow. Before it becomes a national catastrophe, many people will be suffering. We need a place where desperate people can go and trade a little work for food and a place to sleep, he said. We need a place where parolees and drug addicts can go and survive without stealing, he said. Sooner or later, poverty will be ubiquitous. The best remedy is to establish work farms located near cities – for growing food and energy, designing new products and starting new businesses.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Darren Schmidt again addressed the council on the topic of smart meters – which are being installed by DTE Energy to allow for remote measurement of electric usage and for measurements in finer increments. He brought a device that he told the council could measure the effects of such smart meters. The device indicates with colored lights the amount of electromagnetic radiation, he said. He contended that DTE is controlling the Michigan Public Service Commission. Even though there’s an opt-out program, he said, what’s at issue is public airspace. He offered to show people the measuring device and reported that Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, had taken him up on the offer.

Comm/Comm: Citizens United

Stuart Dowty told the council that he was there to recruit them as a group to do something about the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Ultimately, it’s about money, he said. CU means that we’re dealing with a fundamental change in the nature of our democracy – and something should be done about it. The Ann Arbor council should join the effort toward education about CU, he said. Bob Davidow told the council he’s a member of the group – the Washtenaw Coalition For Democracy. It’s important to understand, he said, that CU didn’t create a problem, but rather exacerbated a pre-existing problem.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, Aug. 20, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

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

Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, left, talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Leah Gunn prior to the start of the Aug. 1, 2012 board of commissioners meeting. Gryniewicz is community outreach coordinator for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. (Photos by the writer.)

Because the articles were amended, they will need to be reconsidered by the other three parties in the agreement: the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is spearheading this effort. Those governing bodies are expected to take up the issue at meetings later this month. It will be on the Ann Arbor city council agenda for its Aug. 9 meeting.

Before the county board’s Aug. 1 vote, about a dozen people spoke during a public hearing on the issue, the majority of them in support of the agreement and of expanded public transit in general.

Although amendments had been considered and voted down at the board’s July 11 meeting, on Aug. 1 Rob Turner proposed a new amendment to the articles of incorporation. The original draft stipulated that a two-thirds majority of the new authority’s board would be required to amend the articles of incorporation. Turner’s amendment would have stipulated that a unanimous vote by the new authority’s board would be needed to make such changes. Leah Gunn offered a compromise – a four-fifths majority, or 12 of the new authority’s 15 board members. That amendment to Turner’s amendment passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent from Turner, Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec and Wes Prater. The vote on the amended amendment itself – requiring the four-fifths majority – passed unanimously.

Turner felt his original amendment offered safeguards for smaller communities. It’s possible for communities to decide to join the new transit authority, only to have the articles of incorporation – the “rules of the game” – changed after they’ve joined, he said. If his amendment had been approved, Turner said he would have supported the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. He said it no longer seemed like a countywide authority – it seemed like an Ann Arbor system that others could join. That saddened him, he said.

Joining Turner in his final vote against the overall agreement and articles of incorporation were Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.

A range of other items were on the Aug. 1 agenda. Commissioners suspended the county’s use of Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreements, responding to a change in state law. They also gave final approval to a change in the county’s accommodations ordinance, exempting bed & breakfasts, cottages and individuals who occasionally lease out rooms from the 5% accommodations tax. And addressing a need for veterans, the board authorized the county clerk to offer photo IDs that can be used to redeem discounts offered at local businesses.

On an 8-2 vote, commissioners also approved a brownfield financing plan for a $39 million residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor. Before the board’s vote, both Felicia Brabec and Yousef Rabhi praised the development, but said they were voting against it because of concerns about affordability. They did not feel that most young professionals would be able to afford living there, and stressed the importance of having more affordable housing in the downtown area.

The board also heard a report from the county treasurer, and got a second-quarter financial update from staff. Commissioners then approved a $1,263,994 mid-year adjustment to its 2012 general fund budget, bringing the 2012 general fund budget to $101,162,770.

In one of the least controversial items of the meeting, commissioners passed a resolution commending the Washtenaw Community Concert Band – formerly the Ypsilanti Community Band – on its 35th season. Dan Smith, who plays the trumpet, is a member of that group.

Countywide Transportation

Commissioners were asked to approve a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation for a new public transit entity tentatively called the Washtenaw Ride Transportation Authority.

The other parties in the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which both would contribute existing millages to the new authority, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which would shift its assets to the new entity. The governing bodies of those three parties had previously approved the transit documents, after going through their own amendment process. [.pdf of pre-amended four-party agreement and articles of incorporation]

The county board had given initial approval at its July 11 meeting, after a lengthy debate and a split 7-4 vote with dissent by Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rob Turner and Dan Smith. At that meeting, several amendments proposed by commissioner Dan Smith were discussed, but none of the amendments secured enough votes to pass. Those amendments had been similar to proposed changes that Smith had put forward at a three hour working session on June 14.

The county would not be contributing assets or a millage to the new authority. Nor would the county board be asked to put a countywide millage request on the ballot. Rather, the county’s role would be for the county clerk to file articles of incorporation with the state – an action to create a transit authority under Michigan Act 196. When formed, the Act 196 board would have authority to put a funding proposal on the ballot for voters to consider. A financial advisory group that’s been working on this effort has suggested that revenues equivalent to a 0.5 mill tax would be needed to cover the cost of expanded services for the first five years. [.pdf of financial advisory group report]

For other general Chronicle coverage of transit issues, see: “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”

Countywide Transportation: Public Commentary

Speakers addressed the board on the topic of countywide transit during general public commentary as well as during a public hearing specifically on the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. Several other transit supporters attended the meeting but did not formally address the board. Joel Batterman of Partners for Transit, who had sent out an email urging people to attend the meeting, was on hand to pass out stickers that stated support for expanded public transportation.

Here’s a summary of remarks made during public commentary and the public hearing on Aug. 1.

Thomas Partridge told commissioners that he’s a Democratic candidate for state representative in District 53, and he supported the countywide transit agreement. The county’s most vulnerable residents, including senior citizens and the disabled, need better access to affordable public transit, he said.

Jim Mogensen reminded the board that although people talk about the Ann Arbor public transit system starting in the 1970s, in fact the first time a local public transit system was proposed happened in the late 1950s. At that time, however, voters didn’t support the formation of a system. An alternative approach was passed in the 1970s, including a millage to support the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. He referred to the current effort at expansion as a Pandora’s box, and likened it to a previous effort to pass a millage for a county jail expansion. That was a very complicated process, but voters ultimately rejected the bond proposal for it, he said. The jail eventually did expand, but in a different way, he noted. Now, the same dynamics are happening with public transit. Mogensen urged commissioners to take a step back, listen to concerns, then take leadership to move the county forward in a constructive way.

Joel Levitt said he’s been a resident of Ann Arbor for 40 years, and now his daughter, her husband and one-year-old grandchild are also living here. The health of the county depends on the health of Ann Arbor, he said. The city is the center for industry, commerce, health services and culture. For that to continue, the city can’t have poor and overcrowded roads and inadequate parking. There must be a superior public transit system from the city to every corner of the county, and improved services within the city as well.

Charlie Nielsen told commissioners that he’s the former Scio Township supervisor. He remembers the day when his son used to take the bus – when AATA used to provide service to Scio Township. It was invaluable in helping his son attend classes at Washtenaw Community College, he said. But Scio Township later couldn’t pay for the service, so it stopped. Nielsen noted that he serves on the advisory committee for the current countywide transit effort, and supports serving the whole county. One of the reasons he’s proud to live in this county is because of the human services that are provided, and countywide transit is in that same spirit. He noted that he’s president of the homeowners association for Scio Farms Estates, where many of the residents are getting older and could benefit from a public transit system. He urged commissioners to support it.

Waleed Howrani said he’d been a resident of Ann Arbor for 37 years. He finds it hard to believe that people aren’t doing more to save the environment. Resources should be used wisely, not recklessly. The auto industry doesn’t care about how many natural resources are dug up to build their cars, or about emissions from those vehicles. Howrani said he’s proud of the AATA. He’s taken public transportation in over 30 states, and no other system as as clean, efficient, and friendly. Although he does use Amtrak, he feels helpless when he needs to travel to neighboring towns and states. He loves that he can read on the bus and leave the driving to others. He noted that every bus can eliminate 50 cars from the road, and saves many lives as well.

Tad Wysor said he’s passionate about community organizing and mass transit. He lives in Ypsilanti Township and works in Ann Arbor, and said he’s blessed to have dependable buses on both ends of his commute, with bike racks. But for most folks, it’s not that easy. With residents struggling because of the economy, now is a great time to pull together, focus on common values, he said, and greatly improve mass transit in the county and beyond. He said he’s involved in a new coalition on the east side of the county involving clergy, labor and other community leaders. They haven’t yet decided how they’ll focus their efforts, but expanding and improving mass transit is one possible area. It’s hard for him to imagine an issue that would be more effective in helping the economy, he said. It could help connect employers and employees, get people to medical appointments and places of worship, and keep senior citizens more engaged in the community. Now’s the time to pull together and make it happen.

David Sponseller said there’s probably no one in the room who did more to help launch AATA than he did. In 1969, he spoke up to urge government leaders to support the public transit system. He encouraged his son to help promote it and urge residents to vote in favor of the millage. But that was a huge mistake, he said. He had no idea that although the system would grow, it would fail to win people over to use it. Less than 5% of people in Ann Arbor ride the bus, he said. People still love the convenience of their cars. Public transit is successful in areas that have high density – places like Toronto, Chicago and New York. But that’s not the case in Ann Arbor. Sponseller wondered how they can expect people in less dense parts of the county to embrace public transit, when Ann Arbor residents haven’t been won over. He argued that more energy is spent on fueling buses that have only one or two riders, than on cars. For the sake of avoiding costs that his grandchildren would have to pay, he urged the board to not support the project.

Larry Krieg of Ypsilanti Township said he was there to speak in favor of the agreement. For anyone who thinks the buses are empty, he urged them to ride one – it’s not the case that they’re empty, he said. Krieg, a retired faculty member at Washtenaw Community College, said he observed that if a WCC student’s car fails, then that student is likely to fail. Education is important for the entire county, as well as for individuals. Reliance on auto transportation also locks people out of the economic system, because many jobs require that you have a car, he said.

Countywide public transit will give people who don’t live in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti the chance to participate in the economic system, he continued. Krieg said he also supports expanded public transit because of his grandchildren. One of his children went to the east coast for a job, and another went to the west coast for the same reason, because the economy is more prosperous there. He’d prefer that his grandchildren wouldn’t have to make that choice, and could stay in Washtenaw County. The county needs a solid public transit system.

Nancy Kaplan talks with Joel Batterman of Partners in Transit before the start of the Aug. 1 county board of commissioners meeting. Kaplan, a member of the Ann Arbor District Library board, raised concerns about the proposed governance of a countywide transit authority.

Nancy Kaplan of Ann Arbor described expanded public transit as a great idea, but said she had several concerns about the proposed process. Some of those concerns relate to the board for the new authority. Board members aren’t required to be residents of the county, she noted, and there’s no real oversight of the board – it’s questionable representation without accountability, she said. Kaplan noted that several services outlined in the five-year transit plan have already been implemented by AATA, which shows that these services can be provided under the current system. The services include commuter bus from Ann Arbor to Chelsea and Canton, but she wondered why Ann Arbor pays for that, without contributions from the other two communities.

Why not test out interest in service levels by signing five-year point-of-service agreements with other communities? asked Kaplan. That would let people see if residents of those communities are willing to fund transit services, and if they’re satisfied with the service they get, she said. There are many other unknowns regarding process, scope and fare increases, Kaplan said. She asked commissioners to test it out for several years before committing to a new transit authority.

Jan Wright of Pittsfield Townshp supported the agreement. She lives two miles from the nearest bus line. She just turned 70 and is doing great, she said, but she knows that won’t always be the case. She’s not the only person in this situation. As the population ages, there are a lot of people who won’t want to be stuck in their homes or forced to move, she said. Wright also has strong concerns about climate change, especially after the strange weather we’ve been having over the past year. Public transit is a way to have sustainable transportation, she said. Gas prices will probably increase, and that’s another reason to support public transit.

Matthew Braman of Milan also supports expanded public transit. He grew up in this county, attended a state-funded public university here, but is continuing his professional career in New York City – in large part because he can’t continue to live in Milan and work in Ann Arbor. He described how his car broke down earlier this year, and he had to rent a car from a friend. He’s been working with the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI), and noted that ex-prisoners on parole are trying to find work and the community needs to find ways to help them succeed. Public transit would open up job opportunities in other communities.

Sayan Bhattacharyya told the board that he’s a graduate student at the University of Michigan. No one in his family had ever owned a car, and coming to Ann Arbor was the first time he’d seen snow. He’s afraid to drive in the winter, and that’s one reason why public transit is important. There are a lot of people like him, he said. When he graduates next year, he’ll be looking for a job, and part of the decision will be based on transportation choices. Bhattacharyya also said that he loves Ann Arbor because of its cultural offerings, but it’s frustrating that he can’t go to cultural events in places like Chelsea or Dexter unless he rents a Zipcar. He noted that he’s not a U.S. citizen so he can’t vote for them – a comment that elicited laughter from commissioners. He said he’d never been to a public forum like this, and had previously only read about democracy in action.

Robert Klingler said that about 18 months ago, he slipped on black ice and tore the tendon off his knee. It’s been humiliating, and he’s had to depend on services offered by AATA, including RideConnect. He lives just outside the Ann Arbor city limits, and taking the bus to work can take 45 minutes one way. It would be nice to catch a bus to go downtown, to restaurants, to church. If public transit were expanded, more people would come to Ann Arbor, he said. Klingler concluded by noting that the city and county are praised as good places to retire, but we’re not ready to accommodate retirees.

Countywide Transportation: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi, a Democrat who represents District 11 in Ann Arbor, began by thanking everyone who spoke during public commentary. He’s very much in favor of countywide transit – it’s desperately needed, and should have been expanded a while ago. He wanted to respond to some of the comments made during the public hearing. The idea that just because people love cars means that the community should give up public transit is like saying that because people like nicotine, we should give up on trying to quit smoking. We shouldn’t give up on public transit, he said. We should work to make it better.

Regarding empty buses, Rabhi said he used to regularly ride the Route 2 bus and during the winter, buses would be so packed that they would have to pass by people who were waiting at bus stops. There was no room for additional passengers. That’s not the case on all lines, but it’s not true that buses are empty. He noted that ridership is up on Route 4, between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, after AATA increased the frequency of bus service.

This is not the perfect plan, Rabhi continued, but you can’t expect perfection. It’s the start of the process, and moves the county in the right direction. It will make an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. He noted that he shared some concerns raised by Nancy Kaplan – saying he agreed that the AATA shouldn’t be providing service to Chelsea and Canton unless those communities are willing to pay for it. This new transit proposal does give Chelsea residents the opportunity to pay, he said, and he’ll continue to lobby AATA and ask them not to serve areas that don’t pay. But that’s not what the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation are about.

Today, the board will be creating a new entity, he said, and that entity will choose whether to put a proposal on the ballot for voters to decide. “This is direct democracy, folks,” Rabhi said. If Ann Arbor voters reject a funding proposal, then the broader public transit won’t happen. He said he supported the resolution before the board, and thinks it should move forward.

Rob Turner also thanked the public speakers. He’s been hearing from people in his district who are both for and against the proposal. [Turner, a Republican, represents District 1, which covers a large portion of western Washtenaw County, including Chelsea and Dexter.] Public transportation is important – it will help the county grow and prosper, and help people who are struggling to find jobs, he said.

Countywide Transportation: Board Discussion – Amendment

But Turner said he did have a major concern, and that’s why he was proposing an amendment to the articles of incorporation. [A written text of the amendment had been circulated by Conan Smith before the meeting started.] The original draft stipulated that a two-thirds majority of the new authority’s board would be required to amend the articles of incorporation. Turner’s amendment struck the two-thirds majority, and stipulated that a unanimous vote by the new authority’s board would be needed to make such changes. The amendment was seconded by Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Rob Turner, a Republican representing District 1 – covering the western part of Washtenaw County – was unable to convince a majority of his fellow commissioners to adopt an amendment he put forward for the articles of incorporation of a new transit authority.

Turner said that the directors of the new authority’s board could change the structure of the authority – so it could become something different than communities originally opted into, he said. His amendment would provide a safeguard against that, he said. Otherwise, he couldn’t support the articles of incorporation or four-party agreement.

Leah Gunn responded, saying the board has gone over and over these documents, and had given initial approval at their July meeting without amendments. The problem with amending it now is that it would then need to go back to the other three parties for re-approval, she said. Gunn also felt it was unfair to require unanimity. That’s a high bar, she noted, and it means that one jurisdiction could “destroy” everything. Ann Arbor is passing over a huge amount of assets to the new entity, she said, and Ann Arbor needs as much protection as other jurisdictions. [Gunn, a Democrat, represents District 9 in Ann Arbor.]

Gunn then proposed amending Turner’s amendment – striking “unanimous” and inserting “4/5 (12 out of 15) vote of the directors seated and serving.” Four-fifths is a very strong majority, she said. Her amendment was seconded by Rabhi.

Barbara Bergman said she agreed with Gunn. She also wondered if requiring unanimity was legal, and asked Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, for his opinion. He said he hadn’t had the chance to look at the question, but in general, whatever the four parties agreed to would be legal – though unanimity might make it more cumbersome to get things done.

Bergman said that one person could be easily swayed by a contractor, for example, and unanimity would make board members of the new authority extremely vulnerable to that kind of pressure. She said it scared her to think of the amount of capital that had been paid for with her tax dollars riding on the whim of one person.

Rabhi also supported Gunn’s amendment. As a practical matter, not every jurisdiction will opt in to the Act 7 districts that form the basis for the new authority, he said. So in some cases, it might be only one township that represents a district. If a unanimous vote of the authority’s board is required, that means that action could be blocked by just one small township, he said. Certainly the bar to change the articles of incorporation should be high, Rabhi said. Two-thirds is high, and four-fifths is even higher. He encouraged commissioners to support Gunn’s amendment.

Ping said she’d support Gunn’s amendment, but she wouldn’t be supporting the overall agreement. [Ping had voted against it at the July 11 meeting.] But she thought the agreement would pass, and a four-fifths majority would be the best option for the entire county.

Turner said he didn’t understand why Gunn could argue against his original amendment, saying that it would have to go back to the other three parties. Her amendment would also require that action, he noted. He shared the concern that Rabhi had mentioned – that one township could block a vote. But in his part of the county, one of the Act 7 districts comprises eight townships. That means that eight townships would be represented by only one director on the new authority’s board.

Any amendment to the articles of incorporation would change the structure of the new authority, Turner said. He added that this is the only instance in which he’s pushing for unanimity, because it’s an important safeguard. It’s a safeguard that might make the difference between a local entity joining the authority or not.

Wes Prater weighed in, saying these articles of incorporation should last a long time. Everyone should be on board, or it shouldn’t be done. The need for a unanimous vote might never come into play, he noted, or it might be very rare. He wanted to reject Gunn’s amendment and keep Turner’s.

