The $103,005,127 budget for 2014 – which represents a slight decrease from the 2013 expenditures of $103,218,903 – includes putting a net total of 8.47 full-time-equivalent jobs on “hold vacant” status, as well as the net reduction of a 0.3 FTE position. The recommended budgets for the following years are $103,977,306 in 2015, $105,052,579 in 2016, and $106,590,681 in 2017. The budgets are based on an estimated 1% annual increase in property tax revenues. [.pdf of original draft budget summary] [.pdf of draft budget summary revised as of Nov. 20, 2013]

The vote was 7-1, with dissent by Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – though he cited three elements of the budget that he wanted to support: the community impact statements, outside agency funding, and position modifications. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent. Dan Smith (R-District 2), who had dissented in the initial vote on Nov. 6, stated that he still had several concerns with the budget, but he voted for it because the budget supported many important activities throughout the county. He noted that although it spanned four years, the board is required to approve the budget each year, so “technically it’s a one-year budget.”

A budget amendment had been put forward on Nov. 6 by Dan Smith, with the board postponing action on it until Nov. 20. That amendment had proposed adjusting projections to increase revenues by $449,813 over the four-year period, and allocating $100,000 per year in additional funds to the sheriff’s office. Early during the Nov. 20 budget discussion, Smith withdrew the amendment without discussion.

Several new amendments were made during deliberations on Nov. 20. An amendment proposed by Conan Smith (D-District 9) directs the administration to conduct a study of county staff “to assess the capabilities of the organization to meet the community outcomes and processes.” Another amendment directs the administration to conduct a “citizens experience study” that would help inform board priorities.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) proposed an amendment to shift $500,000 from the facilities operations fund to a contingency fund for parking. That contingency fund will serve as a placeholder as the county renegotiates parking contracts with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Most of the 8.47 FTEs that are proposed to be kept unfilled are in the sheriff’s office. On Nov. 6, sheriff Jerry Clayton had addressed the board, telling commissioners that his office can’t continue to absorb budget cuts without affecting services. On Nov. 20 he did not formally speak to the board, though he was in the building. After the meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) told The Chronicle that discussions are underway with the sheriff, and that there will be a budget amendment brought forward – likely in early 2014 – that will address some of the concerns raised by Clayton.

As he has on previous occasions, Peterson argued against the four-year budget approach, preferring to maintain the current two-year budget process. He said that if he’s re-elected in 2014, he’ll fight to overturn the four-year budget and institute a one- or two-year budget instead. The board’s leadership – including Rabhi and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the board’s ways & means committee – believe a four-year budget will improve long-term planning and stability, and could be transformational to the way that the county does business.

They also want the board to be engaged in a continual process of monitoring the outcomes related to budget investments. To that end, on Nov. 20 the board also voted to adopt a set of “community outcomes” to guide that investment, as well as a framework for developing future budgets that reflect those desired outcomes. [.pdf of community outcomes resolution] Those outcomes are more detailed “impact statements” tied to budget priorities that the board approved on July 24, 2013. The budget priorities are:

• Ensure a community safety net through health and human services, inclusive of public safety;
• Increase economic opportunity and workforce development;
• Ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for Washtenaw County residents;
• Reduce environmental impact;
• Internal labor force sustainability and effectiveness.

By way of example, the five community impact statements for the priority of “ensure a community safety net” are:

• Children in Washtenaw County will have access to care, support, and developmental tools they need to be ready to ensure success throughout graduation, college, or employment.
• Washtenaw County residents will have ready and affordable access to health care in order to achieve optimal health and increase life expectancy for all residents.
• Washtenaw County residents will have affordable and safe housing and transportation options.
• Washtenaw County residents will be food secure and have ample access to healthy foods that are locally sourced.
• Washtenaw County residents will be safe and secure at home and in their community.

The revised budget document incorporates a summary of this “community impact investing.” It directs the county administrator to bring a recommendation for implementation, including details on staffing and a budget, by Jan. 22, 2014 for board approval. Peterson expressed concerns that the funding for this process wasn’t yet clear. At this point, no resources have been identified for that purpose.

County administrator Verna McDaniel had initially presented the budget at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting. A public hearing was held on Oct. 15, 2013 but it was held after midnight and no one spoke. A second hearing was held on Nov. 20, but no one spoke at that, either.

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

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

Most of the 8.47 FTEs that are proposed to be kept unfilled are in the sheriff’s office. Sheriff Jerry Clayton attended the Nov. 6 meeting and addressed the board, telling commissioners that his office can’t continue to absorb budget cuts without affecting services.

Aside from discussing the sheriff’s concerns, much of the board’s discussion focused on the issue of a four-year budget, which is being proposed for the first time as a way to improve long-term planning and stability. Ronnie Peterson in particular objected strongly to that approach, and prefers to maintain the current two-year budget process.

County administrator Verna McDaniel had initially presented the budget at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting. A public hearing was held on Oct. 15, 2013 but it was held after midnight and no one spoke. On Nov. 6, the board set a second budget hearing for Nov. 20.

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

County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff had presented the budget on Oct. 2, 2013.

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

McDaniel had previously indicated that the county would need to find $3.9 million in structural savings in 2014. On Oct. 2, she reported that $4.13 million in operating cost reductions had been identified.

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

Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) talks with residents who attended the county board’s May 1 meeting to highlight the deteriorating condition of North Territorial Road, which runs through Smith’s district. (Photos by the writer.)

The May 16 retreat is set for the county’s Learning Resource Center at 4135 Washtenaw Ave. – near the county jail complex – starting at 6 p.m. The meeting is open to the public and will be videotaped.

Peterson also questioned the content of the retreat. “If it’s a hug fest,” he said, “I don’t have to be there.” Board chair Yousef Rabhi told commissioners that the goal will be to set priorities for the upcoming budget. “It’s going to be work,” Rabhi said. “There aren’t going to be any hugs, unless somebody wants to give me a hug.”

Also at the May 1 meeting, the board gave final approval to authorize the development of a four-year budget planning cycle, a change from the current two-year cycle that’s been in place since 1994. The vote was 7-2 vote, with dissent from Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Peterson argued that developing a budget is the main job for commissioners. “So we owe the taxpayers a rebate. I hope we cut our salaries in half … because there’s really a lot less work to do.” Though the planning cycle would be longer, the board is still required by state law to approve its budget annually – so that process wouldn’t change.

The board will get a better sense of the county’s financial status at its May 15 meeting, when county administrator Verna McDaniel will give a first-quarter update and a “state-of-the-county” presentation. One major factor is a pending decision for the board on whether to issue a $345 million bond to cover the county’s pension and retiree healthcare obligations. The board discussed that topic at a May 2 working session. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates $350M Bond Proposal."]

One item not on the May 1 agenda was raised during public commentary: The deteriorating condition of North Territorial Road, specifically a section running through Northfield and Salem townships. Residents have collected about 600 signatures on a petition urging the road commission to repair that stretch, and asked the county board to help address the problem “before somebody gets hurt or comes in here shouting or raving.”

County commissioner Dan Smith, who represents the district that includes Northfield and Salem townships, pointed out that there are possible funding mechanisms available to the county, including the possibility of levying a tax under Act 283 of 1909. A 1 mill levy in Washtenaw County would bring in about $13.8 million, based on 2012 property values, he said. He also noted that there’s a similar law on the books that appears to allow townships in Michigan to levy up to 3 mills for roads. That could bring in another $24.9 million throughout the county, he said. In total, about $38 million could be raised in Washtenaw County to fix the roads.

In other action during the May 1 meeting, commissioners gave initial approval to the Washtenaw Urban County‘s five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan.

The board also declared May 12-18, 2013 as Police and Correction Officers Week, and May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day. Dieter Heren, police services commander with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, was on hand to accept the resolution on behalf of sheriff Jerry Clayton and all law enforcement agencies in the county. He reminded the board that on May 15 at 10 a.m. there will be a memorial service in the Washtenaw 100 Park in Ypsilanti to “honor the law enforcement officers who have fallen here in Washtenaw County while serving the community,” he said. The park is located at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Ballard Street.

North Territorial Road

Several residents addressed the board to express concern about the deteriorating condition of North Territorial Road. The portions of most concern on the east-west road – located north of Ann Arbor – run through the townships of Northfield and Salem, east of US-23.

Bob Hlavacek told commissioners that he wanted to highlight the condition of North Territorial Road. People have been complaining about it for four or five years. They’ve talked to the county road commission and several county commissioners, he said, but the answer is that the county has no funds for repairing the road. “It’s no longer a waiting situation,” he said. “There’s patch upon patch, and there’s potholes that show up between the patches.” An untold amount of expense has been caused from vehicle damage, including damage to tires, rims and alignments.

People drive over the center line, dodging back and forth to avoid some of the roughest spots, Hlavacek said. The Northfield Township police aren’t happy about it. It would be very easy to lose control of a vehicle. Hlavacek said he and others have circulated a petition online and in person, and have about 600 signatures from people who are concerned about the road. The petition highlights the need to fix North Territorial between Spencer Road and Ridge Road.

Some of the people who signed the petition also made comments. Hlavacek said he wasn’t sure about the validity of the comments, but he wanted to pass them along. Specifically, some people think the lack of road repair is retribution for protests against a road commission proposal to put a facility at North Territorial and Earhart.

Bill Harley told commissioners that he and others have tried to understand the funding priorities of the county and state. There were people who had wanted to rally around this issue a couple of years ago, he said, but some people had argued that because the economy was bad and everyone was suffering, it was better to wait. North Territorial is a multi-community road, he noted, going west of the US-23 corridor and east to Plymouth and beyond. “It is not even close to being a road,” he said. It’s so bad that it’s causing road rage. Harley said he travels North Territorial multiple times a day, and had to replace the front end of his Ford truck for $1,300.

Harley told commissioners that he and others were at the county board meeting to beg for help. He noted that a roundabout was being built at 7-Mile and Pontiac Trail, which is needed “like a hole in the head.” And as bad off as Wayne County is, last year that county paved North Territorial up to the border with Washtenaw. “But Washtenaw has done absolutely nothing,” Harley said. “It looks like the priority for North Territorial Road is misunderstood.” He noted that advocates for the road repair have gathered 600 signatures without even canvassing neighborhoods, and he wanted to know what they should do with those signatures. He asked if there was anything that the county board could do, or anything else he and other residents can do “before somebody gets hurt or comes in here shouting or raving.”

Harley added that “we’ll do anything that’s positive.” Hlavacek asked whether it would be possible to get on the board’s agenda for a more formal discussion.

Arlene DeForest spoke on the same topic. She said she was from Salem Township and was representing the Washtenaw County Farm Bureau. North Territorial is one of the few roads that goes straight east and west, she noted, and when there’s a problem on the expressway, North Territorial is the alternative route. “We’re going to have some deaths pretty soon” because of the road condition, she said. DeForest likened the condition to a track at the General Motors proving grounds, where bad terrain is used to test vehicles. The road is narrow with no shoulder. She urged commissioners to drive the road and see for themselves.

North Territorial Road: Commissioner Response

Conan Smith thanked the speakers for raising this issue, saying he was certain the road’s condition didn’t reflect retribution by the road commission. He joked that it’s probably retribution for electing Dan Smith to the board. [Smith, a Republican, represents District 2, which includes Northfield and Salem townships. He and Conan Smith are not related.] C. Smith noted that the county board doesn’t have jurisdiction over the roads – that’s in the hands of the road commission. The road commission has a prioritization process for capital improvements, and he suggested that the residents talk to engineers at the road commission who could explain that process.

The prioritization process includes scoring the condition of local roads. The worst road in the county is at 9, C. Smith said. North Territorial is scored at 8, “so it’s already pretty high on their list of priorities for repair.” One of the problems is the expense, he noted. The road commission already has plans to spend about $9.5 million on North Territorial improvements, but most of that money isn’t secured yet, he noted. “I know that they’re keenly aware of the problem, and they’re seeking the additional state and federal funds that they need to do a reconstruct on that road.” This year, the road commission does plan to do about $300,000 worth of repairs on North Territorial, he added.

From left: County commissioners Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

C. Smith said the county board can let the road commission know that citizens are concerned.

Rolland Sizemore Jr., the county board’s liaison to the road commission, said he agreed that North Territorial is in bad shape. There’s a road in his district that’s in bad shape too. It’s all about the money, Sizemore said. He noted that one option would be for the township to levy a special assessment on property owners to raise money for the repairs. Sizemore told the residents that he’d be glad to work with them, but they weren’t the only ones with road problems in the county.

Dan Smith thanked the residents for making the trip to speak to the board. He’d heard these comments before, and reminded commissioners that he had raised this issue at the board’s March 7, 2013 budget retreat. Some new options have been provided by the state legislature, he noted, in terms of management and funding. “We haven’t really explored either of those options in detail yet,” he added.

D. Smith also pointed to an option that the board discussed but didn’t pursue a couple of years ago – an Act 283 levy for road funding. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Poised to Reject Road Millage."] He noted that the board could choose to bring that forward again.

The road commission has made public a map that shows sections of roads in the county that would get attention if state funding is made available, D. Smith said – including three problematic sections of North Territorial, east of US-23. But no one knows if or when that funding might be available. Reconstructing a road that’s beyond repair is very expensive, compared to spending funds on maintenance, he said, so the road commission is trying to make sure roads that are in fair condition don’t deteriorate even more. “Unfortunately, it means a segment like North Territorial, which needs major repair, doesn’t get any attention.”

Andy LaBarre encouraged the residents also to contact their state representative and state senator. There are many proposals in Lansing, but nothing has been decided, he said. Input like this would be helpful. [Northfield and Salem townships are part of District 52 in the state house, represented by Rep. Gretchen Driskell. In the state senate, the area is part of District 18, represented by Sen. Rebekah Warren, who is married to Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith.]

Ronnie Peterson noted that the residents had asked specifically about how to proceed. Peterson asked the county administration to contact the road commission and request that a specific discussion take place about North Territorial. Residents are relying on county commissioners to be advocates for them on this issue, he said, so there should be a meeting on it. The county commissioners are elected by the people, and have the responsibility of appointing the road commissioners, Peterson noted.

Dan Smith suggested the Whitmore Lake High School theater as a suitable venue for a public meeting in that part of the county.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d follow up with the board’s liaison to the road commission, Rolland Sizemore Jr. Sizemore stated that he’d call the road commission “first thing in the morning.”

Conan Smith noted that in Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed funding for roads statewide, the amount for Washtenaw County includes funding for North Territorial that would cover about half of the cost for the project. That funding has not yet been approved, however. “So the more you can reach out to Lansing folks as part of your advocacy effort, the better,” he said.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith brought up the issue of Act 283 again, saying “I don’t think this horse is anywhere near dead.” He read from Act 283 of 1909: “It shall be the duty of the board of supervisors to raise a sufficient tax to keep any county roads or bridges already built in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for public travel.” He said he didn’t want to interpret what each of those words mean, but the general meaning seems pretty clear to him – that the county might have a mandate and might have the funds to execute that mandate.

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

Over the past two years, D. Smith said, he’s asked residents specifically about this possible tax levy. One of the common responses he’s heard is that if the county does the job right, people still won’t like the tax but they “won’t hate it as much.” People are frustrated when they see road repairs that clearly won’t last long, he said. “People see that as throwing good money after bad.”

A 1 mill levy in Washtenaw County would bring in about $13.8 million, based on 2012 property values, D. Smith said. He also noted that there’s a similar law on the books that appears to allow townships in Michigan to levy up to 3 mills for roads. That would bring in another $24.9 million throughout the county, he said. In total, about $38 million could be raised in Washtenaw County to fix the roads. Making a rough estimate of what these taxes could bring statewide, he said the amount that could total about $800 million.

Sizemore responded, saying he didn’t agree that there should be a countywide millage for road repair. He said he felt the same way about last year’s effort by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to create a countywide public transit system. He’s willing to work with the road commission and residents to address the roads, but he’s not willing to support a millage. He indicated that one factor was the uncertainty of other possible millages, like one that might be proposed for the new southeast Michigan regional transit authority.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

County Budget

Two items on the board’s May 1 agenda related to the next county budget, for the period beginning Jan. 1, 2014: (1) setting a board retreat for May 16; and (2) taking a final vote to authorize the development of a four-year budget.

County Budget: Updates & Retreat

Felicia Brabec, chair of the board’s ways & means committee, reported that she would be giving regular updates on the budget development at each meeting. She said that she and board chair Yousef Rabhi attend the bi-weekly budget task force meetings, as well as other budget-related meetings. The finance staff has scheduled its first round of meetings with all county departments, with second rounds as needed, Brabec reported. And county administrator Verna McDaniel will be presenting a first-quarter financial update to the board on May 15, as well as a “state-of-the-county” report.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) is chair of the board’s ways & means committee, on which all commissioners serve.

Brabec noted that the board would be voting later that night on developing a four-year budget, and that on May 2 the board would be briefed on a bond proposal to fund the county’s pension and retiree healthcare liabilities. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates $350M Bond Proposal."]

Rather than the normal working session on May 16, the board would be holding another budget retreat. This one will be located at the county Learning Resource Center (LRC), 4135 Washtenaw Ave. – near the county jail complex.

Ronnie Peterson expressed concern about the location. He felt that all meetings – especially related to the budget – should be televised and held in the board chambers, so that the public can know where commissioners stand in terms of priorities and funding. It’s especially crucial if the county moves toward a four-year budget planning cycle, he said, adding that he had concerns about that process, too. [The board holds its regular meetings in the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main in downtown Ann Arbor.]

Conan Smith responded to Peterson, saying that he struggles “in this room, to have the kind of conversation with all of you – with my peers – that lets me get to that prioritization process.” Smith said he’s been a big advocate for getting out of the boardroom to have that conversation, but he’s torn on this issue. He wants the board as a team to work in a productive space, while at the same time giving the public access to those conversations. It might be doable to televise the retreat at the LRC, he said, noting that late last year, the interview process for appointments to the southeast Michigan regional transit authority had been held at the LRC and were videotaped.

C. Smith felt that the retreat was an opportunity for the board leadership to hear the views of other commissioners, but that the formal budget conversation would happen during a regular meeting in the boardroom.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi said it wasn’t his intention to take the retreat off camera or off the record. He stressed that the board is “always on the record.” The meetings are open to the public, and minutes are taken. The May 16 retreat is at a location that’s on a bus route, he noted, so that it’s more easily accessible. The point of having it at a different location is to “create a different environment for dialogue.” He said they were going above and beyond the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, but he was willing to explore options for recording the retreat – perhaps with audio or video recordings.

Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, reminded commissioners that when the boardroom had been renovated several years ago, meetings were held in the LRC and had been televised. So that capability exists, he said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. didn’t think the previous retreat format had worked well. “You guys probably have the votes to do the [four-year] budget and you guys have probably got the votes to go out and get the $350 million [bond] that you guys plan on doing, so I’m not inclined to go anywhere where we’re not on camera … I think the public deserves to know what goes on.”