Ronnie Peterson, a Democrat who represents District 6 in Ypsilanti and a portion of Ypsilanti Township, said he wanted to see the out-county jurisdictions participate in the new authority. But he found it difficult to see how unanimity could work effectively. On the other hand, he could see the difficulty of having rules change in midstream. Overall, he just hoped they could get this bus rolling.

Conan Smith said that the articles of incorporation only include five articles that state the board “shall do” certain things. The rest of the articles are characterized as “may do.” So the “shall do” items cause the greatest concern, he said. The first relates to jurisdictional boundaries and of the districts within the new authority, he said. Two other items have impact on the board makeup: Board qualifications that require a director to be a Washtenaw County resident, which the commissioners previously debated, and the board members’ terms and compensation.

Directors will serve without compensation, and people want to protect that, Smith said. [Smith did not mention this, but the articles of incorporation allow the residency requirement to be waived – that was an element of debate at the board's July 11 meeting.]

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

The fourth “shall” is the right of employees to collective bargaining, Smith said, and the fifth one provides pension protections to AATA employees who move to the new transit authority. On balance, the rest of the articles say “may do” or “may not do,” Smith contended. So the “shall” items are just those that would be impacted by a vote of the new authority’s board to change the articles of incorporation, he said. Setting the bar to require unanimity seems fair and reasonable, he added. Smith noted that he has served on boards that operate on a consensus basis. In cases like this new transit authority, it’s not too much to ask to make it as inclusive as possible and make sure everyone in the county has a fair say.

Gunn responded, saying she had no idea what Smith was talking about – his speech obfuscated the whole issue. The amendment being considered doesn’t apply to any specific article of incorporation. It would apply to all of them. She also noted that the idea of fairness works both ways. It’s important to be fair to the smaller communities, but also to larger communities that have “paid and paid and paid” – that’s the community she represents, Gunn said. A four-fifths majority should work.

Responding to Turner’s comment, Gunn said of course she was concerned that her amendment will also require that the documents be reconsidered by the other three parties. But she was trying to compromise, she said, because unanimity won’t work.

Directing his comments to Gunn, Prater said it’s true that Ann Arbor has paid and is contributing its assets, but it’s been Ann Arbor residents who have primarily used the AATA over these years. The AATA has also received a lot of state and federal grants, and that’s partly his tax dollars, Prater said. [Prater, a Democrat from York Township, represents District 4 covering the southeast side of the county.] He again urged support for Turner’s original amendment.

Bergman then called the question on Gunn’s amendment, a parliamentary move that forces a vote.

Outcome on Leah Gunn’s amendment to Rob Turner’s amendment: It passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent by Turner, Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec and Wes Prater.

Countywide Transportation: Board Discussion – Amended Documents

Peterson asked for clarification – the new authority’s board can amend the articles of incorporation at any time? That’s right, Hedger said. So the authority’s board could change any of this in the future? he asked. Yes, Hedger replied.

Felicia Brabec clarified with Hedger that the vote before them was to accept the amendment requiring a four-fifths majority to alter the articles of incorporation, or to keep the original two-thirds majority requirement, which has already been approved by the other three parties. She said she appreciated Gunn’s attempt to compromise, but she was struggling with it. She generally likes to compromise, but would have preferred Turner’s original amendment. She’d support the four-fifths compromise, because she didn’t agree at all with requiring just a two-thirds majority.

Turner said he’d support the amendment, because it will provide additional safeguards for the articles of incorporation, which he felt the board would ultimately approve. But he said he’d now be voting against the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, when it came for a vote later in the meeting.

Outcome on vote to amend the articles of incorporation: Commissioners unanimously passed the amendment requiring a four-fifths majority to change the articles of incorporation.

Later in the meeting, the board considered the resolution to approve the four-party agreement and the amended articles of incorporation. Dan Smith said he had applauded the AATA for taking a leadership role in this effort. He noted that he has no problem with the notion of public transit – he used it when he lived in the Netherlands and in Germany. The role that the county board is being asked to play puts them in the middle of this process, he noted, and it’s largely a ministerial role. They are being asked to adopt articles of incorporation that will last a very long time. He didn’t see the board’s role as saying public transit is good or bad, or as lobbying for or against it, or as determining the services that a new entity might provide. Commissioners’ role is to put a new authority in place so that the authority’s board can make those decisions.

Smith said he wasn’t satisfied about the articles of incorporation for reasons that he had elaborated on at the July 11 meeting and the previous working session. For those reasons, he said, he’d be voting no.

From left: County commissioner Wes Prater and Charlie Nielsen, former Scio Township supervisor.

Wes Prater read a one-page statement about the process. He stated that as of today, the AATA was not in compliance with the section of the four-party agreement that requires the AATA to publish details about the new entity’s service and funding plan in local newspapers. Until that happens, he said, the board shouldn’t approve the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. “Without the details,” he said, “it’s like buying a pig in a poke.”

He noted that the articles of incorporation don’t state a date for the new authority to become operative and for the articles of incorporation to take effect. Not setting that date is a violation of state statute, he contended. This information is critical for local governments to know as they decide whether to opt out or participate in the new authority. He also argued that the sections in the articles of incorporation that provide ways to dissolve the authority should be removed, because these methods of dissolving the authority have no standing under Act 196. He cited a December 1998 opinion issued by former attorney general Frank Kelly to support that fact.

All of these issues should be resolved before the county board adopts the four-party agreement or articles of incorporation, Prater said.

Rob Turner described it as a difficult situation. All he hears from Leah Gunn is how much Ann Arbor has contributed and how much Ann Arbor would be sacrificing. It doesn’t sound like a countywide authority, he said. It sounds like an Ann Arbor authority that’s allowing other local governments to join. He said he’d be voting no, and that it breaks his heart. He hopes that the new authority will be more inclusive in the future. He’ll now have to go to the governing entities in his district and make sure they know the dangers. People in his district had told him that it would be an Ann Arbor authority, and he had told them it would be countywide. Now that will be thrown in his face, Turner said. He thought his amendment would pass, but he now believes it will be an Ann Arbor authority – he’s afraid those people were right.

Barbara Bergman said she was sorry for Turner’s sad heart, but she’s been paying taxes in Ann Arbor for the last 32 years, and that’s been a fairly substantial amount. She’ll be paying even more, if voters approve an additional transit tax. But everyone has skin in the game, she said – this isn’t just an Ann Arbor system.

Conan Smith observed that a different governance model would have guaranteed other things, but they would have to trust that directors of the new authority will do what’s best.

Felicia Brabec said she’d been reassured by AATA leadership about concerns she’d raised regarding her district of Pittsfield Township. People in her district were excited about expanded transit. She hoped Turner’s concerns would be laid to rest as the process unfolds.

Prater said he wanted to get another two cents in. It doesn’t matter what the county board does, he said – as soon as the new authority’s board is in place, that board can do whatever it wants. ”We can wail about it all we want to, but they can.”

At that point, Yousef Rabhi called the question.

Outcome: On a 6-4 vote, commissioners gave final approval to the four-party agreement and amended articles of incorporation that set the foundation to form a new transit authority. Voting against the resolution were Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rob Turner and Dan Smith. The documents will now need to be reconsidered by the other three parties – the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the AATA board.

2nd Quarter Financial Update

Tina Gavalier, Washtenaw County’s finance analyst, gave a second-quarter financial update that showed an improved outlook from her first-quarter presentation to the board in mid-May. The county’s fiscal year is based on a calendar year – the update covered the first six months of 2012, through June. [.pdf of chart showing general fund projections]

As she did for the first-quarter update, county administrator Verna McDaniel again introduced the presentation by saying that the main message is still “stay the course.”

Second-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Revenues

Revenues for the general fund are now projected to be about $2.085 million more than budgeted – due primarily to about $2.5 million more in property tax revenues than originally anticipated. Total revenues for the 2012 general fund are expected to reach $100.83 million. [The board had received the news about the higher property tax revenues at its April 18, 2012 meeting, when the county equalization report was presented.]

Gavalier reviewed some of the revenue variances for specific units. Revenues for the sheriff’s office are projected to be about $835,116 less than budgeted. Much of that amount is caused primarily by delayed implementation of the county’s dispatch consolidation with the city of Ann Arbor. [At its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a $759,089 annual contract with the county, which was supposed to start in March of 2012. Hiring is underway, but the consolidation hasn't yet happened.] Other items that contributed to the shortfall include no revenue so far for towing contract administration fees (contract amendments are in progress) and lower-than-projected concessions revenue for the corrections service center lobby coffee shop and other food venues.

Projected revenues for the Washtenaw County Trial Court also are falling short of budgeted amounts by about $208,000, primarily because of lower-than-budgeted court equity funds that are disbursed by the state. A projected shortfall of about $114,000 in the 14A District Court is due to lower court fees and fines, attributed to a declining trend in case filings.

Second-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Expenditures

Gavalier reminded commissioners of amendments they made to the budget in late 2011 and early 2012. At their Dec. 7, 2011 meeting, commissioners voted to reinstate $128,538 in funds for human services nonprofits – administered via the coordinated funding model – that had previously been cut from the budget. On Jan. 18, 2012, the board voted to approve the consolidated dispatch between the county and city of Ann Arbor, and authorized the creation of 15 full-time positions. That vote increased the budget – on both the revenue and expenditure sides – by about $1.4 million. Also, at their Feb. 15, 2012 meeting, commissioners approved a $165,000 expenditure increase as part of a new contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, for animal control services through 2012.

Chart showing Washtenaw County general fund projection as of June 30, 2012.

Regarding overall expenditures, Gavalier reported that expenses are $808,251 more than budgeted for the general fund. That’s due in part to higher-than-expected costs in the sheriff’s office from greater use of part‐time temporary workers and overtime, operating supplies, and jail medical/food contracts.

General fund expenditure projections include an assumption that there would be a lump sum expense reduction of $2.481 million for the year – an amount that’s not specific to any particular department, but that would be gained from across the organization. So far, $1 million in reductions have been identified, due to the high number of retirements last year (118) with 97 of those coming in the last quarter of 2011. The savings come from several unfilled positions following those retirements, as well as from lower salary and fringe benefit costs for new employees replacing the retirees.

However, some of those savings have been offset by increases in part‐time temporary costs and increased fringe benefit costs. A high number of medical claims were made over the last five months of 2011, Gavalier reported. Since there’s typically a six-month processing delay for those claims, most are being paid in 2012. Changes in the county’s employee medical plan are expected to contribute to the lump sum reductions later this year, she said. Overall, only about $282,000 in net lump sum reductions have been realized so far this year – about the same amount as was reported in the first-quarter update. More reductions are anticipated to be recorded in the third quarter, she said.

The 2012 budget had anticipated a surplus of $1.889 million, but the administration is projecting a surplus of $1,277,318 – a significant increase from the $272,238 that had been projected in the first quarter. That surplus is intended to carry over into the 2013 fund balance. The county faces a $612,065 shortfall in the amount it had budgeted for the fund balance contribution.

Second-Quarter Budget Update: Non-General Fund Items

Gavalier also reviewed several county operations that are not supported by general fund revenues. Units that are projected to show a surplus include child care, facilities management, Friend of the Court (due to trial court consolidation and cost containment efforts), public/environmental health, building inspection, and risk management units. Units that are on budget include the office of community & economic development, the prosecuting attorney’s office, and the office of veteran’s relief.

One unit – programs supported by the Act 88 millage, related to economic development – is projecting a shortfall, but had budgeted to use its fund balance in 2012 to cover the overage, Gavalier said.

Second-Quarter Budget Update: Issues to Watch

Gavalier listed out several areas that the administration is monitoring closely, including some that she had highlighted in her first-quarter update. Medical costs are difficult to project, because the trend of claims is evolving under the new medical plans for employees. The budget was developed based in part on projected costs provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield, Gavalier noted. But because the county is self‐insured, it pays the actual costs of its employees’ medical claims. July was the first month that the county started to see how claims have adjusted under the new medical plans, so the third quarter of this year – from July through September – will show a better reflection of actual savings.

Another area to watch relates to state revenue-sharing and the state’s new economic vitality incentive program, intended as a replacement to revenue sharing. Gavalier reminded commissioners that the county’s revenue-sharing reserve fund will be depleted in 2013. The state’s adopted budget includes a partial allocation to Washtenaw County in 2013 of $1,177,601, if the county meets three specific areas of compliance incentives: (1) accountability and transparency; (2) consolidation of services; and (3) employee compensation with defined eligibility requirements outlined for each area.

Personal property tax (PPT) reform legislation is another uncertainty, Gavalier said. There will be an impact, but the magnitude is uncertain. Currently, PPT revenue for the county is $5.6 million. Current versions of bills to repeal the PPT  include reductions in tax revenue starting in 2013 of about $390,000 for industrial and commercial properties, with additional reductions phased in each year through 2022.

Gavalier also reported that the county’s annual actuarial valuations for its retirement plan (the Washtenaw Employees Retirement System, or WERS) and retiree health benefits (the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA) will be completed this summer. With 118 retirements in 2011, there will certainly be a cost impact to those plans, she said. The valuations might also increase the cost of fringe benefits for active employees too.

In addition, the county expects to complete a cost allocation plan (CAP) by this summer, Gavalier said, outlining how much each department will be accessed. CAP is an amount charged to each county department for things like the county attorney and administration. CAP amounts have been waived or frozen in recent years, but will be adjusted for the 2012-2013 budget cycle.

2nd Quarter Financial Update: Board Discussion

Barbara Bergman referred back to the budget adjustments that had been made earlier this year, and pointed out that the adjustment of an additional $165,000 for animal control services was higher than the additional $128,538 for human services. She wanted other commissioners to think about that. She noted that most public employees choose their jobs not because of large salaries, but because of the satisfaction it gives them to be public servants. Bergman expressed concern that people might no longer be able to afford that choice, if they’re asked for more labor concessions. She indicated that’s the context in which the board should consider its allocation for animal control services. [For recent background on that issue, see Chronicle coverage: "Revenue Options Eyed for Animal Control."]

In response to a question from Conan Smith, Gavalier reported that individual budget item adjustments of less than $100,000 were not reflected in her presentation. For amounts less than $100,000, county administrator Verna McDaniel has the authority to approve those adjustments.

Rob Turner told Gavalier that after her first-quarter update, he had been concerned about the county’s ability to reach the surplus they needed to carry over into 2013. Now, the projection is much better and he feels more comfortable that they can attain that amount, he said. Gavalier indicated that the finance staff feels better about it, too.

Leah Gunn thanked Gavalier for the clarity of her presentation. The increase in property values is good news, she said.

Alicia Ping asked about the shortfall for Act 88 programs. Conan Smith explained that there had been a budgeting error when the county allocated $15,000 to the Food System Economic Partnership. That’s now being handled by tapping the Act 88 fund balance to cover the $15,000 allocation. Ping didn’t feel that was a great answer – because only the revenues coming from the Act 88 millage should be expended.

Wes Prater clarified with Gavalier that although there’s currently a general fund surplus, the amount of that surplus is less than the county had budgeted to carry over into 2013.

Outcome: This was a presentation only – no board action was required.

Mid-Year Budget Adjustment

Commissioners were asked to approve a $1,263,994 mid-year adjustment to its 2012 general fund budget, bringing the 2012 general fund budget to $101,162,770.

The adjustment includes equal increases in revenues and expenditures. The additional revenues come primarily from higher-than-projected property tax revenues of $2,417,690. The main increase in expenditures comes from an increase in personnel costs over the budgeted amount for 2012. The original budget had anticipated labor savings of $2,481,008 – but the bulk of those reductions have not yet materialized. The county did realize more than $1 million in reduced labor costs due to 118 retirements in 2011. However, that savings has been offset by increased part-time temporary costs and increased fringe benefits costs related to medical claims made during the last six months of 2011, which are being paid in 2012.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the recommended mid-year budget adjustments.

Treasurer’s Report

Catherine McClary, Washtenaw County treasurer, presented an annual foreclosure report as well as a mid-year investment update.

She told commissioners that her major goal is to protect and safeguard public funds. Through June 30, 2012, her office has brought in $5.268 million in revenues. Sources include investment earnings ($415,309), delinquent taxes and fees ($3,307,004), accommodation tax ($1,497,340), dog licenses ($33,872) and tax searches ($14,656). She’s projecting revenues of about $10.5 million for the full year.

McClary said she manages about $154 million for the county, diversified by investment type, institution and maturity date. Cash and investments are allocated in the following way: CDs, CDARs, money market accounts ($59.833 million); commercial paper ($3 million); treasuries and agencies ($16.5 million); Michigan municipal bonds ($52.7 million); and bank accounts ($22.172 million).

McClary noted that in previous years, investments were laddered out over five to seven years. But with investment rates lower, she’d now taking a “barbell” approach, with shorter-term and longer-term investments. Although the average weighted yield of the county’s investment is below 1% – at 0.526% – she noted that it is well above the three-month Treasury benchmark of 0.09%.

Last year, McClary recalled, she had told the board that she expected interest rates to remain low, and that her strategy would be to increase safety and flexibility while reducing expenses. She noted that Congress authorized unlimited FDIC insurance on certain bank accounts through the end of 2012, so the county is taking advantage of that. By maintaining cash reserves in an insured account, the county is foregoing interest earnings in favor of an “earnings credit” that covers all of the county’s bank fees. This approach has saved the county’s general fund more than $80,000 annually, she said.

Conan Smith asked if McClary benchmarked Washtenaw County’s investment performance to other counties. McClary said that the county board’s investment policy had prioritized safety, and she didn’t know if that was true for other counties.

Treasurer’s Report: Foreclosures

McClary also gave her annual report on foreclosures, as required by state law. She noted that her office has been able to prevent many foreclosures through its tax and mortgage foreclosure prevention programs. Her report focused on tax foreclosures, because the county treasurer’s office is the governmental entity tasked with administering the tax foreclosure process.

The report shows a lag – because it reflects properties with unpaid taxes from 2007 that were auctioned in 2010, with excess proceeds reported as of May 31, 2012. This process is required by state law, to allow time for complete closure on the properties, McClary said.

For unpaid 2007 taxes, the process generally worked like this (the process is the same for any given year):

• 2007 taxes in any local jurisdiction in Washtenaw County that were unpaid by March 1, 2008, were declared delinquent. The county treasurer was then responsible for those taxes. A 4% administrative fee was added to the taxes, and interest started to accrue at 12% per year (1% per month). On Oct. 1, 2008 a $15 fee was added.
• On Nov. 1, 2008 the property was added to a preliminary forfeiture list. If taxes were still unpaid by Feb. 1, 2009, then mortgage lenders and banks could be notified.
• On March 1, 2009, a minimum of $205 in fees could be added to each property, and the properties were forfeited to the county treasurer. The interest rate was increased to 18% per year, retroactive to March 1, 2008.
• In June 2009, the treasurer filed foreclosure petitions in the 22nd Circuit Court.
• Between June 1, 2009 and Jan. 31, 2010, title research was conducted to identify owners and lienholders. In some cases, a personal visit was made to the forfeited property. Mortgage lenders, banks and other lienholders were notified.
• In early 2010, a show cause hearing was held. That led to a court hearing in February 2010 when the circuit court judge signed foreclosure orders. By March 31, 2010, redemption rights expire if taxes aren’t paid, and the property ownership transfers to the county treasurer.
• Property was sold at action in July 2010. The prior owner doesn’t receive any proceeds.