From left: Commissioners Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Sizemore also wondered why the retreat wasn’t being held at SPARK East in Ypsilanti. Rabhi replied that the LRC was chosen because it’s the largest county facility – other than the boardroom in the downtown administration building – that could handle a larger crowd. He said he wasn’t opposed to exploring other locations.

Peterson said it was important to outline what would happen at the May 16 retreat. “If it’s a hug fest, I don’t have to be there.” If the meeting is about setting county priorities, then he’d be interested in it. He also stated that if the meeting isn’t televised, he wouldn’t attend – he said he’s been very consistent about that. Meetings shouldn’t be held “in the shadows,” especially in discussing a budget that extends beyond the commissioners’ terms in office. [County commissioners are elected for two-year terms. The proposed budget planning cycle would extend for four years.]

Peterson also noted the magnitude of the possible $350 million bond proposal, saying the public should be fully informed about that.

Andy LaBarre pointed out that the board would be discussing the bond proposal at the May 2 working session, and he suggested that comments and questions about that would be best saved until then.

Replying to Peterson, Rabhi said he wanted to be “crystal clear – we do not do business in the shadows. We do business in the public eye.” Minutes are taken, the press and public are invited, and most meetings are on camera, he noted. Rabhi said he’s never served on any other board that has held its retreat in a boardroom. Retreats are typically held in other locations “to facilitate the retreat environment,” he said. The county board has also held previous retreats that weren’t televised, he noted. Even so, Rabhi said he’s willing to work with staff and commissioners to find a way to record the retreat proceedings above and beyond the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. The openness of meetings is a priority of his and of the board, Rabhi said.

Rabhi added that the retreat is not focused on the question of bonding. That discussion would happen at the May 2 working session, he said, as well as at upcoming board meetings. All of that will be televised, he said.

The retreat on May 16, Rabhi said, “will not be a love fest. It will not be a pat-on-the-back occasion.” It will be a chance for the board to delve into its general priorities for the budget. The last retreat generated a lot of ideas, he said. Now, the board needs to take those ideas and weight their priorities. “It’s going to be work,” Rabhi said. “There aren’t going to be any hugs, unless somebody wants to give me a hug.”

He said he appreciated Peterson’s request to hold the retreat on camera, and that they can explore the possibility. However, he added, “I think that it’s unfair to me for you to continue to harp on this, when I have already committed to you that we are going to be looking into this. I just feel that it’s inappropriate. You didn’t mention my name, but you are directing it at me, and I feel that it’s inappropriate. I need to say that on record.”

Rabhi said he hoped the retreat could help the board work with administration to set a budget that reflects the board’s priorities. It’s especially important since the administration will be developing a four-year budget, he said.

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

Peterson replied that he tried not to direct his comments to anyone personally. But when someone directs a comment to him personally, they can “expect a personal comment back,” he said. He wondered whether there was a document that laid out the content of the May 16 retreat. Brabec responded, saying there wasn’t a written document yet for the retreat.

Peterson stated that when things are done outside of the boardroom, “it puts a shadow over it.” He said no one has been anointed to run things. “All of us are equal at this table as commissioners,” he added. Documents should be equally shared with all commissioners, he said.

Regarding the issue of appropriateness, Peterson said, “I will bring up any item I deem is appropriate, as a commissioner representing my respective district, no matter what anybody thinks.” He said he knows some people are trying to guide this process. “Forget about guiding,” he said. “Just do your job that you’re elected to do as commissioner. There’s no minority at this table.” Apparently directing his comments to Rabhi as board chair, Peterson said: “You’re only elected by your colleagues to serve in the capacity that you serve.”

Peterson also said that the bond proposal is part of the budget, so he would be talking about that throughout the budget process. “You’ll hear me talk about a lot of the issues that are important to me as a commissioner – no matter who likes it.”

County Budget: Setting the Retreat Date

Later in the evening, Rabhi put forward a resolution that canceled the May 16 working session and set the budget retreat for that date instead, to be held at the LRC. When Sizemore asked if the retreat would be televised, Rabhi replied that the intent is to make sure there would be some kind of recording. Sizemore repeated the question: “Is this going to be on video or not?”

At that point, Rabhi suggested taking a straw poll of commissioners on this issue. LaBarre said that if it’s possible to videotape the retreat, that would be great. But if it can’t be videotaped, he felt the board should still proceed with the retreat, making every effort to comply with the Open Meetings Act and the spirit of transparency.

Other commissioners indicated agreement to videotaping the retreat. Rabhi said they’d go ahead and videotape it.

Alicia Ping suggested adding the LRC’s address to the resolution setting the retreat. She noted that not everyone knows where the facility is located. Rabhi suggested putting the bus route on the public meeting notice as well. [AATA's Route #4 goes past the LRC at 4135 Washtenaw Ave.]

Peterson reiterated his position that all budget-related meetings should be held in the boardroom.

Outcome: The board voted to cancel the May 16 working session and set a budget retreat for that date instead at the Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave., starting at 6 p.m. Voting against the resolution were Ronnie Peterson and Dan Smith. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was out of the room during the vote.

After the vote, Rabhi stated that he wants to make sure everyone feels this is a collaborative environment, where everyone can share their thoughts and feelings about the process and about the way business is being done. He apologized if commissioners felt that he had reacted inappropriately to comments that were made during the meeting. He welcomed people to share their thoughts and concerns, “whether we agree or not.” He thanked commissioners for their work, and for sharing their values and the values of the people they represented.

County Budget: Four-Year Cycle

On the May 1 agenda was a resolution authorizing the development of a four-year budget planning cycle, a change from the current two-year cycle that’s been in place since 1994. The board had taken an initial vote on the issue at its meeting on April 17, 2013, with Ronnie Peterson dissenting and Rolland Sizemore Jr. absent.

The board had been briefed on the issue at a Feb. 21, 2013 working session. County administrator Verna McDaniel has cited several benefits to a longer budget planning cycle, saying it would provide more stability and allow the county to intervene earlier in potential deficit situations. [.pdf of McDaniel's Feb. 21 presentation] State law requires that the board approve the county’s budget annually, but a quadrennial budget would allow the administration to work from a longer-term plan.

County administrator Verna McDaniel and commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

With a two-year approach, larger cuts must be made within a shorter timeframe to address anticipated deficits. McDaniel has argued that a four-year plan would allow the administration to identify potential deficits at an earlier date, and target savings that would compound over the longer period, making the overall budget more manageable. Currently, the budget is being developed for 2014-2017.

Commissioners have noted that this approval provides direction to develop a four-year budget plan, but at any time the board can decide to revert to the previous two-year cycle. One of the main concerns mentioned by commissioners, including Peterson, is the fact a four-year budget cycle doesn’t synch with the two-year election cycle for terms on the board.

During the May 1 meeting, Dan Smith said he wanted to be perfectly clear that the board is simply allowing the process to move forward. He was reserving judgment about whether the final budget that’s produced should be adopted. “I’m certainly not saying that by voting on this [resolution] that I’ll be voting for a four-year budget.” But it’s good to continue exploring the possibility, he said. There are some good things about it, though he continues to have some serious concerns.

Sizemore asked for clarification about the timeline. McDaniel said the ultimate deadline for approving the budget is Dec. 31, so it would need to happen by the board’s last meeting in December. She plans to bring the budget forward much sooner than that, however, saying “the earlier, the better.” The process starts by meeting with the different departments in the county, she said, and the board will be updated along the way. At the board’s May 15 meeting, McDaniel will be giving an update on the county’s current financial situation for the first quarter through March, to set the stage for crafting the budget.

Sizemore said he hoped the budget wouldn’t be rushed through initial and final approval during the same meeting. He felt that this was happening too often with other items that come before the board.

Yousef Rabhi emphasized that even though the budget would be prepared for a four-year period, the board is evaluating the county’s financial condition on a quarterly basis. “We’re taking a far look down the road, but we’re also making sure that we benchmark the progress that we’re making.” He said he’d gotten some feedback that indicates people aren’t sure what the four-year budget is intended to do. People have concerns about how the board can adjust for changes that happen over the four-year period, such as fluctuations in tax revenues, he said. Rabhi indicated that there are ways the board will be able to make adjustments.

McDaniel also noted that a budget reaffirmation is required every year, and the board would have the opportunity to make changes at that point.

Peterson highlighted the fact that the four-year budget wasn’t a projection or strategic plan – it would be a budget, and the only way to change it would be by a majority vote of the board. McDaniel replied that the board has authority to review or change the process at any time.

Peterson pointed out that this would be the first time in the county’s history that a four-year budget would be developed. He didn’t know of any other municipality or government that used this approach. The projections could be off, he noted, especially because of changes in state or federal funding. Anything could happen in the gubernatorial or presidential election, and priorities could change. New technology will also result in changes to the government, he said. “I’m going to vote against this, because I don’t see how you can project that far out.”

Peterson said his view isn’t a reflection of the administration or finance staff – they’re just carrying out the wishes of the board, he noted. The board has responsibility to set the county’s priorities, but with a four-year budget, most of that responsibility will be gone. “So we owe the taxpayers a rebate. I hope we cut our salaries in half … because there’s really a lot less work to do.” The budget is the county board’s main task, he said, other than accepting the annual equalization report and making appointments to various boards and commissions.

From left: Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Peterson contended that it would be difficult to modify a four-year budget. As an example, he noted that the emergency allocation from the county in response to last year’s tornado touchdown in the Dexter area would be more difficult to do, if there were a four-year budget in place. “With a four-year budget, that flexibility is not there,” Peterson said. Other unforeseen needs might include overtime for police services, technology infrastructure, or court costs. He hoped that the board would discuss the impact of a four-year budget with department heads and other elected officials. [The county board sets the budget for all county departments, including those led by elected officials: The sheriff, prosecuting attorney, treasurer, clerk/register of deeds, and water resources commissioner.]

Peterson said he wasn’t trying to make this a hostile discussion about the budget, but he didn’t see how it would be possible to develop a four-year budget.

Sizemore said he echoed Peterson’s concerns. He noted that the circuit court is asking for $2 million for a software update. “That just comes out of the blue, and I don’t know how we’re going to handle things like that if we have a four-year budget,” he said. The district court is over budget, he added: How will things like that be predicted, and where will the money come from to address it?

Alicia Ping clarified that the resolution in front of commissioners that night was authorizing the administration to develop a four-year budget. The board wasn’t voting on the budget itself, she noted.

Sizemore responded, asking why the board would tell the administration to develop a four-year budget if there weren’t already the votes to support adopting a four-year budget? That would be a waste of staff time, he said. Sizemore added that he wouldn’t support it. The vote is premature and the issue needs to be explored more before moving ahead.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to develop a four-year budget on a 7-2 vote. Dissenting were Ronnie Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Urban County Strategic Plan

Washtenaw Urban County‘s five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan were on the May 1 agenda for initial approval. [.pdf of draft strategic and annual plans]

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

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

The plans indicate that the Urban County area is expected to receive about $2.7 million annually in federal funding, which will be used for these broad goals:

1. Increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities

2. Increasing quality, affordable rental housing

3. Improving public facilities and infrastructure

4. Supporting homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing services

5. Promoting access to public services and resources

6. Enhancing economic development activities

A public hearing had been held at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting.

Urban County Strategic Plan: Board Discussion

Conan Smith asked about whether there is any integration between the Urban County strategic plan, and the strategic planning of other county operations, such as the workforce development or community action boards.

Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager for the county’s office of community & economic development.

Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager for the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED), said the best example of that integration is related to human services. A lot of the funding that the county gets for human services is administered through this process, he said. The strategic plan itself is fairly formulaic and general, following HUD’s requirements. But it’s integrated in terms of the synergy of activities, he said.

Lenart added that the next phase of OCED’s development as a department is to look for more intersections between economic development and workforce development. Human services and affordable housing have always been strongly linked, he noted, and going forward the OCED will look for more strongly integrating the other areas, too.

C. Smith said it might be interesting to “tease out” of this plan the relevant sections related to other citizen boards – the workforce development board and community action board – and to have a short presentation to each of those boards about the Urban County initiatives. He noted that integrating these areas was one of the reasons why the county merged the office of community development with the economic development and energy department.

Ronnie Peterson asked whether the Urban County budget would be coming before the board later this year. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that this Urban County budget is for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2013, “so I believe this is it.”

Peterson then expressed concern that the commissioners weren’t getting more time to review this budget. Lenart explained that it’s a five-year plan that identifies general categories of work, but OCED will bring forward specific projects within those categories each year. The five-year plan gives an estimate of the total anticipated federal allocation during that period. The more detailed budget is for only one year, starting July 1. He noted that this is the Urban County’s third five-year plan.

Peterson said he’d support the resolution on its initial vote that night, but he would have additional questions when it came for a final vote on May 15.

Felicia Brabec noted that HUD’s priorities are changing. Are those changes reflected in the Urban County’s plans? Generally speaking, Lenart replied, the OCED has set up a framework that will allow it to do the work it has traditionally done with this federal funding. If HUD’s priorities and funding levels change, then OCED would look at the scope of its programs and how those programs are prioritized in the face of decreasing revenues.

Alicia Ping said she supported the Urban County “110 percent.” Six of the 10 municipalities that she represents in District 3 are part of the Urban County, which makes those communities eligible for federal funding that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to receive. She was glad that OCED director Mary Jo Callan had recruited more municipalities to join the Urban County a few years ago.

Commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Peterson spoke again, noting that federal funding is shrinking. At some point, the county will have to make up the difference if it wants these programs to continue – whether they are programs managed by OCED, or by other county departments. So the question then becomes “Where does the money come from?” he said. Peterson felt that this warranted a fuller discussion, because “eventually, the well will run dry.”

Conan Smith noted that the housing challenge is universal across the county – it’s a dispersed problem. In areas where problems are greater – on the far west side, or in the city of Ypsilanti and Superior Township – it’s important to start looking at systemic investment in housing and workforce development based on geography, he said. In reading the strategic plan, C. Smith said he was surprised at how dispersed the housing problem was. “I thought it would be more concentrated.”

Responding to some of Peterson’s comments, Brabec said she agreed that it was important to consider the county’s entire budget – including federal funding – and not just look at the general fund budget. The county needs to be concerned about declining federal and state funding too.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the Urban County five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan. A final vote is set for May 15.

Weatherization Grant

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to accept $185,654 in funds for the county’s weatherization assistance program. The unanimous vote at the board’s May 1, 2013 meeting, followed initial approval on April 17, 2013.

The funding roughly equals the amount of federal weatherization dollars that the county received in 2012, which was a decrease of about 65% compared to 2011 federal funding levels. The current funding is allocated through the 2013 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The county last received LIHEAP funding in 2010, but has received weatherization grants from other federal funding sources in the intervening years.

For the period from April 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, the program is expected to weatherize 27 homes. According to a staff memo, the work includes an energy audit inspection and follow-up inspection of the completed weatherization work, which might include attic and wall insulation, caulking, window repairs, furnace tune-ups, furnace replacements, and refrigerator installations. To qualify for the program, residents must have an income at or below 150% of federal poverty, which is about $35,325 for a family of four.

Outcome: Without comment, commissioners gave final approval to accept the weatherization funds.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Police & Corrections Week

Board chair Yousef Rabhi read a resolution declaring May 12-18, 2013 as Police and Correction Officers Week, and May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, in honor of the local police and corrections officer who have died in the line of duty. [.pdf of resolution for Police & Corrections Officer Week] The presentation was followed by a standing ovation from the board and staff.

From left: Greg Dill, Washtenaw County’s infrastructure management director; county administrator Verna McDaniel; and Dieter Heren, police services commander.

Dieter Heren, police services commander with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, was on hand to accept the resolution on behalf of sheriff Jerry Clayton and all law enforcement agencies in the county. He reminded the board that on May 15 at 10 a.m. there will be a memorial service in the Washtenaw 100 Park in Ypsilanti to “honor the law enforcement officers who have fallen here in Washtenaw County while serving the community,” he said. The park is located at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Ballard Street.

Communications & Commentary: Medicaid Expansion

Andy LaBarre informed his board colleagues that he intends to bring a resolution to the May 15 meeting regarding Medicaid expansion. He said he’d be talking with commissioners individually about his resolution before then. He noted that at a recent meeting of the Area Agency on Aging 1-B, that board approved a resolution in support of Medicaid expansion. [LaBarre serves as the county's liaison to the AAA 1-B board.]

Responding to a follow-up email query from The Chronicle, LaBarre indicated that the resolution he plans to bring forward will state the county’s support for Medicaid expansion, highlighting some of its benefits.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The board had been briefed on the issue at a Feb. 21, 2013 working session. County administrator Verna McDaniel has cited several benefits to a longer budget planning cycle, saying it would provide more stability and allow the county to intervene earlier in potential deficit situations. [.pdf of McDaniel's Feb. 21 presentation] State law requires that the board approve the county’s budget annually, but a quadrennial budget would allow the administration to work from a longer-term plan.

With a two-year approach, larger cuts must be made within a shorter timeframe to address anticipated deficits. McDaniel has argued that a four-year plan would allow the administration to identify potential deficits at an earlier date, and target savings that would compound over the longer period, making the overall budget more manageable. Currently, the budget is being developed for 2014-2017.

Commissioners have noted that this approval provides direction to develop a four-year budget plan, but at any time the board can decide to revert to the previous two-year cycle. One of the main concerns mentioned by commissioners, including Peterson, is the fact a four-year budget cycle doesn’t synch with the two-year election cycle for terms on the board.

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

From left: Raman Patel, Washtenaw County’s equalization director, greets Leila Bauer, chief deputy treasurer who is retiring after 41 years with the county. (Photos by the writer.)

After several years of reporting declining tax revenues, Raman Patel – the county’s equalization director – gave commissioners a report showing stronger signs of economic recovery, reflected in a 1.68% increase in taxable value. That translates into an estimated $2.327 million more in property tax revenues for county government than had been budgeted for 2013. [.pdf of Patel's presentation]

Also related to the budget, commissioners gave initial approval to a four-year budget planning cycle, a change from the current two-year cycle that’s been in place since 1994. Voting against the item was Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). He and other commissioners expressed a range of concerns, including the fact that commissioners are elected every two years and therefore might not be able to contribute adequately to setting budget priorities. Although Peterson remained unconvinced, several commissioners observed that the annual budget affirmation process acted as a fail-safe, allowing the board to make adjustments based on changing priorities.