After two years of being unable to recover costs at tax foreclosure auctions, McClary reported net positive proceeds from 2010 of $102,746. That amount is available this year for transfer to the county’s general fund.

Interest on these properties goes into the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund. After delinquent tax notes are matured and paid off, any leftover funds are transferred to the county’s capital projects fund and used to pay the debt service of other bonds committed by the board of commissioners. In 2010 and 2011, a total of $11.2 million was transferred from the delinquent tax revolving funds to the capital projects fund. These amounts are counter-cyclical, McClary noted – they are higher when the economy is bad, and lower when the economy improves and fewer properties go into tax foreclosure.

McClary said the county is seeing better times, and appears to be pulling out of its economic trough. A leading indicator of that is delinquent taxes, which are down 20% this year, she said.

McClary also reported that the first tax foreclosure auction of 2012 went well, with 45% of the properties sold. About 80% of the buyers listed zip codes in Washtenaw County, she said, noting that it’s a positive for our neighborhoods when the buyers are local.

Treasurer’s Report: Foreclosures – Board Discussion

Dan Smith observed that the nearly $103,000 in net proceeds is a mixed bag. While it’s good for the county’s general fund, it still reflects the fact that some people lost their properties through foreclosure. McClary said that’s why she’s proud of her office’s tax foreclosure prevention program, which helps people avoid that end result.

Ronnie Peterson said he knew that McClary had prevented a lot of tax foreclosures in his district, but activity was still very high there. Over the past few years, hundreds of homes had been lost to foreclosure. [Peterson represents District 6, which covers primarily the city of Ypsilanti.] Houses sold at auction were extremely reasonable for the market, he said – some selling as low as a few thousand dollars. He wondered how the county might partner with another agency to secure some of these properties for housing families in need.

McClary said she’d like to pursue the idea of a revolving loan fund. She’d be willing to sit down with her staff and do an analysis of properties that have been sold at auction over the last few years. The city of Ypsilanti had approached her office and partnered to have open houses of the properties before auction, she reported. This year there were 10 open houses – it’s a way of encouraging local people to buy, she said. McClary noted that the county and city recently received an award for the project from the National Association of Counties.

Peterson observed that some of his business colleagues get concerned when the government gets involved in the housing market. But he noted that the government already is involved – by funding the homeless shelter. If families can be put in housing, it would help stabilize neighborhoods and bring prosperity to the community, he said.

CUB Agreements Suspended

For the second time in the past 12 months, commissioners were asked to suspend the county’s use of Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreements.

CUB agreements are a type of project labor agreements (PLA), negotiated between local trade unions and contractors. CUB agreements require that contractors who sign the agreement abide by terms of collective bargaining agreements for the duration of the construction project. In return, the trade unions agree that they will not strike, engage in work slow-downs, set up separate work entrances at the job site or take any other adverse action against the contractor.

The county board first suspended its CUB policy in September 2011, pending the outcome of litigation that’s challenging the validity of the state’s Public Act 98 of 2011. That law, which took effect on July 19, 2011, prohibited municipalities from including as a requirement in a construction contract anything that would either require or prohibit contractors from entering into agreements with collective bargaining organizations. The act also prohibited discrimination against contractors based on willingness or non-willingness to enter into such agreements.

The law was challenged in federal court by the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO and the Genesee, Lapeer, Shiawassee Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. They sought to rule the law invalid, contending that it was pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act.

The county board’s September 2011 resolution suspending its CUB also also stated that if the state law was overturned by a state or federal Court, the county would automatically reinstate its CUB agreement policy. That happened in March of 2012, when the judge for the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the state law was unenforceable. At that time, the county’s CUB immediately was reinstated, without additional action by the county board.

Instead of appealing that decision, the state legislature made revisions to the law, which took effect on June 29, 2012 as Public Act 238 of 2012. The new law revised several aspects of the previous version, but generally prohibits the use of CUB agreements.

According to a staff memo, the unions that filed the initial lawsuit seeking to invalidate the original version of the law are expected to file suit again to have the revised version invalidated. Meanwhile, the new law led the county board again to suspend its CUB agreement. The resolution on the Aug. 1 agenda was nearly identical to the one passed by the board in September of 2011. It suspends the county’s CUB requirement pending the outcome of any litigation challenging the validity of the new state law.

The city of Ann Arbor has taken similar action related to CUB agreements, most recently at the city council’s July 16, 2012 meeting.

CUB Agreements Suspended: Board Discussion

Dan Smith said he would reluctantly support the resolution. There were a couple of the resolved clauses that he didn’t like – Smith didn’t specify which ones – but based on the advice of the county’s corporation counsel [Curtis Hedger], he’d support it.

Rob Turner confirmed with Hedger that this resolution suspending the CUB agreements is similar to the previous one that the board discussed and passed in September 2011. Yes, Hedger replied, it’s almost identical – a temporary suspension until state or federal courts find the new law invalid.

Turner noted that suspending the agreements temporarily will prevent the county from legal entanglements. The building trades were planning to take the government to court on this, he said. Turner added that he liked the section of the board’s resolution that stated the county supports these labor agreements and will reinstate them if possible.

Yousef Rabhi agreed, saying he very much supported CUB agreements and he doesn’t agree with the state law. The only reason he could support this resolution was because it included a resolved clause similar to the one that he had proposed through an amendment at the September 2011 meeting. [That resolved clause states that "upon such time as it is permitted under State and/or Federal law or otherwise ruled legal by a State and/or Federal Court, it is understood that the County will immediately reinstate its CUB Agreement policy."]

Felicia Brabec said she echoed Rabhi’s sentiments. She asked Hedger what’s to stop the legislature from repeating this cycle? Hedger replied that the current legislature is determined to remove this type of agreement. He assumed the unions would sue again. It’s difficult for the county, Hedger said, because many projects are in the process of soliciting bids. The county must follow the law. “I don’t know if there’s an easy answer,” he said.

Wes Prater said he also believed the building trades would be challenging this law in court – as the new law is very similar to the one that was struck down in court, he noted. Probably the same process will happen again and again, until Gov. Rick Snyder gets tired of signing legislation that the courts rule is unconstitutional and “stops this silliness.”

Outcome: On an 8-2 vote, commissioners voted to suspend the county’s use of CUB agreements, with dissent from Alicia Ping and Ronnie Peterson. Neither stated their objection to the resolution. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.

Change to Accommodations Ordinance

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a change in the county’s accommodations ordinance, exempting bed & breakfasts and cottages from the 5% accommodations tax. In addition to exempting cottages and bed & breakfasts with less than 14 rooms, the change also exempts individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

According to the county treasurer’s report to the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, in 2011 the county collected $3.99 million in accommodation taxes. The money is primarily distributed to the county’s two convention & visitors bureaus (CVBs) – in Ann Arbor ($2.69 million in 2011) and Ypsilanti ($898,563). The county treasurer retains 10% of the tax to cover collection and enforcement expenses.

The ordinance changes received initial approval by the county board at their July 11, 2012 meeting, and several B&B owners spoke in support of the proposal.

The changes had been recommended for approval by the accommodation ordinance commission (AOC) in June. A staff memo states that the AOC had recently reviewed enforcement and administrative costs, and did not believe it was cost effective to enforce the ordinance with these smaller establishments. The staff memo also states that the local CVBs support this change, in part because the CVBs do not actively market these establishments.

No one spoke at a public hearing on the ordinance change. Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, attended the meeting but did not formally address to the board.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the accommodations ordinance change. 

Photo IDs for Veterans

The county board was asked to approve a proposal from county clerk Larry Kestenbaum that allows the clerk’s office to issue veteran photo ID cards for a $10 fee.

County commissioner Barbara Bergman.

According to a staff memo, county clerks in Michigan are permitted to record military discharge certificates for veterans. Those certificates – called DD-214s – are bulky and can’t be carried around easily. A veteran’s ID card would serve the same purpose, allowing veterans to show more easily a proof of service – to take advantage of discounts for veterans offered by businesses. The memo notes that $10 photo IDs are currently offered in Livingston, Oakland and Macomb counties.

The $10 fee would cover the cost of printing the card, which would be handled by the clerk’s vital records division. Start-up costs are estimated at $100. The county clerk/register of deeds office is located at 200 N. Main in downtown Ann Arbor.

Photo IDs for Veterans: Board Discussion

Barbara Bergman recalled that in the past, the clerk’s office offered ID cards at little or no cost to people who needed the cards to get certain government benefits. She wondered if that program was extant – if it wasn’t, she hoped it could be re-instituted. County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d check with the county clerk and report back to the board.

Yousef Rabhi asked whether veterans could use the photo IDs as voter identification. Michael Smith, director of veteran services for the county, replied that this ID primarily could be used for discounts at private businesses, but not as a voter ID. Companies like Lowe’s, Home Depot and restaurants often offered discounts to veterans, but require proof of service, he said. The U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs doesn’t offer an ID card of this type – discharge papers are used in order to obtain government benefits, but there’s nothing that can be used conveniently to show proof of service for other reasons.

There’s a need, Smith said, and this service fills that need, while also bringing in a little revenue to the county. He thanked the clerk’s office for taking the initiative on this.

Smith also said the board had been very brave in authorizing an 0.025-mill tax to pay for services for indigent veterans. If veterans were unable to afford the $10 fee for the photo ID, Smith said his office would be happy to cover that cost. He offered to work with the clerk to come up with a waiver, if needed.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to allow the county clerk’s office to issue veteran photo ID cards.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan

Commissioners were asked to approve a brownfield financing plan for a $39 million residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of brownfield plan]

Previously approved by the Ann Arbor city council on June 18, the project’s brownfield tax increment finance (TIF) plan works in conjunction with a $650,000 TIF grant (paid over a period of four years) awarded by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board at its June 6, 2012.

Dan Ketelaar, developer of 618 S. Main, a proposed 7-story apartment complex in downtown Ann Arbor.

Both the brownfield TIF and the DDA grant work in a similar way – in that the developer must build the project and pay the new taxes on the project, in order to receive the financial benefit. The brownfield plan includes developer reimbursements of $3.7 million over 26 years. Also during that period, the plan includes $462,864 of tax capture for administrative fees to support the operation of the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority. An additional $457,741 of tax increment proceeds will be contributed to the Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund.

Work covered by the brownfield plan includes: site investigations for characterization of soils and dewatering if water is encountered during excavation; disposal of soils; demolition of buildings and removal of existing site improvements; lead and asbestos abatement; infrastructure improvements like water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer upgrades, street repair and improvements to streets; and site preparation like staking, geotechnical engineering, clearing and grubbing.

According to a staff memo, the project will create 80-100 temporary construction jobs, and 4-5 full-time, and 6 or more part-time, permanent jobs. Taxes from the Washtenaw County annual millage will increase from about $2,028 to $69,614 after the tax increment financing period is completed.

The 7-story building will include 190 units – which will be marketed to young professionals – plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan: Public Hearing

The only speaker at the public hearing was the project’s developer, Dan Ketelaar. He described various aspects of the project, noting that his team has been working on it since November of 2010. The Ann Arbor planning commission had approved the development in January of 2012, followed by city council approval in June. The market niche for young professionals isn’t being addressed in downtown Ann Arbor, Ketelaar said, and this project will satisfy that need. He described it as a gateway project, close to a highway yet walkable to downtown and the University of Michigan campus.

When the three minutes for his speaking turn ended, board chair Conan Smith asked if there were any objections to allowing Ketelaar to continue. There weren’t any, and Ketelaar spoke for a few more minutes.

Ketelaar told commissioners that he had met with several local groups, including the Old West Side Association and the city’s design review board. In response to neighbors’ concerns about parking, the project doubled the number of parking space on site, he said. The project and related streetscape improvements will improve the pedestrian experience in that part of town, Ketelaar said, and encourage redevelopment of other property. He urged the board to support the plan.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked whether the development included any affordable housing. Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager at the office of community & economic development, replied that there would be no subsidized or public housing – most of the units would be priced around the range that’s considered affordable for the area median income. [Median income for one person in metro Ann Arbor – a region covering all of Washtenaw County – is $60,500. For a two-person household, the area median income is $69,100.] Lenart noted that the city of Ann Arbor’s site plan approval for this project did not have an affordable housing requirement.

Brabec called it an amazing project, but was concerned that young professionals couldn’t live there because the rent would be too high. When she moved to this area 10 years ago, she would have loved to live in a development like this, but with student loans, it would not have been possible. She said she’s not alone in that.

Dan Smith said he’d support the plan, but he still had the same concerns that the board had discussed at previous meetings and working sessions regarding brownfields and downtown development authorities. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Packard Square Brownfield Project Debated."] He noted that county taxes would be diverted because of the brownfield TIF financing. And although the plan requires approval by the Ann Arbor city council and county board, Smith pointed out that other taxing entities – including the Washtenaw Community College, Ann Arbor District Library and Washtenaw Intermediate School District – would also see a portion of their taxes diverted, yet their governing bodies have no say in the matter. The same is true of public school districts, indirectly.

Yousef Rabhi thanked Ketelaar for his work, and praised the project’s outreach efforts, green amenities, and the fact that it was adding needed housing to the downtown area. He also thanked the Ann Arbor DDA, for contributing to public upgrades related to the project. He wished Ketelaar good luck and success, and he hoped the project would bring energy to the downtown. But his concern comes from his heart, Rabhi said – the issue of accessible, affordable housing. The issue “should have been thrown into the batter before the cake was in the oven,” he said. At this point, all he could do is voice his opinion in the form of a no vote.

Rabhi said he’d be working proactively with county staff on this type of project to ensure that the downtown is accessible to all income levels. He concluded by saying that his vote isn’t a no-confidence vote against the process, but rather a vote that reflected his other concerns.

Outcome: On an 8-2 vote, the board approved the brownfield plan for 618 S. Main in Ann Arbor, with dissent from Felicia Brabec and Yousef Rabhi. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.

Weatherization Grant

On the Aug. 1 agenda was a resolution to accept $289,800 in additional federal funds for the county’s weatherization program. The funds will allow the county to weatherized 26 housing units for low-income residents.

The money is available through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as the federal stimulus program. It’s a redistribution of funding that had previously been awarded to other communities but was not used. In total since 2009, Washtenaw County has received $5,053,338 in ARRA funding for its weatherization program, and has served 721 housing units. The program is administered through the office of community and economic development, a joint county/city of Ann Arbor department.

According to a staff memo, weatherization services include “outreach and intake, pre-inspection of homes, air leakage testing, health and safety evaluations, furnace assessments, refrigerator efficiency testing, post-inspection of the completed work and consumer education on how to keep one’s home weatherized and energy efficient. Licensed and approved contractors provide procurement and installation of weatherization materials including attic and wall insulation, air sealing, window repairs, furnace tune-ups and high efficiency furnace installations.”

To be eligible for the program, residents must have an income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, or 60% of the state median income (whichever is lower). That translates to annual incomes less than $22,911 for a single person or $44,700 for a family of four. Residents who receive federal Supplemental Security Income, state disability assistance or who are part of the Family Independence Program are automatically eligible for the weatherization program.

Weatherization Grant: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked about indirect costs – the staff memo indicated that indirect costs for this grant were not included in the budget. Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager at the office of community & economic development, told Brabec that because it will be part of a program that the county already runs, there would be no indirect costs to increase the program’s budget.

Wes Prater said he hoped the grant would fund weatherization in owner-occupied homes, rather than rental properties. Lenart indicated that the “vast majority” of the projects would occur in owner-occupied homes.

Outcome: The resolution related to weatherization funding passed unanimously.

Public Commentary

In addition to the public commentary and public hearings reported above, Joel Levitt of Ann Arbor spoke during general public commentary about the need for a graduated, progressive income tax that would replace excise taxes in Michigan. He noted that last year, the state Democratic convention adopted a resolution to work to change the state constitution so that such a tax could be instituted. Property taxes made sense long ago, when property was the basis for wealth, he said. But that’s not the case today. Excise taxes on products like gasoline make it even more difficult for struggling families. He urged commissioners to pass a resolution supporting an improved financing system for the state, and said he planned to ask the Ann Arbor city council to do the same.

Responding to his commentary, Barbara Bergman said she agreed with his premise, but that the county board isn’t the forum for this kind of resolution. They generally don’t take up “political” resolutions, she said, but that didn’t mean his comments had fallen on deaf ears. She said she personally supported it.

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

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

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

Before the final vote, the board made an amendment to the articles of incorporation – an action that means the amended document must now return for re-approval by the other parties in the agreement: the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which both would contribute existing millages to the new authority, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is spearheading this effort and would shift its assets to the new entity. The governing bodies of those three parties had previously approved the transit documents, after going through their own amendment process. AATA staff indicated that the documents will likely be on the Ann Arbor city council’s Aug. 20 agenda, and on the Aug. 21 agenda for the Ypsilanti city council. The next meeting for the AATA board is Aug. 16. [.pdf of pre-amended four-party agreement and articles of incorporation]

The county board had given initial approval at its July 11 meeting, after a lengthy debate and a split 7-4 vote with dissent by Ping, Prater, Turner and Dan Smith. At that meeting, several amendments proposed by commissioner Dan Smith were discussed, but none of the amendments secured enough votes to pass. Those amendments had been similar to those that Smith had put forward at a three hour working session on June 14.

At the Aug. 1 meeting, Turner proposed a new amendment to the articles of incorporation. The original draft stipulated that a two-thirds majority of the new authority’s board would be required to amend the articles of incorporation. Turner’s amendment would have stipulated that a unanimous vote by the new authority’s board would be needed to make such changes. Leah Gunn offered a compromise – a four-fifths majority, or 12 of the authority’s 15 board members. That amendment to Turner’s amendment passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent by Turner, Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec and Wes Prater. The vote on the amended amendment – requiring the four-fifths majority – passed unanimously.

Turner felt his original amendment offered safeguards for smaller communities. It’s possible for communities to decide to join the new transit authority, only to have the articles of incorporation – the “rules of the game” – changed after they’ve joined, he said. If his amendment had been approved, Turner said he would have supported the 4-party agreement and articles of incorporation. He said it no longer seemed like a countywide authority – it seemed like an Ann Arbor system that others could join. That saddened him, he said.

The county would not be contributing assets or a millage to the new authority. Nor would the county board be asked to put a countywide millage request on the ballot. Rather, the county’s role would be for the county clerk to file articles of incorporation with the state – an action to create a transit authority under Michigan Act 196. When formed, the Act 196 board would have authority to put a funding proposal on the ballot for voters to consider. A financial advisory group that’s been working on this effort has suggested that revenues equivalent to a 0.5 mill tax would be needed to cover the cost of expanded services for the first five years. [.pdf of financial advisory group report]

For the most recent general Chronicle coverage of transit issues, see: “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”

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

From left: Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator; and Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith. Smith proposed several amendments to the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, which form the foundation for a new county public transit authority. All of the amendments were defeated. (Photos by the writer.)

After a 2.5-hour debate, county commissioners on a 7-4 vote gave initial approval to a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation that lay the foundation for a broader public transit authority in this area – tentatively called the Washtenaw Ride Transportation Authority. Voting against the agreement and articles of incorporation were Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rob Turner. The board also set an Aug. 1 public hearing to gather feedback on the agreement. A final vote is expected to take place at that Aug. 1 meeting.