Another item that could have a dramatic impact on the county’s budget was only briefly mentioned: A proposal to issue up to $350 million in bonds to fully fund the county’s pension and retiree healthcare plans. It would be by far the largest bond issuance in the county’s history. County administrator Verna McDaniel plans to make a formal presentation about the proposal at the board’s May 2 working session. She distributed materials on April 17 to help commissioners prep for that meeting. [.pdf of bond proposal handout]

Commissioners also took a final vote officially to dissolve a countywide public transit authority known as the Washtenaw Ride. There was no discussion, but Conan Smith (D-District 9) – a vocal advocate for public transit – cast the sole vote against the resolution.

Other action handled by the board included a federal weatherization grant, a public hearing for the Urban County strategic plan, and resolutions honoring county employees and residents. Among them was Leila Bauer, the county’s chief deputy treasurer who is retiring after 41 years with the county. She received a standing ovation from the board.

County Bonding Proposal

County administrator Verna McDaniel passed out information to commissioners on April 17 regarding a major bonding proposal. She plans to make a formal presentation at the board’s May 2 working session. [.pdf of bond proposal handout]

The proposal is for a 25-year bond issue of up to $350 million to fully fund the county’s pension and retiree healthcare plans – the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA).

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Although commissioners were alerted to the possibility of this bonding proposal earlier in the year, the communication from McDaniel was the first time it had been formally raised at a public board meeting. She told commissioners that the material she was providing outlined six key points, including the purpose and objectives of bonding, and cost comparisons between estimated payments of debt service compared to the county’s annual required contribution to its pension and retiree healthcare funds.

She also provided a summary of relevant provisions in Public Act 329 of 2012, which the Michigan legislature passed in October of 2012. [.pdf of Public Act 329] The law enables municipalities to issue bonds to cover unfunded accrued pension and retiree healthcare liabilities, but has a sunset of Dec. 31, 2014.

The material distributed by McDaniel also lists benefits and risks of bonding, and a comparison of budgets based on bonding or not bonding.

Benefits cited by McDaniel include:

• Easier long-term budgeting provided by having predictable bond payments, rather than fluctuating amounts each year to cover pension (WCERS) and retiree healthcare (VEBA) costs. For example, the current combined WCERS and VEBA contributions in 2014 are estimated at $23.5 million. A bond payment is estimated at $18.6 million. [These annual lower payments don't take into account the higher amounts paid in interest over the life of the bonds, however. Details on the interest payments were not provided.]
• The complete elimination of the WCERS and VEBA obligations after 25 years.
• Proceeds from the bond, held in an intermediate trust, could be used to call the bonds after nine years, if some future event eliminates the WCERS and VEBA liabilities.
• Current rates for issuing bonds are at an historic low. Average debt service is estimated at 4%.

McDaniel also listed a few risks of bonding, including the size of the debt load, the uncertainty of market conditions, and the impact of defaulting, which would have consequences for the county’s credit rating and ability to issue bonds for other purposes.

The timetable proposes an initial board vote to approve the bond issuance on May 15 at its ways & means committee meeting, with a final vote on June 5. The board would vote on July 10 to approve the final bonding amount. During the summer months of June through August, the board typically holds only one regular board meeting each month.

McDaniel is also recommending that the county set up an intermediate trust to receive net proceeds from the sale of the bonds, and to invest and distribute the assets.

“This is an important and critical issue,” she said, “and we wanted to make sure you had as much information as possible in advance.”

Based on the county’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), Washtenaw County’s total outstanding debt at the end of 2012 was $60.877 million, up from $35.67 million in 2003. In 2012, the county paid $8.77 million in principal on its debt, $2.69 million in interest and other charges, and $166,892 related to bond issuance costs. [.pdf of debt data from 2012 CAFR]

County Bonding Proposal: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) confirmed with McDaniel that the county’s legal counsel and bond counsel, John Axe, would attend the May 2 working session. [Axe has been advising the county on this proposal, and likely would be paid based on a percentage of the bonded amount.]

Peterson wondered if this proposal would impact the county’s current bonding capacity and ability to borrow for other needs.

McDaniel replied that this amount would be “well within our capacity.” The rating agencies allow the county to bond up to 10% of the county’s taxable value. According to the equalization report that was presented earlier in the meeting, the county’s taxable value is $14.416 billion.

Peterson asked McDaniel to provide more information at the May 2 working session about the county’s current bonding ability, as well as the impact that a $350 million bond issuance would have on the county’s ability to bond beyond that.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) review materials prior to the start of the county board’s April 17 meeting.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he was very interested in the impact that this bond would have on other communities in Washtenaw County. Rating agencies look at the total debt throughout the county, he noted. Communities have different levels of debt and taxable values, and he wanted to know how that would be affected regarding the “debt overhang.” [Debt overhang refers to the point at which debt is so great that an entity is unable to take on additional debt.]

The bond issuance that’s being proposed would add a substantial amount of debt on a per-capita basis, D. Smith said. Based on the data from the current equalization report and on the county’s current debt as provided in the most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), the county’s total debt – for all municipalities – is 9.2% of the county’s total taxable value.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) confirmed with McDaniel that the assumptions built in to her calculations factor in the new labor contracts, which eliminated defined benefit plans for new employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014. [See Chronicle coverage: "New Labor Contracts Key to County Budget"] He also highlighted a chart that showed “savings” that the county would see from this bond issuance, and indicated that he’d like more information about how those amounts are calculated. [.pdf of budget projection charts]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) encouraged commissioners to email their questions to the administration prior to May 2, so that the financial staff would have adequate time to prepare responses. “It’s a big decision,” he said, “and we want to make sure we’re walking into this with a body of supporting information, both from professionals and from others in the community, to make sure we’re making the right decision on this.”

Rabhi said he had asked the administration to provide this material prior to the May 2 working session, so that commissioners would have time to review it and ask questions.

Equalization Report

Raman Patel, the county’s equalization director, made his annual presentation to the board on April 17. He began by noting that he has worked on 42 of the 55 equalization reports that the county has produced over the past few decades. [.pdf of Patel's presentation] [.pdf of equalization report]

Equalized (assessed) value is used to calculate taxable value, which determines tax revenues for the county as well as its various municipalities and other entities that rely on taxpayer dollars, including schools, libraries and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, among others.

After several years of reporting declining tax revenues, this year’s report showed stronger signs of economic recovery, reflected in a 1.68% increase in taxable value.

For 2013, taxable value in the county increased 1.68% to $14.2 billion. That’s an improvement over declines seen in recent years, when equalized value fell 0.76% in 2012, 2.85% in 2011 and 5.33% in 2010. It’s also an improvement over projections made when the county administration prepared its 2013 budget. The general fund budget was approved with a projection of $60.9 million in tax revenues. But actual revenues, based on 2013 taxable value, are now estimated at $63.236 million – for an excess in 2013 general fund revenues of $2.327 million. Patel stressed that at this point, the taxable value is a recommendation and must be approved at the state level.

Patel also presented tentative taxable values for specific jurisdictions. The city of Ann Arbor shows a 3.34% increase in taxable value, while the city of Saline’s taxable value is a 3.97% increase over 2012. All but six municipalities showed an increase in taxable value. Those municipalities with decreases include the city of Ypsilanti (-0.38%) and Ypsilanti Township (-2.53%).

Properties in the Ann Arbor Public Schools district – which includes the city of Ann Arbor and parts of surrounding townships – will see a 2.32% increase in taxable value. Properties taxed by the Ann Arbor District Library, covering a geographic area that in large part mirrors the AAPS district, increased in value by 2.11%. [.pdf of taxable value list by jurisdiction]

Taxable value is determined by a state-mandated formula, and is the lower of two figures: (1) a parcel’s equalized (assessed) value; or (2) a capped value calculated by taking last year’s taxable value minus any losses (such as a building being torn down), multiplied by 5% or the rate of inflation (whichever is lower), plus the value of any additions or new construction. This year inflation is 2.4%.

Patel reported that the county’s millage rate will not be rolled back this year. The state’s Headlee Amendment rolls back millage rates to prevent property tax revenues from increasing faster than the rate of inflation. That won’t happen this year, because the inflation rate of 2.4% is higher than the increase in taxable value.

In 2013, several categories of property saw increases in equalized value for the first time in years, according to the report. Commercial property showed a 2.2% gain in equalized value, compared to a 3.84% decline last year. It was the first increase in commercial property values since 2009. Residential property value – the largest classification of property in the county – showed an increase of 2.37%, gaining in value for the first time since 2007. Last year, the equalized value for residential property had dropped 0.57%, and had registered a 2.74% drop in 2011. The average residential sales price in February 2013 was $216,220 – up from a low of $154,015 in 2009.

Personal property values also increased, growing 3.15% compared to 2012.

Last year, agricultural property had been the only category that showed an increase. Growth continues in 2013, but at a slower pace. Agricultural property registered an 0.67% increase in equalized value this year, compared to an increase of 3.54% in 2012.

Industrial and developmental property values continue to struggle. Those were the only categories to register a decline in 2013. Industrial property showed a drop in equalized value of 4.78%. That compares to a 3.99% drop in value last year. Over the past few years that category has lost significant value, falling from an equalized value of nearly $1 billion in 2007 to this year’s value of $421.72 million. Developmental property – a relatively small category that covers properties not yet developed – had a 7.12% drop in equalized value.

Patel also highlighted the value of new construction in the county – $368.1 million, a 30% jump over the value of new construction in 2012. But most of the new construction is happening in DDA districts, he reported, so the full increase in tax revenue isn’t going directly to the taxing jurisdictions.