The other parties in the agreement include the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which both would contribute existing millages to the new authority. The fourth party to the agreement is the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is spearheading this effort and would shift about $200 million in assets to the new entity. The governing bodies of those three parties have already approved the transit documents. [.pdf of four-party agreement and articles of incorporation]

The board debated several amendments put forward by Dan Smith, but none of the amendments secured enough votes to pass. One of the main arguments against making any changes came repeatedly from Leah Gunn, who noted that amendments made by the county board would require that the other three parties reconsider the documents. She called it a “foolish waste of time.”

Smith argued that this was the first time that formal, representative input has been heard from communities outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The amendments were intended to make the new transit authority more attractive to smaller municipalities, who’ll have the option of opting out. Smith raised concerns that the current governance structure doesn’t provide the best possible representation for taxpayers.

Another issue drawing heated discussion related to Head Start, which provides pre-school services to 561 local children, ages 3-5, and their families. Last year, the board voted to relinquish its 46-year administration of the program on July 31, 2012. But the transition to a new administrator – a process overseen by the federal Head Start program – hasn’t moved as quickly as expected. So the county agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the program, through July 31, 2013.

On July 11, the county board was asked to approve changes to the program from Aug. 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013 – as part of authorizing a federal grant application for the program. Ronnie Peterson cast the sole vote against the changes, and objected strenuously to any program cuts. He voiced his concerns at length, and asked – as he has in the past – that independent experts be brought in to discuss how the changes will impact the children. He also vowed to try to keep Head Start under the county’s administration, rather than relinquishing control. The issue will be addressed at an Aug. 2 working session, but it’s unlikely that the board will reverse its decision to cut ties with Head Start.

Other commissioners objected to Peterson’s contention that they didn’t care about poor children. Rob Turner urged board chair Conan Smith to form a coalition of local educators and government leaders to tackle the problem of educational disparities within the county.

Separately, the board passed a resolution supporting the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District as the next local Head Start administrator. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

In other action, commissioners heard public commentary and gave initial approval to exempt bed & breakfasts and cottages from Washtenaw County’s 5% accommodations tax. In a separate vote, the board set a public hearing for Aug. 1 to seek input on the proposed ordinance change. A final vote on the resolution is expected at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting.

That Aug. 1 meeting will also include a public hearing and vote on a brownfield financing plan for a residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The apartment complex is located at the site of the former Fox Tent and Awning, north of Mosley between Main and Ashley, and is being put forward by Dan Ketelaar’s Urban Group Development Co.

In another development-related matter, the board authorized a contract with Sylvan Township related to debt repayment on bonds issued 11 years ago for a water and wastewater treatment plant. It’s another attempt to establish an arrangement under which Sylvan Township will repay the county for covering bond payments – contingent on Sylvan Township voters approving a 20-year, 4.4 mill tax that’s on the Aug. 7 ballot.

Countywide Transit

The long, complex process to develop a countywide transportation system inched forward last week, with the county board’s initial consideration of a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation for a broader public transit authority based on Act 196 of 1986.

The effort has been led by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Representatives from AATA – including CEO Michael Ford and board chair Jesse Bernstein – attended the county board’s July 11 meeting.

The county would not be contributing assets or a millage to a new authority. Nor would the county board be asked to put a countywide millage request on the ballot. Rather, the county’s role would be for the county clerk to file articles of incorporation with the state – an action to create a transit authority under Michigan Act 196. When formed, the Act 196 board would have authority to put a funding proposal on the ballot for voters to consider. A financial advisory group that’s been working on this effort has suggested that revenues equivalent to a 0.5 mill tax would be needed to cover the cost of expanded services for the first five years. [.pdf of financial advisory group report]

For recent general Chronicle coverage of this transit effort, see “Differences on Countywide Transit Debated,” ”County Board Updated on Public Transit Plans,” “Ann Arbor Council Re-OKs Transit Docs” and “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”] Additional information is also available on the Moving You Forward website devoted to the expanded transit effort.

Countywide Transit: Public Commentary

Two people – both of them candidates for the Michigan House of Representatives in District 53 – spoke in support of expanded public transit.

State Rep. Jeff Irwin of Ann Arbor, a former county commissioner who is running for his second two-year term representing District 53. He faces Thomas Partridge in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary. In the foreground is Jesse Bernstein, chair of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board.

Jeff Irwin, a former county commissioner from Ann Arbor who is running for re-election as state representative for District 53, told the board that it was nice to see so many friends. He urged them to deeply consider the countywide transit plan, as a way for communities to come together. If you look at the proposed service plan, he said, the services line up well with the amount of funding that various communities will be providing. It’s important that financial contributions are commensurate with services.

Irwin noted that there might be questions about legislation in Lansing that could affect aspects of the county plan, but he urged the board not to hold up the plan by waiting for action at the state or federal level. It’s time for the county to control its own destiny, he said. Irwin doesn’t believe there will be any changes in Lansing regarding revenue options from gas or sales taxes, although he said he’d continue to work to provide other options for public transit. He also didn’t believe legislation setting up a regional transit authority (RTA) would be passed this year. And even if it does pass, Irwin didn’t think it would include Washtenaw County. More likely it will address issues related to the tri-county area of Oakland, Macomb and Wayne counties. Including Washtenaw would add a layer of complication, he said.

Irwin concluded by saying he’d love for Lansing to get it right, but this is an important issue and the county should move forward on its own.

Thomas Partridge, a frequent speaker at various local government meetings, addressed the board during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary. He described himself as a long-time advocate for affordable transportation, and he urged the county board and the AATA to bring a millage proposal to voters as soon as possible, to get tax revenue for public transit. He said he’s running for state representative because he’s dissatisfied with the current leadership in Lansing. It’s time for significant improvements in transportation of all kinds, he said.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion

Before the discussion began in earnest, Conan Smith jokingly “called the question” on the resolution – a parliamentary move that essentially means “Let’s vote now.” It was a move that would be repeated seriously by other commissioners multiple times throughout the debate, in an effort to push forward the item.

The bulk of the 2.5-hour discussion focused on several amendments brought forward by Dan Smith. He had circulated the amendments before the meeting, and earlier versions had been discussed at the board’s June 14 working session. In very general terms, the amendments centered on the following topics: issues of local versus regional control; the process by which local communities could opt-out or opt-in to the new transit authority; parity between Ann Arbor and other municipalities; and how details of the service and funding plan would be communicated.

This report organizes the discussion thematically, summarizing the comments and concerns raised by commissioners.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – General Comments

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he hoped the documents would be approved that evening. He noted that Pete Murdock, an Ypsilanti city councilmember, was attending the meeting, and that two Ann Arbor city councilmembers [Sabra Briere and Jane Lumm] had attended the June 14 working session. Other than that, no elected officials had come to the county board about this issue, he said, so he didn’t want to hear any whining from them after it passed.

Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock attended the July 11 meeting of the county board, but did not formally address commissioners.

Ronnie Peterson clarified that the agreement is costing the county “zero dollars.” He asked whether the documents have been available for any citizen or organization to review. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that the documents have certainly been reviewed by the four parties involved in the four-party agreement, and have been available as part of public agendas.

Peterson also asked what the county’s obligations and responsibilities are, after the board approves the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. The main obligation, Hedger said, is to file the articles of incorporation after hearing from AATA that all the conditions of the four-party agreement have been met. At that point, the Act 196 authority is a separate legal entity, and the county has little to do with it unless it is dissolved. The county would have no financial obligation, Hedger said. There could be a liaison from the county to the Act 196 board, but there would be no formal role in governance.

Noting that the county doesn’t have a dime committed to this venture, Peterson praised AATA staff and said they’ve done a marvelous job of putting this together. He’s been advocating for an expanded public transit system for 20 years, and it’s a great thing for the county.

Wes Prater commented on the transparency of the process so far. It’s true that the four parties have been involved, he said, but this meeting was the first time that the board had seen these documents. And of the 28 municipalities in the county, Prater believed only six had seen the documents.

Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator, clarified that the information had been sent out to all communities in the county. When the staff began developing details of the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, they worked with a committee with representatives of the four parties as well as the unincorporated U196 board.

Dan Smith noted that the board’s action in approving the documents “sucks in” the townships, because after the articles of incorporation are filed, it requires action by the local governing bodies to opt out of the transit authority. The township boards haven’t formally weighed in on the articles of incorporation, he said. This county board meeting is the first time that formal, representative input has been heard from communities outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, he said.

City councils for Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti both amended the documents, D. Smith observed. And since it appears that a millage vote won’t be on the ballot until 2013, there’s time for the county board to amend the documents as well. Municipalities will be making decisions about whether to opt out based on the articles of incorporation, he said. His amendments were intended to make it more attractive for municipalities outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti to participate.

Felicia Brabec asked if AATA had followed up on some concerns she’s raised at the June 14 working session, about coordinating transit service plans with Pittsfield Township officials. Ford said they’re still working on it, and AATA staff is working closely with the Pittsfield Township supervisor [Mandy Grewal].

Wes Prater objected to seeing continued changes that have just “popped up” in the documents. He cited the question of whether portions of a municipality can opt out – at the precinct level, for example. Originally, commissioners had been told that only the entire jurisdiction could opt in or out. But AATA staff had recently given them a response to questions, he noted, which stated that individual precincts could opt in or out.

From left: Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Jesse Bernstein, and Michael Ford of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

Jesse Bernstein, chair of the AATA board, responded to Prater. As soon as the staff realized that the Act 196 legislation allowed for individual precincts to opt in or out, the AATA provided that information. It gives individual units of government more flexibility.

Prater wondered why this had come to light only recently, even though AATA has been working on this effort for two years. He also noted that Washtenaw County is creating this new transit authority, so why doesn’t the county have the right to determine how the authority operates? And how does the county opt out?

Prater also objected to the fact that communities that have already decided to opt out of the initial planning phase will have to formally opt out again, after the articles of incorporation are filed.

Bernstein stated that the AATA has been in contact with communities throughout the county. ”We are not going to surprise anybody with this,” he said. The plan won’t move ahead until there’s consensus on services and on how to pay for expanded service. If there’s no agreement about how to fund the new authority, the AATA will continue to operate as it has, he said, and continue to expand services as it can.

Some commissioners, including Rob Turner, stated that they did not want to give the documents final approval that evening. [Resolutions are considered and voted on first at ways & means, a committee on which all commissioners serve and which meets immediately prior to the regular board meetings. Typically resolutions are considered for a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. However, the board only meets once a month during the summer, so it's often the practice that resolutions will be given both initial and final votes on the same night. If an item isn't put on both the ways & means and the board agendas before the meeting, it takes eight votes for the board to push forward a resolution from ways & means to be considered for a final vote that same night at the board meeting.]

Turner said he wanted the time until the final Aug. 1 vote for municipalities in his district to review the documents.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Qualifications)

Dan Smith’s first amendment to the articles of incorporation would ensure that people appointed to the Act 196 board are residents of Washtenaw County. [Throughout this report, deletions are indicated with strike-through; additions are in bold italics.]

SECTION 4.07: BOARD QUALIFICATIONS

All Authority directors shall be residents of Washtenaw County and at least eighteen years old, shall be representative of public transportation interests as they exist in the County and other qualifications as detailed in the Bylaws of the Authority. Notwithstanding the above, any of these requirements may be waived by a governing body authorized to appoint directors under section 4.01 by resolution concurred in by not less than 2/3rds of that governing body’s directors. Directors may not hold office in violation of Michigan’s Incompatible Offices Act, MCLA 15.181-.185, or other similar law.

Wes Prater supported the amendment, saying it simplified the qualifications and made sure the appointees are residents of the county.

Felicia Brabec wondered why this amendment was needed. D. Smith replied that as they’d discussed at the June 14 working session, the Act 196 board will have taxing authority, so it’s important for the leadership requirements to be strong. He had originally advocated for even stricter requirements – that the directors should be residents of the districts that they were appointed to represent. But based on feedback from the working session, he had modified his original amendment. If experts are needed, then they can be brought in as consultants or a subcommittee, he said.

Leah Gunn had a question for Michael Ford – AATA’s CEO – about this and all possible amendments. Would any amendment by the county board require that all other three parties reconsider the articles of incorporation and four-party agreement? Yes, Ford replied. In that case, Gunn said she didn’t see any reason to change the language that had already been approved.

County commissioner Barbara Bergman.

Barbara Bergman echoed Gunn’s comments. She asked when a millage might be put on the ballot for voter approval. AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein said there was no specific date targeted, although it appeared that they wouldn’t meet the timeline for a November 2012 ballot measure. [The deadline for certifying ballot language to the county clerk for a Nov. 6 ballot proposal is 70 days before the election – Aug. 28.] There are ongoing discussions with local districts, and he hoped the board would pass the agreement so that the project could move forward. The next step would be to nail down services and cost, so that when a millage is sought, people will know what they’re getting, he said.

Bergman noted that amending the documents would cause a delay in the process, and she didn’t support any of the amendments. She said she’d “work on squashing these amendments one by one.”

Yousef Rabhi asked Ford about the intent behind the phrase “shall be representative of public transportation interests as they exist in the County and other qualifications as detailed in the Bylaws of the Authority.” What do the bylaws say?

Ford replied that the bylaws haven’t been finalized. Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator, noted that the intent in that phrase is to allow each appointing body to have the power to choose their representative, and not put constraints on those bodies. Rabhi said that was important, and he didn’t think the phrase should be deleted.

Conan Smith said he’d oppose the amendment, too. A two-thirds majority requirement is a pretty high bar for any local government unit, he said, but if that much support can be mustered to appoint someone younger or who lives outside Washtenaw County, then the appointing body should be able to do that. It’s their voice that should be represented, he said, not the county board’s.

Dan Smith agreed that the appointing body’s voice is important, but this is also an issue of overseeing taxpayer dollars, he said. The Act 196 authority board will have the ability to put a millage on the ballot. He told Rabhi that he hoped each appointing body would choose a representative with an interest in public transit, but that decision shouldn’t be a requirement. Smith also pointed out that they don’t yet know what the bylaws entail, nor do they know the process by which bylaws can be changed.

Alicia Ping supported the amendment, saying she represents nine communities that are not part of the four-party agreement. [Ping represents District 3, covering Saline and several townships in southwest Washtenaw.]

Bergman called the question, to end deliberations and force a vote. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with Wes Prater dissenting. A roll call vote was then taken on the amendment itself.

Outcome on amendment regarding board qualifications: It failed on a 5-6 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, and Rob Turner.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Removal of Director)

The second amendment proposed by Dan Smith would eliminate the ability of the Act. 196 authority board to remove one of its directors. The intent of the amendment is to keep the power to remove directors in the hands of the local appointing entities.

SECTION 4.04: RESIGNATIONS, VACANCIES, AND REMOVALS
A director may resign at any time and such resignation shall become effective upon the Authority’s receipt of a written resignation notice, unless the notice specifies a later date. The Authority Board may, upon a 2/3rds vote of its other directors, remove a director prior to the expiration of that director’s term of office for persistent failure to perform the duties of that director’s office, gross misconduct in office, other reasons as specified in the bylaws, conviction of a felony involving extortion, or financial misconduct. A director may be removed from office with or without cause at any time by the same local body or process that appointed the director.

Wes Prater described it as a common-sense amendment. It makes sense that the Act 196 board shouldn’t be allowed to remove one of its own members.

Conan Smith observed that virtually every public body has an impeachment process – the county board of commissioners could remove any of its members, for example. When Dan Smith had originally proposed this amendment at the working session, it has received some support among other commissioners, so Conan Smith said he raised the issue with the committee that has helped develop these Act 196 documents. [Members of the committee are: Sabra Briere and Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city council); Paul Schreiber and Pete Murdock (Ypsilanti mayor/city council); Conan Smith and Alicia Ping (Washtenaw County board); Jesse Bernstein and Charles Griffith (AATA board); David Read and David Phillips (U196 board).]

The feeling was that the bar was sufficiently high in the current unamended item – with a two-thirds majority required to remove a director. One safeguard is that if the Act 196 board removes a director, the appointing entity can simply reappoint that person again, Conan Smith said. They can get into a pissing match, he said, and at some point the Act 196 board will see it’s in their best interest to simply keep the person on the board. But the common sense approach is to never vote to remove a director – that’s not how people usually do things, he said. People try to work things out without taking that step. The practical reality is it will never be a power that’s used, he concluded.

Barbara Bergman called the question. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with Dan Smith dissenting. A roll call vote was then taken on the amendment itself.

Outcome on amendment regarding director removal: It failed on a 3-8 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Termination of Agreement)

Dan Smith said this amendment is to ensure that all political entities are treated in the same way as Ann Arbor.

12. Termination of Agreement.
…
b. Discretionary Dissolution or Withdrawal Conditions. The Washtenaw County Board will also be allowed to dissolve the New TA if there is no Authority-wide voter approved funding passed before December 31, 2014, or voter approval passes Authority-wide but the same is defeated in the City of Ann Arbor any member political subdivision. The City of Ann Arbor may also withdraw from the new TA Agreement using any of the methods authorized by MCL 124.458. In the event the City of Ann Arbor exercises any of the foregoing rights, the City of Ann Arbor may immediately terminate this agreement upon written notice to the other parties.

Barbara Bergman characterized it as a “killer” amendment, which would paralyze the process. She was emphatically against it.

Ronnie Peterson said you either want to be married or you don’t. He didn’t understand why the county board needed to be involved – he trusted the leadership of other communities. Other than from some county commissioners, he hadn’t heard objections to the proposed documents from any other elected official. If the county had received correspondence objecting to the plan, he hadn’t seen it. He didn’t understand why they were spending so much time talking about it, and said they shouldn’t be micromanaging the AATA. If the board decides to amend these documents, it should be because of advocacy from the local communities, and he hadn’t seen that. Peterson said he was troubled by the attack on the AATA.

County commissioner Conan Smith.

Wes Prater wondered why Ann Arbor is given a right that other political entities don’t have. It’s not treating everyone equally, he said, and in general the agreement is slanted toward Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Conan Smith asked whether the four-party agreement or articles of incorporation restricted the county board from taking any actions it is in general empowered to take. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, said that generally, there were no such restrictions.

In that case, this amendment is moot, Smith said – the county board can dissolve the transit authority at any time. Hedger clarified that the articles of incorporation lay out how the transit authority can be dissolved, so action by the county board would be problematic, he said. “Problematic, but not illegal,” Smith replied.

Barbara Bergman called the question. The vote on calling the question passed 8-2, with dissent from Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Ronnie Peterson was out of the room.

Outcome on amendment regarding terminating the transit authority: It failed on a 4-7 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Dan Smith. 

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Timeline, Papers of Record)

Dan Smith said the problem with this whole process is that local taxpayers aren’t being allowed to decide whether to participate. It’s the elected officials who are making decisions. The state’s Headlee Amendment was intended to put decisions about tax increases directly into the hands of voters, he said. If this countywide transit process allowed voters to weigh in on whether to join the authority, that would be fine. But it’s the governing bodies who make that decision. If the Northfield Township board doesn’t opt out, for example, and the overall millage passes, the township’s property owners would have to pay the tax – even if every single Northfield Township voter voted against the millage.

Smith noted that the reason many municipalities don’t show up to these county board meetings is because they’ve already opted out. Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator, replied that AATA would honor those opt-out decisions [after the new authority is formed]. Smith said he wasn’t sure that would be legally sufficient, without further action by the governing bodies. But he added that his biggest problem is that voters can’t vote directly on whether to participate.

With that, he offered up an amendment to the county board’s resolution regarding the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. [Because it was part of a county board resolution, not the documents themselves, the amendment would not need approval from the other three parties.]

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners hereby adopts and authorizes the County Administrator to file the Articles of Incorporation within sixty (60) days creating a new transportation authority for Washtenaw County upon notification from AATA that the contingencies in the 4-party Public Transportation Agreement have been met.
…
1. AATA will publish details of the service and funding plan in newspaper(s) of general circulation in the Washtenaw County, including but not limited to AnnArbor.com, the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the Washtenaw Legal News, and the Heritage Newspapers serving portions of Washtenaw County, and the paper of record, if any, for each jurisdiction;
2. Letters of notice will be sent to each city, village and township elected official in the county at their address of record alerting them to the County’s intention to file the Articles of Incorporation on a date certain. Those letters shall indicate
a. Whether or not the jurisdiction represented by that official is included in the boundary of the New TA;
b. The process by which that jurisdiction may either withdraw from or join the New TA; and
c. The date on which the Articles of Incorporation will be filed and, if relevant, the date by which the New TA must receive official notice from the jurisdiction if that jurisdiction votes to opt-out of the New TA.

Gryniewicz said AATA would be happy to put notices in any publication. She said the amendment was otherwise also compatible with Act 196 legislation.

Conan Smith indicated that he fully supported this amendment. Leah Gunn said the main problem is that any amendment made by the county board will require action by the other three parties – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and AATA. It’s a foolish waste of time, she said, and she urged Dan Smith to withdraw the amendment.

Yousef Rabhi asked why the 60-day filing deadline was added. Dan Smith replied that the reason commissioners were voting down his amendments is because they wanted the process to move forward quickly. This will ensure that it does.

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, told the board that after the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation are approved, AATA will need to finalize its service plan and financial plan before the articles can be filed. He didn’t want to put a timeline on that process.

Rabhi offered an amendment to D. Smith’s amendment, striking the mention of a 60-day timeline. He also thanked Smith for his work in bringing these amendments forward, saying that Smith is a very thoughtful person and the discussion wasn’t personal.

Outcome on Rabhi’s amendment: It received no second, and died for lack of support.

County commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

In response to a question from Ronnie Peterson, Ford again stated that he preferred not to have the 60-day limit. Peterson said there should be flexibility, and that a 60-day deadline was a hassle. Peterson then asked about the other changes being proposed. Ford expressed some frustration, saying that after the June 14 working session he had followed up by meeting with representatives from the other three parties, and there had been no support for any of these proposed amendments. ”We went through this exercise,” Ford said.

Alicia Ping noted that she had made a big deal during the working session about the ability for communities to opt in at a later date. Gryniewicz said that information could be included in the letter of explanation about the process, which will be sent to municipalities.

Ping said she was sure the board would pass the agreement and articles of incorporation, but it was important to voice these concerns.

Rabhi questioned why the amendment removed the word “join.” That’s because when the articles of incorporation are filed, all municipalities will be part of it, D. Smith said – there’s no action required to “join.” The action that’s required relates to opting out.

Barbara Bergman called the question. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Outcome on amendment to the board resolution: It failed on a 4-7 vote, with support from Wes Prater, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, and Rob Turner.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Amending Articles of Incorporation)

Dan Smith noted that this was another amendment that had been discussed at the June 14 working session. It limits the Act 196 board’s ability to amend its articles of incorporation.

Unless otherwise specifically allowed by law, these Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority. All amendments must comply with applicable state and federal laws. All amendments to the Articles of Incorporation become effective only after they are executed jointly by the Chairperson and by the Secretary of the Board of the Authority, ratified by each member political subdivision and the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, filed with the recording officer of the Washtenaw County Clerk, and filed and published in the same manner as the original Articles of Incorporation.

Rob Turner supported this change. He was concerned that a coalition of just three districts – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – would have sufficient votes (10 out of 15) to make changes. Other municipalities would be joining the authority based on the articles of incorporation, but then those articles could be changed almost immediately by just a small subset of the communities involved.

Leah Gunn and Barbara Bergman both objected to the amendment, with Gunn again pointing out that any amendment would require approval from the other three parties in the four-party agreement.

Felicia Brabec wondered why the amendment required both the political subdivision and the county board to ratify changes. Dan Smith said he was trying to accommodate feedback he’d heard at the June 14 working session. He didn’t care which entities had to ratify it – he just didn’t want the Act 196 board itself to have that sole power.

Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz said this was one of the amendments that had been discussed with the committee that has helped develop these Act 196 documents. The group felt strongly that the representatives appointed to the Act 196 board should be the ones who have the authority to change the articles of incorporation.

Conan Smith added that the committee had struggled with this issue. It doesn’t make sense for the county board to be the amending body for the articles of incorporation – there might be commissioners who represent districts in which no municipality is participating in the transit authority. It’s also burdensome if amendments to the articles of incorporation need to be ratified by each political subdivision, because unanimous approval would be difficult. This might be one of those things to take on faith, he said. There’s no incentive to make changes to the articles of incorporation that would deter entities from participating.

After some additional discussion, Brabec proposed an amendment to Dan Smith’s amendment [Brabec's addition in bold caps, deletion in strike-through]:

Unless otherwise specifically allowed by law, these Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority. All amendments must comply with applicable state and federal laws. All amendments to the Articles of Incorporation become effective only after they are executed jointly by the Chairperson and by the Secretary of the Board of the Authority, ratified by each APPOINTING ENTITY  member political subdivision and the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, filed with the recording officer of the Washtenaw County Clerk, and filed and published in the same manner as the original Articles of Incorporation.

Gunn again raised concerns that any amendments would require reconsideration by the other three parties in the four-party agreement. Dan Smith pointed out that the AATA could have expanded service on its own, but because AATA wanted to be countywide, they needed to create this new authority. That’s what the county board now needs to sort through, to ensure that the organization that’s set up will function long after the commissioners around the table have moved on, he said. It’s cumbersome, he acknowledged, but they need to make sure it’s fair for all of the municipalities in the county.

Ronnie Peterson argued that other municipalities have been asking AATA for a seat at the governance table for a long time. Ann Arbor is willing to change how AATA operates to allow that to happen, he said.

There was then some discussion about the meaning of “appointing entity” – whether it meant each transit authority district, or each governing entity within those districts. It was never fully clarified.

Yousef Rabhi called the question on Brabec’s amendment. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Outcome on Felicia Brabec’s amendment: It failed on a 5-6 vote, with support from Brabec, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr.,  Dan Smith and Rob Turner.

There was no additional discussion on Dan Smith’s original amendment.

Outcome on amendment regarding how to amend the articles of incorporation: It failed on a 3-8 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Final Comments

Rolland Sizemore Jr. told Michael Ford of the AATA that he didn’t like how the AATA had handled this entire process. There should have been more input from the board of commissioners all along, he said.

Barbara Bergman countered that she wanted to praise Ford for how he’s handled the process.

Dan Smith observed that even though a two-thirds vote has been considered a high bar for actions taken by the Act 196 authority board, in reality a two-thirds majority of seats is held by a potential coalition of just three communities – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, with a total of 10 votes on the 15-member board. [Ann Arbor will have 7 seats, Ypsilanti will have one, and the Southeast District (Ypsilanti and Augusta townships) will have two.] It’s understandable that weight is given to Ann Arbor because of the assets that Ann Arbor is contributing, he said. But the structure also diminishes the voices of other communities. The governance of the Act 196 authority is still a problem for him.

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi.

Yousef Rabhi said that as an advocate for Ann Arbor, he supports having Ann Arbor represented at the table in a way that’s commensurate with its assets and population. [Rabhi is one of four commissioners whose districts cover portions of Ann Arbor.] He thinks the Act 196 board composition is well-weighted.

Ann Arbor has been paying 2 mills since the mid-1970s, Leah Gunn said, and is going to transfer $200 million worth of assets to the new authority. She said she’d think other communities would be saying “Thank you, Ann Arbor.”

Wes Prater noted that those assets have been used primarily to provide service in Ann Arbor. The city’s residents, not the out-county residents, have enjoyed the fruits of AATA, he said. Even the expanded service will focus primarily on urban areas, he said. Prater predicted that 12-14 communities will opt out of the transit authority, as they learn more about the services and costs. And some communities who stay in will end up with less service than they expected, he said, and they’ll be unhappy.

Sizemore reiterated his comment that he didn’t want to hear local elected officials whine. “Well, they will,” Prater replied. “I know they will,” Sizemore said.

Alicia Ping said she planned to vote against the agreement because none of the amendments were adopted, and she was representing the nine municipalities in her district who were unlikely to participate initially. However, she said she thought it would be good to have a broader transit authority in place so that communities could join later, if they wanted.

Outcome: On a 7-4 vote, the board gave initial approval to a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, without amendments. Dissenting were the board’s three Republican commissioners – Alicia Ping, Dan Smith and Rob Turner – as well as Democrat Wes Prater. The board also set an Aug. 1 public hearing to gather feedback on the agreement. A final vote is expected to take place at that Aug. 1 meeting.

Head Start Extension

Following up on previous discussions about the future of Washtenaw Head Start, the county board was asked to approve changes to the program from Aug. 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013 – an interim period during which the county will continue to manage Head Start before handing it over to another administrative entity. The action was part of authorizing a federal grant application for the program.

Separately, the board was asked to pass a resolution supporting the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District as the next local Head Start administrator. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson talks with Cheryl Perry, a management analyst in the county administrator’s office. Perry, who has served as support staff for the county board, will be transferring to work for Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director.

The local Head Start program provides pre-school services to 561 children, ages 3-5, and their families – both directly, and through delegating to other providers, including local school systems. The majority of the program would be funded with a $4.028 million federal grant in the coming year, out of a total budget of $4.55 million. The interim plan calls for eliminating 7.8 full-time jobs, and leaving another three jobs vacant. Because of vacancies and retirements, only three employees will be affected, according to a staff memo. The changes will result in one teacher and one teaching assistant per room – previously, there were two teaching assistants and one teacher per room.

These changes had been forecast at the board’s May 2, 2012 meeting. County administrator Verna McDaniel had told commissioners that the county had agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the program, through July 31, 2013. As part of the budget process last year, the county board had voted to relinquish its 46-year administration of the program on July 31, 2012. But the process to find another entity to administer Head Start has taken longer than expected, so the county reached an agreement with federal officials to operate the program another year.

In May, McDaniel reported that the agreement waives a 20% local match of about $750,000 that the county had previously been required to provide. She had noted that there would be staff changes proposed as a result of the new interim agreement. At the time, several commissioners praised the decision for easing the eventual transition to a new Head Start administrator, but Ronnie Peterson had expressed concern that the program’s high standards would be compromised.

Head Start Extension: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson noted that he had previously asked for outside consultants to come in and evaluate the Head Start program, in light of changes that are being proposed. He had hoped that those assessments would be done, but it appeared that they hadn’t. It would have helped the board make decisions based on the welfare of children, not just on cost, he said. Peterson added he was sure that experts from Eastern Michigan University, the University of Michigan or other institutions could be found to offer their services without charge.

Peterson spoke at length about the importance of the Head Start program, and of keeping the high standards that the county had previously met. He opposed reductions of teaching staff, and said he’d vote against them. The county has a healthy cash flow, he said. They are able to find money for other programs, so they should be able to find money for Head Start.

Board chair Conan Smith responded to Peterson, saying that although he wasn’t an expert on early childhood education, he could address the budgetary questions. Smith said the expectation is that the county won’t be able to deliver the same level of service in the coming year – there’s no question about that. As the board went through the budget process last year, for financial reasons they decided to move out of the business of early childhood education, he said. But they also made the decision because they recognized that the county isn’t an expert in that area – there are others in the public and private sector who can do a better job.

Smith noted that the current situation came up because there were some stumbling blocks that arose during the transition to another administrator. He appreciated that the county could continue to guide the program for another year – if not, it would have been administered by a third party on an interim basis. As a community member who cares about the population served by Head Start, Smith said he’s grateful that the county can provide resources for another year. It’s not the same program – it was a financial decision, not a programmatic one – but it ensures that local influence is maintained as a stop-gap measure. So the local Head Start team was asked to identify changes that would have a minimal negative impact on children during this period, Smith said.

Peterson replied that Smith’s answer was a good one for the media, but it was the board of commissioners that had decided to let go of Head Start in the first place. There had been no discussion with the Head Start policy council, or parents, or the staff, he said. Peterson didn’t buy the idea that the county was “rescuing” Head Start for this interim year, given that the county had created the situation. He said it was a disgrace for him to be on the board, and he would fight to bring back Head Start. He certainly wouldn’t vote in favor of the proposed cuts.

From right: County commissioners Leah Gunn and Felicia Brabec.

Felicia Brabec wanted to know who was involved in making the decisions about which jobs to eliminate. County administrator Verna McDaniel said her staff as well as human resources staff had worked with the program’s interim director, Cassandra Sheriff. McDaniel pointed out that federal requirements call for only one teacher per classroom. The county’s previous practice of having one teacher and two teaching assistants had been above those standards. The bulk of positions being eliminated are teacher aides.

Sheriff came to the podium and Brabec asked how she felt about the changes. Peterson objected, saying that Sheriff was being put in the middle of this debate. Sheriff replied that there had been many discussions with parents, the Head Start policy council and staff about these transitions. It’s always better to have more teachers, she said, but these changes seemed inevitable, given the situation. “Floating” teaching positions have been created to help in the classrooms – that hadn’t been necessary when there were three people per class, she said. With retirements and vacancies, most of the staff had been moved to other jobs within Head Start, she noted, and they were unable to find a position only for one part-time janitor.

Sheriff also said that services hadn’t been compromised, and the organization was still thriving.

Leah Gunn pointed out that Sheriff was, in fact, an expert in early childhood education. She thanked Sheriff for what has been a tough year, and said that Sheriff had done an extraordinary job.

At this point, Peterson indicated that he had been willing to end the debate, but that other commissioners had opened the door for further discussion. He asked Sheriff at what point had teaching staff been reduced. There was a back-and-forth exchange and some confusion – Sheriff seemed to initially think Peterson was asking when the decision to reduce staff had been made, and that happened in April or May, she said. Peterson interpreted that to mean that staff reductions had actually occurred in May, and he wondered why the board hadn’t been informed. Sheriff and McDaniel both clarified that the changes wouldn’t be made until the 2012-2013 school year, which begins in the fall.

In that case, Peterson said, Sheriff didn’t yet know what the impact would be on the children. Wes Prater objected, saying that Peterson was badgering Sheriff. Peterson replied that other commissioners had brought her to the podium and opened up the topic. She was an interim administrator and had only held that job for a few months, he noted. She was not a professional evaluator, he said, and he had asked earlier this year that a professional evaluation be conducted of potential changes to the Head Start program.

Prater asked whether the full board had approved Peterson’s request for an independent evaluation of Head Start. Peterson noted that no one had objected when he asked for it – he accused Prater of being rude, and asked him to be respectful. Peterson said the person who designed the staff reductions shouldn’t be the one to assess and evaluate it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr., who was chairing the meeting, told commissioners that they needed to pass this resolution in order to apply for the federal grant money to run the program in the coming year. But he said the administration would respond to Peterson. ”I assure you we’ll get answers for you very soon,” Sizemore said. Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working session, agreed to put the topic on the agenda for the Aug. 2 working session.

Barbara Bergman noted that the program will continue to meet federal standards, and that it was a positive thing to be turning over the Head Start program to educators. Sheriff is doing a terrific job, Bergman said. She took umbrage at being accused of not caring about the children.

Prater observed that every decision about Head Start has been approved by the board. It’s the board that makes these decisions, not one or two commissioners, he said. That’s the way things work.

Leah Gunn wondered whether an assessment was necessary at this point. The changes won’t take effect until the fall, so what’s the point in evaluating it now? Wait until it’s underway, she advised. Gunn also pointed out that Head Start programs are evaluated by federal officials all the time.

Conan Smith offered Peterson a compromise, suggested that Peterson vote in favor of the program’s federal grant application but against the staff reductions. He said it’s important to have Peterson’s voice in support of the federal funding. He noted that the reduction equates to about 1% of the Head Start budget, and he didn’t think the impact would be great enough to warrant an evaluation.

Peterson replied that he wouldn’t support a reduction in staffing. He noted that commissioners have spent months discussing how to handle animal control services, and no one has complained. [For recent coverage on that topic, see "Work Continues on Animal Control Policy."] Yet when he wants to talk about children in poverty, “I get nothing but pushback,” Peterson said, adding that he felt sickened to see that attitude among his “progressive friends” on the board.

County commissioner Leah Gunn.

Gunn said she took it very personally that Peterson assumed other commissioners didn’t care about or advocate for children. She noted that the board had created a children’s well-being fund before Peterson was elected. She pointed out that she had served as the board’s representative on the Head Start policy council when Peterson was an alternative on the council, and he had attended only one meeting. His accusations are “very personal and very insulting,” she said.

Peterson replied that rather than go to meetings, he goes to the Head Start classrooms. He noted that something the board did in 1998 – when the children’s well-being fund was created – didn’t reflect the situation in 2012. A commissioner’s vote now indicated how they felt about children in poverty, he said.

Rob Turner, a former Chelsea school board member, said he’d been impressed when Conan Smith had asked him for guidance on ways that the county can address disparities in graduation rates. [That suggestion occurred during final budget deliberations at the board's Dec. 7, 2011 meeting.] Turner then read excerpts from a recent report in the Chelsea Standard, which provided data on local school performance on the Michigan Merit Exam and ACT (American College Testing) – two measures of “college readiness.” Among the data he cited, the percentage of students deemed “college ready” ranged from 47.3% in Saline and 43.2% in Ann Arbor to a low of zero percent in the Willow Run school system.

Turner noted that his niece teaches in the Willow Run system, and has to teach basic things like how to be polite. The home situations are different in different parts of the county, he said, and these issues need to be addressed. He called on Smith to form a commission with educators and others from across the county, to tackle these educational challenges, especially in the county’s most impoverished communities.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve the application for federal Head Start funding. Ronnie Peterson voted against the reduction in staff that was part of the program’s annual plan.

Head Start: Support for WISD

A separate resolution on the agenda supported the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) as the next local Head Start administrator, beginning in the 2013-2014 academic year. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

Dan Smith said he thought the resolution was appropriate, given that the county had administered the program for 47 years.

Outcome: The resolution of support for WISD passed unanimously.

Change to Accommodations Ordinance

The county collects a 5% excise tax from hotels, motels, bed & breakfasts and other small accommodations businesses, which is then distributed to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention & visitors bureaus and used to promote tourism and convention business. Collection and enforcement is handled by the county treasurer’s office, and has been stepped up over the past two years. A move to exempt bed & breakfasts and cottages from the tax was on the board’s July 11 agenda for initial approval.

In addition to exempting cottages and bed & breakfasts with less than 14 rooms, the change would also exempt individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and Bill Nickels, chair of the county’s accommodations ordinance commission.