From right: County commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 6), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Patel noted that countywide, about $418 million is captured by local downtown development authorities (DDAs), local district finance authorities (LDFAs), brownfield tax increment financing, and other entities that are allowed to capture funds from taxing jurisdictions. For Washtenaw County government alone, $2.405 million goes to these other tax-capturing entities that would otherwise be revenues for the county’s general fund. He noted that although the official taxable value for Washtenaw County increased by 1.68%, the net increase is just 1.35% – after subtracting the amounts captured by DDAs and other tax-capturing entities.

Another factor is the impact that the Headlee amendment has had since the state’s voters approved that measure in 1978. The county was originally authorized to levy 5.5 mills, but since 1978 that rate has been rolled back to 4.5493 mills, Patel noted. In order to levy its full rate of 5.5 mills, the county would need to ask voters for a Headlee override.

Compared to surrounding counties, Washtenaw is faring well, Patel reported. Taxable values were flat in Oakland and Lapeer counties, and Livingston County showed a modest increase of 1.18%. But values in other counties continue to decline, including Wayne (-1.20%), Macomb (-0.55%) and Genesee (-2.43%).

Though the news for Washtenaw was generally positive, Patel cautioned that the loss of the state personal property tax – which Michigan legislators repealed last year – could ultimately result in a loss of more than $5 million in annual revenues for the county government alone, and more than $40 million for all taxing jurisdictions in Washtenaw County. The tax will be phased out starting in 2014 through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources. It’s unclear what will happen if voters reject that proposal.

The county also hasn’t recovered from a loss in property value over the past few years. Although the $14.21 billion in total taxable value this year is higher than 2012, it’s 9.2% lower than the taxable value of $15.65 billion in 2008. “Even with the improved market, it will take a number of years to regain the valuation status,” Patel said.

Equalization Report: Board Discussion

Several commissioners praised the work, thanked Patel and his staff, and generally applauded the news. There were also several questions.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked how Patel got the comparative data with other counties. Patel replied that there are 83 counties in Michigan with 83 equalization directors. “We get together every month,” he said. “This is my job, because I want to make sure that my county is going to equalize property just like every other county.” Every assessment should reflect uniformity and equity – that’s his responsibility, Patel said, adding that the state Constitution is very clear about this equalization process.

D. Smith also asked about tax tribunal cases, and wondered what the impact might be on appeals made regarding this year’s assessments. Patel reported that the county has about $800 million in taxable value that’s in contention. That doesn’t mean that the county will have to refund $800 million worth of tax revenue, he explained. Often the original assessments aren’t changed, even if they are challenged.

Responding to another query from D. Smith, Patel explained that the “developmental” category is used to classify property that would eventually be developed. At the point when it’s developed, the property will be reclassified – as commercial or residential, for example, depending on its use. So the developmental category fluctuates considerably from year to year. It’s a category “parking spot,” he said.

D. Smith also clarified with Patel that the total amount of tax dollars levied countywide – including all municipalities, school systems, libraries, etc. – was $632.299 million, based on 2012 millage rates. Yes, Patel said. The amount will likely change only slightly for 2013.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Patel and called the report wonderful news. After years in recession and making budget cuts “down to the bone,” Rabhi said, it’s good to hear that the county will be taking in more revenues than it budgeted for. But he noted that the federal government is cutting back on its funding, and budget cuts at the state level are expected to continue. He wanted to highlight the fact that the county now has a potential opportunity to help sustain some of the ongoing community investments that would otherwise be damaged or cut back due to federal and state funding cuts.

Rabhi noted that Washtenaw County is doing well compared to other areas in Michigan, and a lot of that is due to government investments, he said – through the county, the universities, and other local entities. “We’re putting money back in our community for economic development,” he said, “and we’re building the economy here in Washtenaw County. I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that we’re seeing a return in property values.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) noted that the county is still seeing fairly significant losses in industrial property values. He wondered if it was due to properties being taken out of that classification, or because those industrial properties continue to decline in value. Patel replied that these properties continue to decline in value. As an example, he noted that General Motors had removed personal property from its closed Willow Run plant in Ypsilanti Township, which contributed to the property’s loss in value.

C. Smith said it might be something to talk about with Ann Arbor SPARK, this region’s economic development agency. Even though several classifications are seeing a turnaround, he noted, that hasn’t yet happened for industrial properties. In order for that to occur, the properties need to become competitive in the marketplace, he said. SPARK is really the county’s “go-to partner” in terms of recruiting tenants for those buildings, he added, so perhaps that effort should be given more weight in SPARK’s strategic plan.

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that Paul Krutko, SPARK’s CEO, is very active in working on GM’s Willow Run plant as well as other industrial facilities in the county. “I think he knows that that’s a huge concern,” she said. [Both McDaniel and Conan Smith serve on the executive committee of SPARK's board of directors. The county allocated $200,000 to SPARK in the 2013 budget.]

C. Smith asked Patel to provide a list of the top 10 industrial parcels in the county, based on valuation, as well as the 10 parcels that are experiencing the greatest loss in value. This information would help in targeting any marketing that might be done, he noted.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) thanked Patel, noting that this was the first good news the equalization staff has delivered since she was elected in 2010. “I’m surprised you aren’t all out there doing the happy dance,” she joked.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the 2013 equalization report.

Four-Year Budget Process

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a four-year budget planning cycle, a change from the current two-year cycle that’s been in place since 1994.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioner Felicia Brabec (District 4) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

The board had been briefed on the issue at a Feb. 21, 2013 working session. County administrator Verna McDaniel has cited several benefits to a longer budget planning cycle, saying it would provide more stability and allow the county to intervene earlier in potential deficit situations. [.pdf of McDaniel's Feb. 21 presentation] State law requires that the board approve the county’s budget annually, but a quadrennial budget would allow the administration to work from a longer-term plan.

With a two-year approach, larger cuts must be made within a shorter timeframe to address anticipated deficits. A four-year plan would allow the administration to identify potential deficits at an earlier date, and target savings that would compound over the longer period, making the overall budget more manageable.

The county is currently working on a new budget starting in 2014. Earlier this year, the county administration projected a $24.64 million general fund deficit over the four-year period from 2014 through 2017. A much smaller general fund deficit of $3.93 million is projected for 2014, but McDaniel hopes to identify $6.88 million in structural changes for that year – a combination of new revenues and cuts in expenditures – in order to eliminate the cumulative deficit going forward. These numbers will be revised in light of the county’s equalization report, which estimates that the county will receive $2.327 million more in 2013 tax revenues than had originally been budgeted.

Four-Year Budget Process: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he thought it was a step in the right direction, though he still had some concerns. He’s talked with county administrator Verna McDaniel about this process, and sees more positive than negative things coming from the change.

His basic concern is that commissioners are elected on a two-year cycle, which is in “direct conflict with a four-year budget,” he said. Although McDaniel has plans to accommodate that, he said, there’s no getting around the basic fact. However, he noted that countywide elected officials are on a four-year election cycle, which would synch well with a four-year budget. [Countywide elected positions are the sheriff, treasurer, county prosecuting attorney, clerk/register of deeds, and water resources commissioner.]

D. Smith said he’d like a more intense budget discussion with the county departments. The board is rather removed from that department-level discussion, he noted. One way to intensify that discussion would be to institute zero-based budgeting, he said. On a four-year cycle, each department would wipe its slate clean and be required to justify each item in its budget. Doing this every four years might not be as onerous as doing it every one or two years, he said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5).

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) clarified with McDaniel that the four-year budget process would begin with the budget that’s being developed, from 2014-2017.

Peterson then said that although his politics often differ greatly from Republican Dan Smith’s, he respected Smith as an individual and in this case he shared some of Smith’s concerns. Peterson stressed that this was the first time he had participated in a discussion about a four-year budget. [Peterson did not attend the Feb. 21 working session when McDaniel and the county's financial staff briefed commissioners on this approach.]

The responsibility for the county’s budget rests with the elected board of commissioners, he noted. Sometimes they just come to meetings “because we somewhat enjoy each other’s company,” he joked. But often there are pressing items related to appropriations, he added, citing the allocation of funds in the wake of last spring’s tornado touchdown in the Dexter area.

This responsibility is entrusted to the board, he said. In recent years, because of the economy, the board has made difficult decisions that sometimes resulted in residents not getting the services they need, he said, like the decision to stop administering the HeadStart program. [The responsibility for the Washtenaw HeadStart, which the county has administered since the 1960s, is in the process of being handed over to another to-be-determined entity.]

It’s not the board’s role to micromanage, Peterson noted, and the county would run quite well even if the board met only once every six months. Commissioners set the millage rate, accept the equalization report, make key hires – and set the budget, he said.

Earlier this year, the board approved new labor contracts that will determine the wages and benefits of employees for the next 10 years. As part of that, the board has the obligation to “right the ship,” Peterson said, and he didn’t know if commissioners could do that with a four-year budget cycle. They haven’t yet assessed some of the programs and structures that have been in place for years – programs and structures that need to be re-evaluated, he said.

Peterson told commissioners that they hadn’t really started the process for the next budget year, let alone for four years. He said he wouldn’t be supporting a four-year budget. The board needed to have a retreat to discuss it, he said, adding that perhaps others have already met and made that decision. The public should have input too, he said.

Peterson concluded by saying that even for a two-year budget, things can change – either because of the economy, or because of changing priorities among commissioners. “If you can count to a majority, you can change the budget,” he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) spoke next, indicating that he shared concerns about the impact of elections on the budget process. But he said he’d support a four-year budget. Everything the board and administration has done so far this year has been with the goal of providing more stability and predictability, he said. A four-year budget process would add to that. “And I feel secure in that we have a fail-safe in the [budget] reaffirmation each year,” he noted. “To me, if that wasn’t there, this wouldn’t be in any way, shape or form a prudent or responsible thing to do.”

In some ways, LaBarre added, a four-year approach moves the county away from a crisis-to-crisis mentality and more toward a strategic and tactical approach.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) emphasized that the board’s responsibility is to pass an annual budget, and the four-year budget cycle won’t change that. In two years after the next board is seated, commissioners could decide that they didn’t want to do a four-year budget cycle, he said. So he didn’t feel that he was forcing anything on future boards.

There’s value in having a budget process and in allowing commissioners to delve into the details, Rabhi said. So there should be some sort of budget process every two years, with the understanding that the budget extends beyond a two-year time period.

In terms of the budget process so far, Rabhi reminded commissioners that they’ve had one budget retreat so far. Also, there was a working session in February specifically about the four-year budget proposal. “It wasn’t as well-attended as it could have been,” he added, but materials from that working session were provided to all commissioners, weighing the advantages and disadvantages. [.pdf of McDaniel's Feb. 21 presentation]

Rabhi said he’s scheduled a second retreat for the board on May 16 at the county’s Learning Resource Center. [The LCR is located near the county jail, at 4135 Washtenaw Ave.] The meeting is open to the public, and will be held at the same time as the board’s working sessions, which begin at 6 p.m.

If approved, Washtenaw County will be one of the only counties in Michigan if not the country to do a four-year budget, Rabhi said. “It’s a wonderful way to lead the nation in fiscal stability and fiscal responsibility.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) also shared concerns that had been raised about process considerations. From the standpoint of staff and administration, he said, a four-year budget makes a lot of sense because of the long-term planning process. But from the board’s perspective, he still was concerned about the two-year election cycle.

The resolution in front of the board simply gave direction to the staff, C. Smith said. It’s a good model, because it leads to longer-term decisions with more predictability. But it doesn’t obviate any of the concerns that had been raised by other commissioners, he said, so the board needs to develop a budget policy for this four-year approach. If they were operating on a two-year cycle, commissioners would approve the two-year budget for 2014-2015 at the end of 2013, but in 2014 they’d likely just rubber stamp it, he said. Commissioners know that they’ll be around for two years, so that second year budget is one they’ve already worked on.

It would be different on a four-year cycle, C. Smith said. There’s no guarantee that a commissioner would be around for four years. So it’s important to differentiate what happens in each of the four years. In the third year, perhaps there should be a substantive review of the budget – have the priorities changed, or are the original objectives being met? Then in the fourth year, commissioners would begin the budget process again with a “fulsome” assessment of the previous four years, he said.

In concept, the four-year process is a good approach, C. Smith said. But the board hasn’t yet articulated clearly the role that commissioners should be playing inside that process. He supported the resolution, saying that it simply gave direction to plan for four years. In September, if commissioners decide they want to adopt only a two-year budget, “we still have that right.” He said he’d be happy to be a leader in thinking through how the board can engage in the next four-year budget process.

From left: Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the county board of commissioners.

Peterson spoke again at length, saying it was amazing to him that the board had only held two short retreats, but had already made decisions about budget priorities. [In fact, there has been just one budget retreat so far – on March 7, 2013 – although budget issues have come up during discussions at several regular meetings.]

The budget isn’t the responsibility of administration, Peterson said, and he hoped the board assumed responsibility for it soon. He praised the county’s employees and talked about their sacrifices over the past few years. He urged the board to assess the county’s programs and services, to make sure the county never gets into this same kind of position again. He questioned how anyone could see the needs of the county four years from now, when things have changed so dramatically just over the past nine months. National healthcare reform is one example of changes that could impact the budget in the future, he said.

Rabhi responded, thanking Peterson for raising these concerns. Rabhi said he wanted to have a robust budget process, whether it’s a two-year or four-year budget. He expressed willingness to address Peterson’s concerns over the current budget process, and noted that another retreat is scheduled for mid-May. There will also be more budget-related working sessions, he said. “I don’t know of any private discussions that have been had around the budget,” Rabhi added.

A budget task force has been working under the direction of the administration, Rabhi said, noting that Felicia Brabec – chair of the board’s ways & means committee – has been very active in those. In addition to retreats, working sessions and regular meetings, Rabhi said he was open to other suggestions from commissioners in the budget process.

Brabec agreed that the board needs to be thinking more strategically, and said the next retreat will focus on that approach, looking at things like community impact. Rabhi added that the budget can’t just be about dollars and cents – it’s also about community impact, and developing a framework for assessing impact.

Dan Smith stressed that the board would be voting on something very specific that night, and he read from the resolution’s only resolved clause: “… that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners approve the development of a Quadrennial County Budget.” It doesn’t say that the board will adopt a quadrennial budget, he noted – it’s just the beginning of the process. At any point, commissioners could change this approach. The actual voting on the budget itself is a long way off, he said, and this is just the first step in the process. He said he’d continue evaluating it over the next few months.

Conan Smith reported that he had communicated to Brabec and LaBarre – but not to Rabhi, the board chair – his concerns that the board hasn’t allocated sufficient time so far for a robust budget conversation. Waiting until late May for the next board retreat means that administration will already be deep into the budget process, he said, and it gets harder to change direction if you want to keep the process on schedule. He expressed concerns that presentations at the working sessions had been on topics with lower priority than the budget.

C. Smith said he knew there’s keen interest in bonding for pension and healthcare liabilities, but going down that path before the board has a conversation about budget priorities is not the right sequence. He thought there should also be more conversations on the budget at the board’s ways & means committee meetings.

In the last budget cycle in 2011, C. Smith said, the board had held three retreats “all before March.” [He had been board chair at the time. Retreats – including sessions on Jan. 29, 2011 and Feb. 9, 2011 – culminated in the board adopting a set of budget priorities and principles at its March 16, 2011 meeting.]

The board had “a more engaged conversation by this point in the last budget process,” C. Smith said, “so I think that might be part of what the tension is – it feels like we’re getting late, in all honesty.” He urged the board leadership – Rabhi, Brabec and LaBarre – to examine their budget schedule and possibly call additional meetings to focus on the budget.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 7-1 to approve the resolution directing the administration to develop a four-year budget. Dissenting was Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 6) was not in the room when the vote was taken. A final vote is expected on May 1.

Weatherization Grant

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to accept $185,654 in funds for the county’s weatherization assistance program.

The funding roughly equals the amount of federal weatherization dollars that the county received in 2012, which was a decrease of about 65% compared to 2011 federal funding levels. The current funding is allocated through the 2013 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The county last received LIHEAP funding in 2010, but has received weatherization grants from other federal funding sources in the intervening years.

For the period from April 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, the program is expected to weatherize 27 homes. According to a staff memo, the work includes an energy audit inspection and follow-up inspection of the completed weatherization work, which might include attic and wall insulation, caulking, window repairs, furnace tune-ups, furnace replacements, and refrigerator installations. To qualify for the program, residents must have an income at or below 150% of federal poverty, which is about $35,325 for a family of four.

Weatherization Grant: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked whether the county would use outside subcontractors for this work, or if staff would do it. Mary Jo Callan – director of the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED) – replied that licensed contractors are hired to do the weatherization work, while staff members act as project managers and oversee the work.

Washtenaw County commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

D. Smith also noted that it’s been a few years since the county has received this type of grant. As he had read through the contract, there seemed to be some rather onerous requirements – such as making sure contractors meet the federal requirements needed to do the work. He wondered whether the county had sufficient resources to make sure all of those contract requirements are met. [.pdf of LIHEAP agreement]

Callan noted that although the county hasn’t received LIHEAP funding since 2010, there were large amounts of federal recovery (stimulus) dollars available in the interim. The requirements for all of this funding are similar, she said. Getting federal funds isn’t simply being given a blank check, she noted. It’s sometimes onerous, she acknowledged, but the county has a robust structure in place to manage dozens of federal grants.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked for Callan’s opinion on the proposed 30% reduction in LIHEAP funding that’s part of President Barack Obama’s budget. Callan replied that this is part of the analysis that her staff is doing related to the impact of federal sequestration. “A cut to this program is actually not new,” she said. It’s been a recurring recommendation in the federal budget for at least three years – either LIHEAP specifically, or weatherization in general.

Callan noted that the president’s budget also proposes a 50% cut in the Community Development Block Grant, which would have a tremendous impact on local programs. County staff is following this closely, she said. If the cut materializes, it would absolutely mean a decrease in the number of weatherization projects done each year. “And at some point, if you receive such a low allocation, you can’t have a program,” she said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) wondered how the county establishes criteria for delivering services. He said he’s very concerned about the elderly getting the services they need. In the past, he said, the program has served a lot of rental properties, while there are elderly homeowners who haven’t received the weatherization services. He wanted to see if senior citizens could get some kind of preference.

Brett Lenart, OCED’s housing and infrastructure manager, replied that the elderly are given a priority. The scoring system goes beyond a first-come-first-served approach, he said, and includes criteria like whether there are senior citizens or young children in the home, among other things. In response to additional queries from Peterson, Lenart noted that more information is available on the county’s weatherization website.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) reported that the Better Buildings for Michigan program has an version that’s available for non-low income families. A lot of people don’t qualify for weatherization program based on their income level, he noted, but could still use some support. He said he could help OCED connect with that program. [The Better Buildings for Michigan program is run by the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, where Smith serves as executive director.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to accept the weatherization grant. A final vote is expected on May 1.