According to the county treasurer’s report to the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, in 2011 the county collected $3.99 million in accommodation taxes. The money is primarily distributed to the county’s two convention & visitors bureaus (CVBs) based on a 75/25 percentage split – in Ann Arbor ($2.69 million in 2011) and Ypsilanti ($898,563). The county treasurer retains 10% of the tax to cover collection and enforcement expenses.

The accommodation ordinance commission (AOC) recommended approval of the ordinance change at its June 5 meeting. A staff memo states that the AOC had recently reviewed enforcement and administrative costs, and did not believe it was cost effective to enforce the ordinance with these smaller establishments. The staff memo also states that the local CVBs support this change, in part because the CVBs do not actively market these establishments.

The leaders of both local CVBs – Mary Kerr of Ann Arbor and Debbie Debbie Locke-Daniel of Ypsilanti – attended the July 11 meeting but did not formally address the board. The county treasurer, Catherine McClary, did not attend the meeting.

By way of background, the county board has made periodic changes related to the accommodations tax over the past several years. In December 2008, the board voted to increase the accommodations tax that it collects from 2% to 5%, a change that took effect in March of 2009.

The county keeps a portion of those tax revenues to pay for the cost of collection and enforcement. Until November 2009,  the county kept 5% of accommodations tax revenues for that purpose. But in November 2009, the board approved a five-year agreement with the CVBs, from 2010 through 2014, that increased the county’s share of the accommodation tax revenues from 5% to 10%.

At the board’s Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, commissioners amended the county’s contract with the CVBs to address the process for distributing excess funds that might accumulate from the county’s 10%, if that amount exceeds the expenses required to administer and enforce compliance with the tax. Beginning in May 2013, the county will continue to retain 10% of the tax proceeds, plus 10% of any remaining fund balance. If additional funds accumulate in the fund balance, they are to be returned proportionally to the two convention & visitors bureaus – 75% to Ann Arbor, and 25% to Ypsilanti.

In February 2012, the county drew on those excess administrative funds, voting to allocate $200,000 to help fund a Pure Michigan campaign focused on the Ann Arbor area. At the time, more than $350,000 had accumulated in the administrative fund from the county’s share of the accommodation tax revenues.

Accommodations Ordinance: Public Commentary

Bill Nickels, chair of the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, told the board that the AOC voted to support the proposed exemption. Of the $17 million collected over the past four years, he noted, only about $126,000 came from bed & breakfasts. He indicated that it’s not an amount that’s worth spending the county staff time and expense to collect. Nickels also reported that recently, the county treasurer – Catherine McClary – decided to expand the definition of accommodations to include private homes that lease out rooms on special occasions. That would affect about 40 homes, he said, and would increase the expense of audits and enforcement. All of this led to the AOC’s conclusion that including these types of small establishments in the accommodations ordinance is not cost effective, Nickels said.

Joan Knoertzer, proprietor of the Library Bed & Breakfast in Ann Arbor, told commissioners that she spoke for herself and many other owners of bed & breakfasts. She’s been in business 12 years, and the last time the county board was voting on a change to the accommodations ordinance, she had found out about it about a half hour before the meeting by reading it in the newspaper. This time, she’d been notified directly – she thanked the county for that. Owners are very happy about the proposed exemption, she said. The audits by the county treasurer’s staff went from being done quarterly to monthly, and are very intrusive and time-consuming. She said the owners hadn’t realized that the previous ordinance change would result in more audits like this. These small business owners support Ann Arbor from the bottom of their hearts, she said, and serve as ambassadors and concierges for the city. She strongly urged that the board approve this exemption.

Pat Materka of the Ann Arbor Bed & Breakfast said she wanted to reinforce what Knoertzer had reported. Revenues from the accommodations tax has been great for promoting larger hotels, she said, but the impact on smaller businesses has been negligible. The collaborative, positive relationship that they have with the Ann Arbor convention & visitors bureau has been interfered with by the county treasurer’s policy of auditing – it’s been intrusive, abusive and unnecessarily contentious, she said. It would complicate things even more to start harassing private homeowners who rent out rooms – it doesn’t make sense, Materka said. All bed & breakfast owners gratefully support the ordinance change, she added. She hoped the county board would let owners do what they love – offer hospitality.

Accommodations Ordinance: Board Discussion

There was no discussion among commissioners on this resolution.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the proposed ordinance change. In a separate vote, they set a public hearing for Aug. 1 to seek input on the revision. A final vote is expected at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting.

Contract with Sylvan Township

Commissioners were asked to authorize a contract with Sylvan Township related to debt repayment on water and sewer bonds. It’s another attempt to establish an arrangement under which Sylvan Township will repay the county for covering bond payments – contingent on Sylvan Township voters approving a millage.

County commissioner Rob Turner represents District 1, which includes Sylvan Township.

In May of 2012, the county had picked up a $175,000 interest payment that the township couldn’t afford to make, related to $12.5 million in bonds that were issued 11 years ago – and backed by the county’s full faith and credit – to build a water and wastewater treatment plant in the township. The treatment plant in Sylvan Township was intended for future development. Under a previous contract with the county, the township was obligated to make the bond payments. [.pdf of June 20, 2001 county board resolution authorizing the bonds]

The project has a long and contentious history, including litigation and changes in ownership. In very broad strokes, the development that was expected to support the bond payments never materialized and the township has been struggling to make payments.

A staff memo accompanying the July 11 resolution describes some of the background leading up to the current situation:

The two companies who were to build the new housing to be served by the projects were Magellan and Hamill. In June, 2003, the County discovered that the developers failed to pay the first installment on the special assessment for the projects and that the Township had entered into development agreements with the developers which credited future connection fees to the developers rather than to the bond debt service. Magellan ultimately agreed to an amended development agreement removing the credit of future connection fees and reducing the assessment on Magellan property from $4.6 million to $3.2 million dollars. Hamill refused to execute a similar amended agreement and eventually sold its interest in the development property to Norfolk Development Corporation (which also purchased part, but not all of the development properties from Magellan).

In 2007 and 2008, the special assessments on the development properties went delinquent. The County Treasurer advanced funds to the Township to cover this delinquency. Currently, the Township owes the County Treasurer $1,169,616.62 which includes interest for these unpaid advanced special assessments.

In August, 2007, Magellan and Norfolk sued the Township in Washtenaw County Circuit Court claiming that the special assessments for the project were illegal under a number of theories. The suit was heard by the Circuit Court, Court of Appeals and ultimately remanded back to the Circuit Court. As a result of the litigation, the sewer special assessment was nullified, and certain past water special assessments were nullified with future water payments being upheld.

Township officials put a millage proposal on the November 2011 ballot to levy a 4.75 mill, 20-year tax that would fund the bond payments. But Sylvan Township residents rejected the millage by a vote of 475 to 328. As soon as the millage failed, it became clear that Sylvan Township – located west of Ann Arbor, near Chelsea – would not be able to make its payment in May of 2012. Because the county had backed the bonds with its full faith and credit, it is ultimately responsible for making the payments, even if it isn’t reimbursed for those payments by the township.  The county has an interest in making the bond payments to avoid having its AA+ bond rating negatively affected.

Even if the November 2011 millage had passed, proceeds alone would not have been sufficient to cover the entire cost of the bond payments, however – forcing the county to tap its capital reserves as well. The millage proceeds were also intended to repay the county to cover any amount used from the county’s capital reserves, as well as interest. The proceeds would also have been used to repay the county treasurer’s office, which advanced about $1.2 million to the township in 2007 and 2008 related to this project.

At their Oct. 19, 2011 meeting, county commissioners gave final approval to a contract with Sylvan Township related to the township’s bond repayment schedule. However, the contract was contingent on voters passing the 4.75 mill tax, so the contract was nullified in the wake of the November 2011 vote. A staff memo accompanying the October 2011 contract resolution indicated that if the millage failed, the county could file suit against the township for breach of contract in failing to meet its debt repayment obligation. Such legal action could result in a court-ordered assessment on township residents. According to a staff memo for the July 11 resolution, the county is still pursuing “legal remedies” to the situation, but hopes to find other ways to resolve the issue.

Currently $9.7 million in principal is owed, plus interest – another $175,000 interest payment in November and two interest payments totaling $350,000 in 2013.  Factoring in the $1.2 million that was advanced by the county treasurer to the township in 2007 and 2008, a total of $11.425 million is owed to the county.

The contract brought to the board on July 11 is nearly identical to the one it approved in October of 2011. It’s contingent on township voters approving a 4.4 mill tax for 20 years that will be on the Aug. 7 ballot. The county will use its capital reserves to make the bond debt payments, and the township will repay the county with proceeds from the millage. The township’s repayments will continue for seven years past the debt repayment schedule, to cover interest as well as the repayment of $1.2 million advanced by the county treasurer.

Sylvan Township Contract: Public Commentary

Kurt Koseck told commissioners that he’d spoken to them previously [at the board's Nov. 16, 2011 meeting]. He had watched their May 2, 2012 meeting and been impressed with the communications there. Up until this point, a lack of accountability on this issue had motivated him to become involved, to run for office and to attend these board meetings. [Koseck, a Republican, is among the four candidates running for two spots on the Sylvan Township board of trustees in the Aug. 7 election.]

Koseck said he’s been amazed by the lack of communication between the Sylvan Township board and the county board. He noted that at the county board’s May 2 meeting, board chair Conan Smith had said that the county is a partner with Sylvan Township. Koseck thanked Smith for acknowledging that the county had some culpability in this situation.

From left: Sylvan Township residents Tim Kelley and Kurt Koseck.

The county hasn’t been accountable, he said, but it clearly had been involved in the project. Koseck noted that consultants for the project were hired by the county but paid for by the township. It had been a $12.5 million project – and prior to that, the largest project that the township had undertaken was to build the township hall, for about $700,000. So the county was clearly the superior partner in this arrangement, he said.

Koseck also asked whether the county followed its full faith and credit policy in 2001, when it backed the Sylvan Township bonds. He wondered whether the policy had been re-examined since then, to make sure the situation can’t happen again.

Another Sylvan Township resident, Tim Kelley, told commissioners that he has reviewed a lot of the history related to this situation. The voters were never asked to approve this project, yet it was financed and built, he said. Now, property owners are being asked to pay for it. The resolution and contract being considered now by the county board doesn’t include property owners, he noted. The only way that the voters have a voice is in the millage vote. If the millage is approved, Kelley asked the board to keep an open mind about broadening the tax base for this debt service to the fullest extent possible. Until 2004, there were additional property owners in Sylvan Township – but now those properties have been annexed into the city of Chelsea. He said those property owners should also pay, and “enjoy the fruits of this fiasco.”

Sylvan Township Contract: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi noted that the county has already spent a lot of money on this project, and he wanted assurance that this contract would secure funds for all the money the county was owed now and into the future. Absolutely, replied county administrator Verna McDaniel. Over the 20-year period, all of the bond payments and interest will be covered.

Rob Turner added that the county will also be repaid for the taxes that are owed, plus interest on that amount.

Rabhi thanked Turner for his time and energy in resolving this situation, and said he hoped that the millage would be passed. It would be a better alternative than ”the other mess we could get into,” he said – an allusion to legal action against the township.

Turner said there are people in the township who would disagree with Rabhi, and who think that Turner is the enemy because he wasn’t a stronger advocate in saying that the county is culpable and should pay. He said he’s had people tell him that the county should help out Sylvan Township in this situation just like the county helped the Dexter area after the tornado touchdown in March. Assuming the millage is approved, Turner said this contract will smooth out the repayment and make things less painful for taxpayers. If property values go up, or if future development occurs in the township, the millage revenues will repay the county even faster.

There are only about 100 hookups to the water and wastewater treatment plant, but the rest of the township’s property owners will be paying for it – even though they don’t benefit from it, Turner said. It’s a hurtful situation for people, and a bitter pill to swallow. It will be a difficult millage vote, but Turner has heard people say they’ll support the millage because it’s better than the alternative. If a court ends up assessing property owners, it could be a lot higher than a 4.4 mill tax, he noted.

Felicia Brabec said she had been interested in Turner’s view of the likelihood that the millage would pass, and he’d provided some insight. Maybe the tide is turning, she said. Brabec also wondered what the impact will be on the county’s capital reserves. Are there projects that can’t be funded, because money is being used for the Sylvan Township bond payments?

McDaniel replied that the county has the capacity to make the Sylvan Township bond payments, and to cover its other bond obligations as well. [She did not provide details about the balance at the July 11 meeting, but had previously told The Chronicle in May 2012 that the capital reserve fund's available balance stood at about $4.7 million.]

Outcome: Commissioners voted to authorize the contract with Sylvan Township.

Workforce Development Funding

On the July 11 agenda were several items related to funding for workforce development programs, administered by the county’s office of community and economic development.

The board was asked to approve an annual employment services plan for programs provided at the Michigan Works! Career Transition Center in Ypsilanti. [.pdf of employment services plan] The plan is required in order to receive federal funding, allocated by the state’s Workforce Development Agency. This year, the county will receive $470,755 for the period from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.

Also on the agenda was the county’s application for $2,548,864 in funding for federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs for adults, dislocated workers, and youth from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. That’s a decrease from $2,995,151 awarded in the previous fiscal year.

The county board also was asked to authorize the receipt of an additional $350,000 from the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker program – funds that were unspent by other entities from a fiscal 2010 federal program, and that are being reallocated. For a similar reason, additional federal funding was also available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Regional Economic Impact Workforce Investment Act National Emergency Grant. The county will receive $258,919 more than originally budgeted to provide employment services for displaced workers.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved all workforce development agenda items.

Community Corrections

The annual plan and application for funding of Washtenaw County’s community corrections program was on the agenda for approval at the July 11 meeting. The plan covers the period from Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2013 with a $1,037,788 budget.

Community corrections is operated by the sheriff’s office and includes a variety of programs. Goals include: (1) reducing prison sentences for eligible offenders; (2) reducing jail crowding so that priority for jail beds will be reserved for dangerous offenders; and (3) reducing recidivism by providing credible alternatives to incarceration. Services range from pre-trial intervention to jail-based programs and treatment initiatives for probationers and parolees.

Of the $1.037 million budget, $430,719 is expected to be funded by the Michigan Dept. of Corrections, with an additional $260,890 estimated to come from fee revenue, $240,983 from the county general fund, and $105,196 from the community corrections fund balance. Because people who participate in these programs would otherwise likely be in the county jail, the sheriff’s office estimates that community corrections saved the county $4.756 million in 2011 by eliminating the need for 55,953 jail bed days at $85 per day.

Community Corrections: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi asked whether the funding in the plan had already been factored into the current budget. County administrator Verna McDaniel indicted that it had been.

Barbara Bergman, who has served on the community corrections advisory board, thanked the program’s director, Renee Wilson, for her work. Wilson has been running the program with diminishing resources from the state, she said, but Bergman didn’t know how much longer that could be done. Keeping people out of jail is a tremendous service, Bergman said, and it’s unfair for the state to keep asking the county to do more while not providing adequate resources.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the annual plan and application for funding for the community corrections program.

Water Resources Projects

The board was asked to approve backing the bonds for four projects proposed by the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, including three in Ann Arbor.

Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, talks with Peter Ecklund of Axe and Ecklund, bond counsel for projects on the July 11 agenda.

The three Ann Arbor projects are: (1) stabilizing Traver Creek as it runs through the Leslie Park Golf Course, costing up to $1.805 million; (2) providing stormwater retention and infiltration from the road surface using porous asphalt on Willard Street, in the Allen Creek drain district and costing up to $345,000; and (3) providing bio-retention and stormwater capture via reforestation as part of a Huron River “green infrastructure” project, costing up to $345,000.

The Ann Arbor projects require the county to give its full faith and credit, although the payment of bonds will be funded through special assessments in districts tied to each project. The most high-profile of these project will involve work at the Leslie Park Golf Course. Most recently, the city’s park advisory commission was briefed on this project at its June 19, 2012 meeting.

The fourth project backed by the county is for a five-year North Lake improvement project in Dexter and Lyndon townships. Costing up to $305,000, it would include controlling invasive and nuisance species, such as the Eurasian water milfoil, and maintaining a lake level control structure. The bond payments would be made with revenues from a special assessment of the district benefiting from the lake improvements.

Water Resources Projects: Board Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. teased Janis Bobrin, the water resources commissioner, asking her if she was just trying to get a lot done before she left office. [Bobrin, a Democrat who has served in that elected position for more than 20 years, is not seeking re-election this year. Two Democrats – Harry Bentz and Evan Pratt – are competing for the position in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary, with the winner facing Republican Eric Scheie in November.]

Yousef Rabhi asked what kind of restoration was being planned with the Huron River green infrastructure project. Bobrin replied that the city of Ann Arbor will be implementing the project, planting trees in the right-of-ways and other city-owned areas.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously authorized bonding for all four water resources projects.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan

The board was asked to set a hearing for Aug. 1, 2012 to get public input on a brownfield financing plan for a residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

The apartment complex – located at the site of the former Fox Tent and Awning, north of Mosley between Main and Ashley – is being put forward by Dan Ketelaar’s Urban Group Development Co., and will be marketed to young professionals. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

Previously approved by the Ann Arbor city council on June 18, the project’s brownfield tax increment finance (TIF) plan works in conjunction with a $650,000 TIF grant (paid over a period of four years) awarded by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board at its June 6, 2012. Both the brownfield TIF and the DDA TIF work in a similar way. The developer must build the project and pay the new taxes on the project, then receive reimbursement for eligible expenses. The brownfield plan includes developer reimbursements of $3.7 million over 21 years.

Work covered by the brownfield plan includes: site investigations for characterization of soils and dewatering if water is encountered during excavation; disposal of soils; demolition of buildings and removal of existing site improvements; lead and asbestos abatement; infrastructure improvements like water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer upgrades, street repair and improvements to streets; and site preparation like staking, geotechnical engineering, clearing and grubbing.

For additional background on the project, see Chronicle coverage: “618 S. Main Project Gets Planning Support” and “Ann Arbor City Council OKs 618 S. Main.”

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan: Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen told commissioners that this is the time of year when public bodies sometimes put through controversial items that have been put aside, but that reemerge in the summer like cicadas – when many people are out of town. He said he was happy to see that’s not the case for the county board.

He wanted to talk about brownfields, and noted that there was a lot of activity in Ann Arbor. There’s a danger of mission creep, Mogensen said. The brownfield designation started out as a way to deal with contaminated sites, but now includes other categories as well. It’s important to ask what the public benefit is from making a brownfield designation. By the time the county holds a public hearing, the likelihood of a brownfield plan being turned down is unlikely, he said. Mogensen said he wasn’t asking that the board turn down this particular proposal, but he did ask that they act as an oversight body, and not overlook their responsibility. It’s important not to expend public money to finance projects if the projects could not otherwise get financing, he said.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners voted to set a public hearing for the 618 S. Main project at their Aug. 1, 2012 meeting.

Appointments

The board was asked to make two appointments to the county’s local emergency planning committee: Stephen D. Field and Martin Donaldson, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2014.