Employees, Residents Honored

At its April 17 meeting, the board presented resolutions of appreciation honoring Rabbi Robert Dobrusin and several residents from the city of Saline, as well as to Leila Bauer, the county’s chief deputy treasurer who is retiring after 41 years of service.

In addition, the board declared the week of April 14-20 2013 as National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week in Washtenaw County. Several members of the county’s dispatch operations were on hand and received recognition from the board. [.pdf of telecommunicator resolution] Marc Breckenridge, Washtenaw County director of emergency services, said dispatch operators have gone through a lot over the last couple of years, citing new technology and changes related to combining county dispatch operations with the city of Ann Arbor. “They’ve really come through for us, and we’re really proud of them,” he said.

Marc Breckenridge, Washtenaw County director of emergency services, was among those on hand to accept a resolution regarding national telecommunicator week.

Dobrusin was recognized for 25 years of “providing spiritual and pastoral support” for the Beth Israel congregation in Ann Arbor, the city’s “oldest Jewish Institution.” [.pdf of Dobrusin resolution] Also cited was his work as a founding member of the Interfaith Round Table of Washtenaw County and with the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice. The resolution noted his human rights efforts, including his current position as national co-chair with T’Ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights.

Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman attended the meeting to accept the resolution on behalf of Dobrusin. She highlighted his work in supporting the rights of indentured workers, then indicated that this would be a surprise for him. “If you know Rabbi Dobrusin, don’t talk!”

The board also passed a resolution of appreciation for Leila Bauer, the county’s chief deputy treasurer. Her work over the years has included serving on the Washtenaw County Health Organization, Washtenaw County Community Mental Health board, Washtenaw County Human Services board, and the Washtenaw County Health Authority. She received a standing ovation from the board. [.pdf of Bauer resolution]

Several Saline residents were also recognized by the county board. Helen Martin was honored for her work with the Saline Downtown Merchants Association and Saline Main Street. Jeff Dowling was recognized for receiving the “Saline Salutes” 2013 Citizen of the Year Award, as well as for work with the American Cancer Society and various Saline community events. Joy Ely, owner of The Pineapple House, was recognized for receiving the “Saline Salutes” 2013 Lifetime Achievement Award, and for her support of downtown Saline. Also honored by the board was Sarah Chu, who received the city of Saline’s 2013 Youth of the Year Award. [.pdf of Martin resolution] [.pdf of Dowling resolution] [.pdf of Ely resolution] [.pdf of Chu resolution]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed all resolutions of appreciation.

Washtenaw Ride Dissolved

On the agenda for a final vote was a resolution to officially dissolve a countywide public transit authority known as the Washtenaw Ride. Initial approval had been given on April 3, 2013.

The Act 196 authority, created in mid-2012 and spearheaded by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, was for all practical purposes ended late last year when the Ann Arbor city council voted to opt out of the transit authority at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting. Of the 28 municipalities in Washtenaw County, the city of Ypsilanti is the only one that hasn’t opted out.

Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith (District 9).

The county board’s April 17 resolution rescinds a board resolution that created the transit authority, and requests that the state legislature also take action to dissolve the Washtenaw Ride, in accordance with Attorney General Opinion #7003. That AG opinion stated that “the dissolution of a transportation authority organized under the Public Transportation Authority Act requires an act of the Legislature and may not be accomplished by the unilateral action of the city in which it was established.” [.pdf of AG opinion 7003]

The county’s role in creating the transit entity had been laid out in a four-party agreement with Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and the AATA, which commissioners approved on Aug. 1, 2012 in a 6-4 vote. Subsequent revisions involving the other entities resulted in the need for a re-vote by the county board, which occurred on Sept. 5, 2012.

There are two other transit efforts now under way. Washtenaw County is part of a southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) created by the state legislature late last year. The RTA was formed to coordinate regional transit in the city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw. Conan Smith has been a strong advocate for the RTA, and made Washtenaw County’s two appointments to the RTA board before his term as county board chair ended on Dec. 31, 2012.

Separate from the RTA effort, the AATA has been meeting with representatives of the county’s “urban core” communities to discuss possible expanded public transit within a limited area around Ann Arbor. It would be a smaller effort than the previous attempt at countywide service. The AATA hosted a meeting on March 28 to go over details about where improvements or expansion might occur, and how much it might cost. [See Chronicle coverage: "Costs, Services Floated for Urban Core Transit."]

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners passed a resolution dissolving The Washtenaw Ride. Voting against the resolution was Conan Smith (D-District 9), but he did not comment on his vote during the meeting. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

CSTS Job Creation

On the April 17 agenda for a final vote was a resolution authorizing the creation of 39 new jobs and the reclassification of 76 others for Washtenaw County’s community support and treatment service (CSTS) department. Initial approval had been given on April 3, 2013.

CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, but receives most of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. WCHO contracts for services through CSTS. Although staffing has remained fairly constant in the last five years, demand for services has increased by about 40%. These jobs are being created to provide the capacity to meet that demand.

The new jobs include client service managers, support coordinators, mental health professionals, mental health nurses, management analysts, administrators and a staff psychiatrist. All of the reclassified positions are client service managers. Of the 39 new positions, 30 of them are union jobs, represented by AFSCME.

According to a staff memo, the changes will add $14,255,535 to the CSTS 2012-2013 budget, bringing the budget total to $41,822,489. Of that, WCHO is providing $38,692,815, including revenues from grant pass-throughs. Other revenues include $165,190 from the Haarer bequest and $246,846 from a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

CSTS Job Creation: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 5) clarified with CSTS staff that they would be returning later in the year to secure approval for their annual budget. The CSTS budget runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. At that time, there would be a broader picture of the services that CSTS offers, he noted. The organization is shifting to more of a fee-based approach, Peterson said, and someone will need to assume responsibility for paying for these services. It would be helpful to show exactly what services are delivered by CSTS. It’s a very complex department, he said, and most people don’t know what services it provides. “You are the resources of last resort for many of our citizens,” he said. It’s important that the county provide the support that CSTS needs to deliver its services, he noted, especially as funding changes at the state and federal levels.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked the CSTS staff for their work, and said he echoed Peterson’s sentiments.

Outcome: On a final vote, commissioners unanimously approved the creation and reclassification of CSTS jobs.

Public Hearing for Urban County Plan

A public hearing to get input on the Washtenaw Urban County‘s five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan was held during the board’s April 17 meeting. [.pdf of draft strategic and annual plans]

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

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

The plans indicate that the Urban County area is expected to receive about $2.7 million annually in federal funding, which will be used for these broad goals:

1. Increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities

2. Increasing quality, affordable rental housing

3. Improving public facilities and infrastructure

4. Supporting homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing services

5. Promoting access to public services and resources

6. Enhancing economic development activities

Only one person spoke during the April 17 public hearing. Thomas Partridge criticized the lack of affordable housing in the county, and said there was insufficient funding for adding adequate housing. He urged commissioners to hold their retreat and do their strategic planning in the boardroom, where the proceedings can be televised and accessible to residents.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary – each time speaking for the full three minutes that speakers are given. He described himself as an advocate for the most vulnerable residents, and called for ending housing discrimination in every city and township in Washtenaw County. He advocated for zoning and planning policies that ensure non-discrimination in housing. Partridge also demanded the recall of all elected officials who ran for office on the platform of advancing Michigan, but who subsequently neglected their promises and have taken the opposite attitude.

He also noted the much lower turnout during public commentary at the county board meeting compared to an Ann Arbor city council meeting earlier in the week. [The council's April 15, 2013 meeting had included two public hearings on controversial topics: 45 speakers participated in the public hearing on proposed changes to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority ordinance, and 51 people spoke on the 413 E. Huron site plan.]

Responding to Partridge’s comments about the need for more public participation, county board chair Yousef Rabhi said the board wanted to ensure that there aren’t any barriers to citizens participating in its meetings. Any time he speaks with constituents, Rabhi said, he stresses the importance of the county’s work and encourages input. But he conceded that the county board doesn’t draw the same kind of crowd that the Ann Arbor city council does. On the other hand, he noted, the county board’s meetings don’t last until 3 a.m. [The council's April 15 meeting had adjourned after 3 a.m., before the council finished its business. Most council agenda items were postponed until May 6.]

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The board had been briefed on the issue at a Feb. 21, 2013 working session. County administrator Verna McDaniel has cited several benefits to a longer budget planning cycle, saying it would provide more stability and allow the county to intervene earlier in potential deficit situations. State law requires that the board approve the county’s budget annually, but a quadrennial budget would allow the administration to work from a longer-term plan.

With a two-year approach, larger cuts must be made within a shorter timeframe to address anticipated deficits. A four-year plan would allow the administration to identify potential deficits at an earlier date, and target savings that would compound over the longer period, making the overall budget more manageable.

The county is currently working on a new budget starting in 2014. Earlier this year, the county administration projected a $24.64 million general fund deficit over the four-year period from 2014 through 2017. A much smaller general fund deficit of $3.93 million is projected for 2014, but McDaniel hopes to identify $6.88 million in structural changes for that year – a combination of new revenues and cuts in expenditures – in order to eliminate the cumulative deficit going forward.

Some commissioners expressed concerns about a four-year budget cycle, including the fact that commissioners are elected every two years and therefore might not be able to adequately contribute to setting budget priorities. Most notably, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) spoke at length about his frustrations, and ultimately cast the sole vote against the proposal. Both Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) observed that the annual budget affirmation process acted as a fail-safe, allowing commissioners to make adjustments based on changing priorities.

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