Board chair Conan Smith noted that it’s difficult to recruit people to this committee, and he was grateful that they found two people who would serve.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved appointments to the  local emergency planning committee.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The other parties in the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which both would contribute existing millages to the new authority, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is spearheading this effort and would shift its assets to the new entity. The governing bodies of those three parties have already approved the transit documents. [.pdf of four-party agreement and articles of incorporation]

At the July 11 meeting, several amendments proposed by commissioner Dan Smith were discussed, but none of the amendments secured enough votes to pass. If the agreement or articles of incorporation are amended, the documents would need to be reconsidered by the other three parties. The amendments were similar to those that Smith had put forward at a three hour working session on June 14. Broadly, the amendments and discussion centered on the following topics: issues of local versus regional control; the process by which local communities could opt-out or opt-in to the new transit authority; parity between Ann Arbor and other municipalities; and how details of the service and funding plan would be communicated.

The county would not be contributing assets or a millage to the new authority. Nor would the county board be asked to put a countywide millage request on the ballot. Rather, the county’s role would be for the the county clerk to file articles of incorporation with the state – an action to create a transit authority under Michigan Act 196. When formed, the Act 196 board would have authority to put a funding proposal on the ballot for voters to consider. A financial advisory group that’s been working on this effort has suggested that revenues equivalent to a 0.5 mill tax would be needed to cover the cost of expanded services for the first five years. [.pdf of financial advisory group report]

For the most recent general Chronicle coverage of transit issues, see: “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”

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

Washtenaw County commissioners Leah Gunn and Conan Smith, who both represent districts in Ann Arbor, exchange hand gestures before the start of the June 6, 2012 board of commissioners meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners were briefed by Dick Fleece, the county’s top public health official, about the new effort to eliminate the sale of synthetic marijuana – known as “spice” and sold legally as K2, Yucatan Fire and other brand names – as well as other synthetic drugs. The “carrot-and-stick” approach will encourage businesses to remove the products voluntarily, Fleece said, and highlight that decision with a decal that stores can use to indicate compliance. But if businesses don’t comply, the county has the authority to issue a public health order against them and, if necessary, get a court injunction to force compliance.

While commissioners acknowledged that synthetic drugs are dangerous – effects can include hallucinations, aggression, paranoia, and seizures – there were some questions for Fleece about why the county is targeting these particular products, which are sold legally. Fleece indicated that there’s heightened concern among residents and coverage of the issue in nearly every media outlet nationally. Some commissioners expressed skepticism about the approach, indicating a preference for a broader educational campaign about the dangers of legal and illegal substances.

Other public health items on the June 6 agenda included hiring Alice Penrose as the county’s new medical director, and approving the application for a state grant to pay for water quality monitoring at five local beaches. The board also appointed 15 members to the new Washtenaw Food Policy Council, and approved the application for federal funding of a summer meal program for low-income children.

Commissioners also voted to schedule a special working session on June 14 to discuss a four-party public transit agreement that’s intended to set the stage for a possible countywide transit authority. A new transit authority – tentatively called The Washtenaw Ride – would expand the governance and service area of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Some commissioners intend to bring forward amendments to the agreement, which the board is expected to vote on at its regular July 11 meeting. If the county board does amend the four-party agreement, it would need to be reconsidered by the other three entities involved, which have already approved it: the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the AATA board.

During the time allotted for communications, commissioners discussed the decision by the state not to reimburse local communities for emergency expenses related to the March 15 tornado touchdown near Dexter. Also, Verna McDaniel highlighted the state’s approval of a $1 million grant to fund brownfield cleanup at the former Georgetown Mall in Ann Arbor, for a residential project called Packard Square. The board had approved the grant application a year ago, following a contentious discussion about the project.

Other actions during the June 6 meeting included: (1) authorizing a grant agreement for up to $60,000 in emergency housing assistance for residents facing eviction from Camp Take Notice; (2) taking a final vote to set the 2012 county general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills; and (3) giving final approval for re-funding of previously-issued bonds, a move that’s expected to save $889,000 over the life of the bond repayments.

Program to Fight Synthetic Drugs

Dick Fleece, the county’s public health officer, briefed the county board about a program to eliminate the sale of synthetic marijuana – known as “spice” and sold legally as K2, Yucatan Fire and other brand names – as well as other synthetic drugs. The program was being launched by the Washtenaw County public health department, and did not require any action by the board.

County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the briefing by telling commissioners that a group of county officials had met earlier in the day to develop a response for what’s perceived as a dangerous public health threat. The group included McDaniel, Fleece, other public health officials, sheriff Jerry Clayton, county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie, and county corporation counsel Curtis Hedger. McDaniel reported that the county had been receiving emails from concerned parents – about 20 or so – as well as calls to the county’s help desk. They are trying to be proactive in their response, she said.

Fleece began by saying he wouldn’t focus on details of the health effects – commissioners could read about that in a packet of materials that was handed out at the meeting. Instead, he wanted to describe the coordinated approach that’s being put in place to respond to these very dangerous products.

County officials had decided to respond with a carrot-and-stick approach, he said. The plan entails asking businesses to voluntarily stop selling these products – and if they agree, they’ll be given a decal indicating that they are part of this program. If they refuse, Fleece said he has the authority to issue a public health order that would direct the businesses to remove these products from their shelves, but he hoped those orders would be “few and far between.” If the businesses don’t comply with the order, they can be taken to court, he said. It will take a community effort to apply pressure, making businesses realize that they’re doing harm and that it’s not worth whatever profit they’re making.

Fleece told commissioners that his department planned to issue a press release with additional details about the program later in the week. The press release was subsequently issued on Friday, June 8. [.pdf of press release] [.pdf of public health notice] A website also is set up with details of the program.

Synthetic Drugs: Board Discussion

Rob Turner asked how people would find out about this program. Fleece replied that in addition to the press release, information would be posted on the county’s website, and businesses would be able to sign up online to participate.

Turner described it as an important effort, noting that when he served on the Chelsea school board, he had learned of the problem. At the time, it was primarily happening in Canada, he said, but “now, it’s here.” He was glad the county is taking a proactive approach.

Dick Fleece, the county's public health officer, briefed commissioners on a program to combat synthetic drugs in Washtenaw County.

Felicia Brabec asked about the consequence of receiving a public health order. Fleece said if the business doesn’t comply, the county could go to court and get an injunction that would force the business to stop selling the products. Brabec said she had recently attended a county symposium on the dangers of prescription drug use, and she thanked Fleece for his department’s efforts.

Wes Prater asked about plans for follow-up, noting that some businesses might abuse the program by signing up and getting the decal, even though they’d continue to sell the products. Fleece replied that they’ll have a way for the public to report such abuses.

While commissioners acknowledged that synthetic drugs are dangerous – effects can include hallucinations, aggression, paranoia, and seizures – there were some questions for Fleece about why the county is targeting these particular products, which are sold legally. Fleece indicated that there’s heightened concern among residents and coverage of the issue in nearly every media outlet nationally.

Alicia Ping asked if there had been specific problems related to synthetic drugs in Washtenaw County. Therese Doud, prevention coordinator for the county’s public health department, said there hadn’t been a lot of reported cases to date, but she indicated that the use of these drugs is assumed to be higher than just the reported cases, based on national trends. There haven’t been a lot of cases in local hospital emergency rooms, but the county wants to be proactive, Doud said. Fleece noted that nationwide, 11% of high school seniors have reported using synthetic drugs.

Ping noted that lots of legal products – like glue or aerosol cans – can be used in dangerous ways, and yet they aren’t being outlawed. Will the county be providing a broader effort to educate parents and others about these dangers? Doud replied that they’ll take a look at that. Other communities, such as Macomb County, have helpful informational websites, Doud said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. picked up that issue, asking if there are other products that the county should be discussing in conjunction with synthetic drugs. Fleece replied that almost everything relates to public health, so the county has to prioritize its efforts. This issue of synthetic drugs is front and center now, he said, so that’s why they’re strategizing about it.

Sizemore asked if the county had formed an advisory committee of local businesses to help with the effort. No, Fleece said, at this point they haven’t tried to create a broader coalition. The issue only came to prominence recently, Fleece added, and the county wanted to take action ahead of anticipated state legislation. Sizemore suggested that the board should schedule a working session on the issue.

Yousef Rabhi said it was fascinating to watch the recent heightened concern about these products, given that they’ve been available for years. He noted that the legalization of natural marijuana would obviate the need for synthetic versions. The state’s continuing efforts to constrain the use of medical marijuana – even though voters overwhelmingly approved the legalization of that drug for medical purposes – should be part of the discussion, he said.

Dan Smith asked Fleece to elaborate on the public health directive, and how it relates to both legal and illegal substances that might be abused. What’s the reason for focusing on synthetic drugs? Fleece said the directive is focused on K2 and other synthetic drugs primarily in response to concerns from citizens. It isn’t focused on illegal drugs like marijuana or heroin. The synthetic drugs are legal now, but pose serious health consequences that can be addressed by this directive, Fleece said. If businesses voluntarily stop selling these products, the county wants to applaud that, he said, and publicize that decision. If not, the county will declare it as an imminent health threat and go to court.

Commissioners Dan Smith and Alicia Ping.

Ping advocated for putting a priority on education rather than enforcement, alerting people to the dangers of these and other products – legal and illegal – that can be used in harmful ways. She noted that the state is expected to take action against synthetic drugs, and she felt the county was rushing to do something that it didn’t need to do.

Dan Smith also expressed concern about spending county funds on prosecuting something that’s legal. The prosecutor’s office already has a lot of work to do, he noted, and he didn’t like the idea of spending even more money on attorney fees.

Prater argued that the county needed to act now, because the danger is immediate.

Conan Smith asked Fleece to explain how resources would be allocated for this program. Fleece replied that they don’t know what the demand will be, but it’s expected that a lot of merchants will remove the products voluntarily. There will be a few stragglers, but he didn’t expect there would be many cases where the county would need to take a business to court. He hoped it would be more of a public education campaign, and businesses will take care of the problem on their own.

Conan Smith noted that there’s sensitivity to the problem of synthetic drugs, but also a concern about its strategic importance when weighed against other public health issues. He encouraged Fleece to connect with commissioners individually, and to ”use your powers appropriately on our behalf.”

Prater pointed out that gas stations and convenience stores were the places most likely to sell these products, and the businesses are just interested in making money. It would be wrong for the county simply to do nothing, he said.

Outcome: The board was not asked to take any action. The measures outlined by Dick Fleece are within his authority to implement.

County Medical Director

In another item related to public health, commissioners were asked to authorize the hiring of Alice Penrose as the county’s public health medical director, effective July 30 at a salary of $130,000. The position is currently vacant, and those state-mandated services are being provided under contract with the Oakland County medical director, Pamela Hackert. Both Penrose and Hackert attended the board’s June 6 meeting.

Under the Michigan Public Health Code (Public Act 368 of 1978), Medicare services provided by the county – including immunizations and the maternal infant health program – require that a licensed medical doctor on staff bill Medicare, via the state, for reimbursement.

Alice Penrose will be Washtenaw County's new medical director, effective July 30.

Penrose is a licensed physician in the State of Michigan, with a medical degree and a master’s degree in public health. She is board certified in preventive medicine and internal medicine. She most recently has served as a primary care practitioner at the Packard Health clinic in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of Alice Penrose's résumé]

The previous medical director, Monique Reeves, had been appointed by the board just a year ago at the June 1, 2011 board meeting, with a salary of $125,000. Reeves tendered her resignation in a letter dated March 15, 2012 and effective April 13. In the letter, which did not indicate her reason for resigning, Reeves states: ”It was my distinct privilege to serve the citizens of Washtenaw County during my brief tenure. Although it was my sincerest hope that things would have worked out differently, I believe that an amicable parting of the ways is the best course of action at this juncture.” [.pdf of resignation letter]

Responding to a query from The Chronicle after the meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel said the decision by Reeves to resign had been a “sad loss for us.” She described Reeves as a visionary, and drew an analogy to speed limits, saying that the public health department had a 45 mile an hour speed limit, while Reeves needed to drive at 80 miles an hour.

County Medical Director: Board Discussion

Dan Smith noted that the county has been contracting out for the medical director’s work. How’s that going? he asked.

Dick Fleece, the county’s public health officer, introduced Pamela Hackert, Oakland County’s medical director. Fleece noted that Hackert has served on an as-needed basis, to fulfill the state requirement. She isn’t working on a full-time basis, so there is outreach work that isn’t being done, he said, but it’s been a good interim solution.

Smith asked what the cost of the contract is with Hackert, compared to having a full-time medical director. Fleece replied that he didn’t have that detail in hand, but the contract with Hackert was cheaper. However, he added, the county needs a full-time medical director. He introduced Alice Penrose, who also was attending the meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve the hiring of Alice Penrose as medical director, effective July 30, 2012.

Public Beach Water Quality

A third item related to public health was a resolution that asked that the board approve an application for a Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s water quality monitoring grant for $7,654. It requires at least a 25% local match, which will be provided primarily as an in-kind contribution of county staff time. The total project budget is $11,147. The state funding runs from May 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The monitoring program previously has been paid for with general fund dollars.

Results from the monitoring will be posted on the MDEQ’s beach water monitoring website.

Public Beach Water Quality: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked which beaches are being monitored. The question was fielded by Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director. The five beaches are located at Bruin Lake, Half Moon Lake, Independence Lake, Silver Lake and Sugarloaf Lake.

Brabec asked if other beaches are eligible. Fleece replied that this program has been sampling water at local beaches for over 35 years, but it’s not a mandated program. The county is relying on the grant to be able to do the monitoring, he said. Brabec called it a wonderful public health service.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the water quality monitoring grant application.

Countywide Transit

In an item added to the agenda during the June 6 meeting, commissioners were asked to schedule a special working session for Thursday, June 14 to discuss a four-party public transit agreement that’s intended to set the stage for a possible countywide transit authority. A new transit authority – tentatively called The Washtenaw Ride – would expand the governance and service area of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

The effort is spearheaded by the AATA. Yousef Rabhi – who chairs the board’s working sessions – noted that AATA had originally hoped the board would act on the agreement at its June 6 meeting. However, Rabhi said, there was some hesitancy among commissioners to do that. They wanted a robust discussion about the agreement, but didn’t want to wait until their next regular meeting on July 11. [During the summer, the county board holds its regular meetings only once a month.]

Rabhi said that a compromise was to schedule a special working session on the issue. He hoped they could talk through all the issues at that point, so “come prepared for a lengthy discussion,” he said. The board could then vote on the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation at its July 11 meeting.

From left: Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel and commissioner Yousef Rabhi, who'll be chairing the June 14 working session on the four-party transit agreement.

The other three entities in the agreement – the AATA board, and the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – have authorized the accord.

The process of ratifying the four-party agreement has been somewhat complex. The Ypsilanti city council had initially approved the agreement on May 15, 2012, but amended it in a way that required the Ann Arbor city council, which had approved an earlier version on March 5, to reconsider the amended version. The Ann Arbor council did that on June 4, 2012, but Ann Arbor did not accept all of the Ypsilanti amendments. So the agreement went back to Ypsilanti city council, and on June 5, Ypsilanti councilmembers voted to match the amended agreement that was approved by the Ann Arbor city council the previous day. That version, now approved by both bodies, provides for different treatment of a 1% municipal service charge by each city.

Under the agreement approved by both councils, Ann Arbor will extract a 1% municipal service charge before forwarding its transit millage revenues to a possible new transportation authority to be formed under Act 196 of 1986. Ypsilanti will not assess the charge, and will forward the full amount of its millage revenues to the Act 196 authority. The service charge would be roughly $90,000 for Ann Arbor, and about $3,000 for Ypsilanti – based on the revenues raised by the respective transit millages in those cities.

The fourth party in the four-party agreement – the AATA board – had approved the accord on May 16, 2012, but may now review and revote its approval in light of the amendments made by the two city councils.

At the county board’s June 6 meeting, Rabhi said he hoped that the board could reach a consensus on the agreement at the working session, even though a formal vote wouldn’t take place until July 11. He suggested that commissioners take a straw poll on any amendments they’d like to offer, so that the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils would have the opportunity to respond before the board’s July 11 vote. None of the other commissioners voiced objections to that approach. At least one commissioner has indicated to The Chronicle an intention to bring forward specific changes to the agreement.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to schedule the special working session on June 14. It starts at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor.

Funds for Camp Take Notice Residents

Commissioners took up a resolution authorizing a grant agreement for up to $60,000 in emergency housing assistance for residents facing eviction from Camp Take Notice, a homeless encampment on state-owned land in Scio Township. The funds will come from the Salvation Army of Michigan, to be provided to the county’s Barrier Busters Unmet Needs Fund. No general fund dollars will be used.

According to a staff memo, residents living in Camp Take Notice have been told by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation – which owns the land off of Wagner Road, where the camp is located – that they’ll need to leave by June 22. Several community groups – including the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, the county’s office of community and economic development, the county sheriff’s office, and local nonprofits serving the homeless – are working with state agencies to help identify housing and support services for these individuals. Staff of the county’s Community Support & Treatment Services Project Outreach Team (PORT) are also involved.

The Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) is providing $270,000 in housing subsidies for the 50-70 people who are currently staying at Camp Take Notice. The $60,000 in funds from the Salvation Army will be used for emergency transitional housing in motels, and for security deposits when more permanent housing is found. The MSHDA funds will be managed by Michigan Ability Partners (MAP) and the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, and those agencies will help find permanent housing for Camp Take Notice residents. The office of community and economic development will manage the $60,000 in funds for Barrier Busters, which helps coordinate efforts of local human services agencies.

Funds for Camp Take Notice Residents: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi called it a very positive item, and noted that there had been a rally recently to oppose the eviction. But if the eviction goes through, he said, these funds will help.

Outcome: The board approved the grant agreement for Camp Take Notice residents.

Food Policy Council

Commissioners were asked to appoint 15 members to a new Washtenaw Food Policy Council, and to pass amended bylaws. The board of commissioners had given final approval to create the council at its March 21, 2012 meeting.

Members appointed with one-year terms are: Bill Alt (faith-based organization); Amanda Edmonds (urban agriculture); Dena Jaffee (food service); Liz Dahl MacGregor (citizen); Nicole Miller (emergency food system); Lindsey Scalera (education); Dayle Wright (health care); and Patti Smith (human services).

Members appointed to two-year terms are: Jenna Bacolor (Washtenaw County public health); Nicole Chardoul (Waste management); Gretchen Hofing (nutrition); Tim Redmond (food manufacturer and distributor); Michaelle Rehmann (economic development); Kenny Siler (rural agriculture). County commissioner Yousef Rabhi had previously been appointed by the board to a two-year term.

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

A separate item related to approval of bylaws for the council [.pdf of food policy council bylaws].

Board chair Conan Smith clarified that the original bylaws did not clearly indicate what entity would be responsible for making these appointments. The amended bylaws clarify that the county board is responsible for appointing the policy council members. This time, the appointments will be people who are already serving, he said, “to avoid bad blood.”

Rabhi noted that all of the people who are being appointed have submitted résumés to the county and are very experienced. He fully supported their appointments.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to appoint members of the Washtenaw Food Policy Council and to amend the bylaws.

Millage Rate

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to set the 2012 county general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate.

Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (0.2353 mills and 0.236 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2011.

This is an annual procedural action, and 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.

Initial approval had been given at the county board’s May 16, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, commissioner Wes Prater expressed concern that the county parks & recreation department was building up a fund balance that is higher than necessary, and suggested that perhaps the entire millage for parks & rec did not need to be levied. Several commissioners defended the use of millage proceeds, noting that several large capital projects are on the horizon, including a possible recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti.

Millage Rate: Public Hearing

Only one person – Thomas Partridge – spoke at a public hearing on the millage rate, and cited the need for additional revenues. He criticized the county’s “casting off” of the Head Start program. There are feral dogs and cats that are abandoned and that cause a grave danger to the public because of potential bites and rabies. The county can’t house the homeless who are virtually on the doorsteps of local governments, he said. Partridge advocated for tax reforms and for placing a Headlee override on the ballot.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners voted to set the 2012 county general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills.

Summer Food Grant

Washtenaw County commissioners were asked to authorize the application for a $108,364 federal grant – available through reimbursements from the Michigan Dept. of Education – to fund a summer food program for children of low-income families. The program will be supplemented with $37,386 in additional federal Community Services Block Grant funding.

The program will serve about 13,000 breakfasts, 37,000 lunches, and 21,000 snacks to children at 12 sites throughout the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area, including schools, recreation centers, community centers, or other community-based organizations. It will be administered by the office of community and economic development, a joint county/city of Ann Arbor unit. The county has administered this program for more than two decades, according to a staff memo.

Summer Food Grant: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec noted that there is a big jump in the number of meals this year compared to last year. In 2011, the program served 8,180 breakfasts, 16,229 lunches, and 8,000 snacks. Does that reflect an increase in need? she asked.

Susan Sweet Scott, the county’s human services manager, explained that the numbers for this year are estimates, and are probably optimistic. Because the program is funded on a reimbursement basis, she said, there’s no concern about the county’s ability to cover the costs, regardless of how many meals are served.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the application for the summer food grant.

Bond Re-Funding

A resolution giving final approval for the re-funding of bonds previously issued by Washtenaw County was on the June 6 agenda. The action – advised by the county’s bond counsel, John Axe of Axe & Ecklund of Grosse Pointe Farms – consolidates two previous bond issues and is expected to save $889,000 over the life of the bond repayments. Initial approval was given at the board’s May 16, 2012 meeting.

In 2004, the county board had approved a bond sale of $6.365 million to fund energy efficiency improvements in county facilities. Chevron Energy Solutions was hired to oversee that effort, which is known as the Chevron project. About $4.69 million in principle is owed on that bond. [Commissioners were last updated on this project at their June 2010 working session.]

In 2005, the board approved a bond sale of $11.475 million to re-fund a 1999 bond issued for projects that included capital improvements for the juvenile detention center, buildings at 110 N. Fourth and 200 N. Main, and the environmental services building on Zeeb Road. About $7.835 million in principle is still owed on that bond issue.

Because of current low interest rates, Axe has advised the county board to authorize the sale of a single re-funding bond issue not to exceed $12.35 million. The re-funding bonds will be called the County of Washtenaw Capital Improvement Re-funding Bond Series 2012.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board approved the re-funding of bonds, as well as a separate resolution authorizing continued disclosure on the re-funding bond issue, as required by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC).

Project LIFT

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to apply for a $1,348,853 federal grant from the U.S. Dept. of Labor to fund Project LIFT, a jobs training and service program for juvenile ex-offenders run by the county sheriff’s office. The program aims to serve 100 youth. [.pdf of program description] The grant application had received initial approval at the board’s May 16, 2012 meeting.

A staff memo notes that while Washtenaw County “has the best employment rates compared to its neighbors, it also has the highest rate of criminal recidivism in the state, with 80% of released prisoners being re-imprisoned 2-3 years later. In addition, many at-risk youth reside in communities that serve as a revolving door for offenders returning to society from our jails and prisons. With community-based reintegration in Washtenaw County still in its infancy, there is a need to engage youth before they are introduced to the criminal justice system as adults, within their own communities, that will deter them from criminal behavior.”

According to the staff report, the sheriff’s community action team estimates there are 12-13 gangs active in Washtenaw County, with 9-10 gangs active in one neighborhood alone. The largest gang has an estimated 25 members.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave final approval to apply for the Project LIFT grant.

Communications & Public Commentary

There are various opportunities for communications from commissioners as well as general public commentary. These are some highlights.

Communications: Dexter Area Tornado

Felicia Brabec noted that the county had received a letter from the state denying a request for emergency assistance related to the March 15, 2012 tornado touchdown in the Dexter area. She asked for an update.

The letter had been sent by Thomas Sands, deputy state director of emergency management and homeland security. [.pdf of letter from Thomas Sands] It was in response to a request sent to Gov. Rick Snyder in April by board chair Conan Smith, asking for the state to reimburse local municipalities for costs incurred as a result of the devastation. Local governments had itemized about $1 million in costs, but the total – primarily in damages to residences – is estimated at over $9 million. [.pdf of Smith's letter to Snyder] [.pdf summarizing tornado-related expenses]

Smith told Brabec that this means there won’t be any reimbursement from the state, “so it’s money out of our pocket.” The county’s share of those costs is less than $200,000. Smith noted that the board had previously allocated up to $500,000 for tornado relief – they had voted unanimously to do that at their March 21 meeting, using funds from capital reserves to pay for overtime costs for staff and costs for dumpsters to haul away debris, among other things.

Rob Turner, who’s been acting as point person for the response – because he represents District 1, which includes the Dexter area – said he’d provide a final report with updated numbers to the board. He noted that residents are very appreciative of the county’s efforts.

Ronnie Peterson said he was pleased with the county’s response, but he wondered if there was a policy regarding how the county responds to emergencies – whether it’s a tornado or an ice storm or something else. At any time, such an emergency could hit any community, he noted.

Conan Smith noted that at the beginning of each year, the board chair signs a comprehensive emergency management plan prepared by the county’s emergency management division, which is led by Marc Breckenridge. Breckenridge and his team had coordinated the response to the Dexter tornado touchdown.

Peterson said he was proud of the county’s response, and it’s unfortunate that the state didn’t perceive it as an emergency. But he said it was important to revisit the county’s emergency protocol.

Turner agreed, saying it’s important for local governments to know what kind of help the county can provide. He said he’d been glad to serve as a point person for the tornado response, but something more formal and comprehensive would help  make it easier for local communities to get what they need.

Wes Prater suggested that Breckenridge give a presentation to the board about what’s already in place. It would be good for the board to review and understand, he said.

Communications: Packard Square

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that she had received a letter from state Sen. Rebekah Warren, congratulating the county on the cleanup of the Packard Square development at the former Georgetown Mall in Ann Arbor. [Warren is married to county board chair Conan Smith.] On May 11, the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality issued a press release announcing that the state had awarded a $1 million brownfield redevelopment grant for the project.

McDaniel reminded commissioners that they had approved the brownfield plan and grant application last year, which she said will allow the site to be redeveloped. It’s been a long time coming, she added, and any time there’s the opportunity to clean up a contaminated site, they should take it.

By way of background, the board approved the brownfield plan and grant application at its May 18, 2011 meeting, after a contentious discussion. The developers, The Harbor Cos., had asked the board to approve a $1 million loan application to the MDEQ, as well as a request to authorize designation of the county’s full faith and credit as a guarantee for any loan that might be awarded, up to $1 million. The loan request spurred a board discussion about the need to develop a broader public-private investment policy.

The Harbor Cos. later decided not to apply for the MDEQ loan. Some commissioners – notably Leah Gunn – weren’t sure such a broader policy was necessary. Ultimately no further action was taken on developing a policy.

Since then, the board has approved several other brownfield plans, including plans for (1) Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw in Ann Arbor; (2) Ford Motor Co’s Rawsonville plant in Ypsilanti Township; and (3) the LaFontaine Chevrolet redevelopment project in Dexter.

As part of their packet of communications for the June 6, 2012 meeting, commissioners also received the 2011 annual report of the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Program. [.pdf of 2011 brownfield report] It was not discussed at the meeting.

Communications: Public Commentary – Ypsilanti Township

Hal Wolfe of McKinley Street  in Ypsilanti Township addressed the board on several issues. He noted that he’s been involved in his neighborhood watch group, and that there are a lot of mental health facilities in the area. One of them is so small that it falls below the level of scrutiny, he said. Yet there are all sorts of incidents there, and it’s tearing his neighborhood apart. Police come regularly, and there’s even been a case of physical assault, he said. It’s becoming exceedingly difficult to live on his street. Wolfe said he’s been trying to find out how these facilities are funded by the county, and he’s meeting with township supervisor Brenda Stumbo to address the issue, too.

Wolfe also expressed concern about the increase in rental housing. Some tenants are good, but some aren’t. He’d hate to see his street turn into a blighted urban slum, but he wasn’t sure what the county’s role would be in addressing that.

Finally, Wolfe raised the issue of towing. He knew that negotiations were ongoing with the county sheriff’s office to renew a towing contract. He reported that he had been towed and had to pay the lion’s share of $500 to Budget Towing – he wasn’t sure it had been legal. Wolfe planned to meet with county officials about it, and he argued that there should be a more equitable rate structure.

By way of background, commissioners have previously heard complaints about the towing contract. Billy Salamey – who’s the owner of Budget Towing, Stadium Towing and Glen Ann Towing – had addressed commissioners at their Feb. 1, 2012 meeting, responding to accusations made by one of his competitors that he had submitted a fraudulent bid. A request for proposals (RFP) had been issued for the contract in June of 2011.

At the June 6 meeting, board chair Conan Smith responded to Wolfe by pointing out that housing issues are handled by the county’s office of community & economic development – he noted that its director, Mary Jo Callan, was in the room. Smith said that Callan could give Wolfe the assistance he needed.

Ronnie Peterson also responded, saying the situation in the eastern part of the county warranted discussion. [Peterson represents District 6, which covers Ypsilanti and part of Ypsilanti Township.] That part of the county shouldn’t be a dumping ground, he said. While he supports residential mental health programs, there shouldn’t be a saturation in particular neighborhoods. He didn’t want Wolfe to feel ignored, and said he was taking an interest in the situation. Peterson also expressed concern that because the real estate market was so depressed, some people in the more affluent parts of the county were taking advantage of that to buy houses for rental property.

Communications: Public Commentary – Thomas Partridge

In addition to the public hearing noted above, Thomas Partridge spoke during two other opportunities for public commentary. He reported that he is a Democratic candidate for state representative in District 53, representing Ann Arbor. [The district is now represented by Democrat Jeff Irwin, who is seeking re-election. Irwin is a former county commissioner.] Partridge said he was there to advocate for the most vulnerable residents, especially those who are in need of shelter, countywide transportation, affordable health care and free education.

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

Absent: Barbara Bergman.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle calendar listing 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 would 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 effort is spearheaded by the AATA. Its CEO, Michael Ford, had expressed interest in putting the item on the county board’s June 6 agenda. The other three entities in the agreement – the AATA board, and the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – have authorized the accord. However, county commissioners wanted more time to consider the agreement before voting on it. Their next regular board meeting is on July 11.

The process of ratifying the four-party agreement has been somewhat complex. The Ypsilanti city council had initially approved the agreement on May 15, 2012, but amended it in a way that required the Ann Arbor city council, which had approved an earlier version on March 5, to reconsider the amended version. The Ann Arbor council did that on June 4, 2012, but Ann Arbor did not accept all of the Ypsilanti amendments. So the agreement went back to Ypsilanti city council, and on June 5, Ypsilanti councilmembers voted to match the amended agreement that was approved by the Ann Arbor city council the previous day. That version, now approved by both bodies, provides for different treatment of a 1% municipal service charge by each city.

Under the agreement approved by both councils, Ann Arbor will extract a 1% municipal service charge before forwarding its transit millage revenues to a possible new transportation authority to be formed under Act 196 of 1986. Ypsilanti will not assess the charge, and will forward the full amount of its millage revenues to the Act 196 authority. The service charge would be roughly $90,000 for Ann Arbor, and about $3,000 for Ypsilanti – based on the revenues raised by the respective transit millages in those cities.

The fourth party in the four-party agreement – the AATA board – had approved the accord on May 16, 2012, but may now review and revote its approval in light of the amendments made by the two city councils.

At the county board’s June 6 meeting, commissioner Yousef Rabhi – who chairs the board’s working sessions – said he hoped that the board could reach a consensus on the agreement at the working session, even though a formal vote wouldn’t take place until July 11. He suggested that commissioners take a straw poll on any amendments they’d like to offer, so that the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils would have the opportunity to respond before the board’s July 11 vote. None of the other commissioners voiced objections to that approach. At least one commissioner has indicated to The Chronicle an intention to bring forward specific changes to the agreement.

The June 14 working session starts at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor.

This brief was filed soon after adjournment of the June 6 board meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The version of the four-party agreement adopted by the Ypsilanti council now matches that which was approved by the Ann Arbor city council the previous day on June 4, 2012. That version, now approved by both bodies, provides for different treatment of a 1% municipal service charge by each city.

Under the agreement, Ann Arbor will apply the 1% charge before forwarding its transit millage revenues to a possible new transportation authority to be formed under Act 196 of 1986. Ypsilanti will not assess the charge, and will forward the full amount of its millage revenues to the Act 196 authority. The dollar amounts for Ypsilanti are significantly smaller. The other two parties to the agreement are Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

The Ypsilanti council had approved the plan on May 15, 2012, but amended it in a way that required the Ann Arbor city council, which had approved an earlier version on March 5, to reconsider the amended version. The Ann Arbor council did that on June 4, 2012, but Ann Arbor did not accept all of the Ypsilanti amendments.

The May 15 amendments by the Ypsilanti city council would have eliminated, for both Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, the collection by each city of the municipal service charge, which would reimburse the city for handling the collection and transmission of money levied for the transportation millage. In Ann Arbor, this is 1% of the annual millage. The tax is 2.5 mills as provided by the Ann Arbor city charter, but it has been reduced by the Headlee Amendment to around 2 mills. In Ypsilanti, the millage is .9789, per the Ypsilanti city charter.

Translated into dollars, the service charge would be roughly $90,000 for Ann Arbor. For Ypsilanti, the amount would be about $3,000.

On May 15, Ypsilanti councilmember Peter Murdock had expressed the reason for the change: “[T]he money should go to the new [transit] authority, not to the two cities, and Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor should both do that.” At the June 5 meeting, Murdock indicated why he now would approve the amended document: “Ypsilanti is not going to have public transportation in the future unless the county plan is adopted.”

By way of background, Ypsilanti has a contractual relationship with the AATA by which the city purchases service from AATA, because Ypsilanti is outside the area supported by the Ann Arbor transit tax. The 0.9789 Ypsilanti millage is used to pay for the purchase of service agreement (POSA).

Falling property values in Ypsilanti will result in the 0.9789 levy generating fewer dollars, as a budget discussion earlier in the Ypsilanti council meeting revealed. Michael Ford, CEO of AATA, took the podium during the budget discussion at the request of mayor Paul Schreiber. Schreiber told Ford that in FY 2013 Ypsilanti would fall $21,000 short in its payment to AATA, and in FY 2014 there would be a projected $75,000 shortfall. “What would AATA do about that shortfall?” Schreiber asked. Ford responded: “We can work with you and we are willing to absorb the $21,000 loss.”

Ford told the Ypsilanti council that he would present the four-party agreement to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at their meeting on Wednesday, June 6. However, as of late Tuesday night, June 5, the agreement was not yet on the board’s online agenda. An email sent to county commissioners earlier in the day on June 5 from Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator, stated that “Michael Ford would like to come to the Ways and Means session tomorrow to start the process for the BOC [board of commissioners] to consider the documents.” The board’s Ways and Means Committee – of which all commissioners are members – meets immediately prior to the regular board meeting and is where agenda items are given initial consideration.

Update: An email from county administrator Verna McDaniel – circulated to county board members in the early afternoon of June 6 – states: ”Chair, Conan Smith has informed me that the 4-Party Agreement is planned to come before the Board with Commissioner Sizemore’s approval for the July 11th meetings. We have been asked to request Commissioner Rabhi approve a special Working Session prior to that meeting to answer any questions or concerns pertaining to the 4-Party Agreement.”

The fourth party in the four-party agreement – the AATA board – had approved the accord on May 16, 2012, but may now review and revote its approval in light of the amendments made by the two city councils.

The plan will undergo a period of public review lasting 30-days.

The five-year program includes: (1) countywide demand-responsive services and feeder services; (2) express bus services and local transit hubs services; (3) local community connectors and local community circulators; (4) park-and-ride intercept lots; and (5) urban bus network enhancements. For Ann Arbor, the program includes increased bus frequencies on key corridors, increased operating hours, and more services at weekends. The total hours of operation in the Ann Arbor district are expected to increase by 33% on weekdays and over 100% on Saturdays and Sundays.

By way of illustration of the five-year service programs for other districts in the county, the west district (including Chelsea and Manchester) would see new weekday and Saturday curb-to-curb services (from home to their final destination), as well as new “feeder services” that would get residents from their homes to a transit connection.

Like the task force recommendations, the AATA’s April 26 draft service and funding program stops short of recommending a new tax as the way to fund additional services: ”This is not a recommendation that a millage be pursued as a funding source, but is intended to illustrate the level of funding that would be needed.” However, the draft program does identify the needed countywide tax rate to cover the $32.9 million gap in revenues and costs for expanded service as 0.5 mill. One mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

Funding for the service program in the draft plan would also depend in part on fare increases for specific services, as well as a possible fare structure based on concentric zones, centered on Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The next zone out would include Dexter and Saline. And the third zone would include the rest of Washtenaw County as well as parts of Wayne County, where the AATA already offers service to Detroit Metro Airport. Within zones, travel would be less expensive than across zones. Also included in the draft report are different ticket types, including family fares, and a 7-day weekly pass that would be more economical than a 30-day pass – to appeal to lower-income workers.

The report includes a number of appendices, including demographic projections for each of the county’s districts, as well as a breakdown of how the “transit dependency index” is computed, which was one of many factors in decisions about what services to include in the draft five-year program. Decisions about the elements to include in the draft five-year program also incorporated the results of a public outreach effort the AATA has made over the last year and a half.

Publication of a final funding and service plan is a required step in a framework that could lead to the formation of a new transit authority, tentatively being called the Washtenaw Area Transportation Authority. The new authority would have broader representation, funding and coverage area than the AATA. The so-called “four-party agreement” framework under which the transition could take place has been ratified by only one of the four parties – Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor city council voted 7-4 at its March 5, 2012 meeting to ratify the agreement.

As a party to the agreement and the initiator of the process, the AATA is expected to ratify it in the near future. The city council of the city of Ypsilanti is expected to take up the issue after the May 8 election, when Ypsilanti voters will make a decision on a city income tax and a bond issuance to cover debts associated with the Water Street property. Washtenaw County is the fourth party to the agreement.

The final five-year service and funding plan will be issued by the AATA after public review and discussion with the unincorporated board of the new transit authority (the U196 board), which has been meeting since fall 2011.

A series of district advisory committee meetings will start on May 1, through May 17. The Ann Arbor district meeting will take place on May 14 at 7 p.m. at the Mallets Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library.

This brief was filed from the AATA headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Highway, where the board held its special meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]