York Township supervisor John Stanowski, center, talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith, who represents District 9 in Ann Arbor. They are members of a subcommittee appointed by the county board to explore the future of the road commission. (Photos by the writer.)

The subcommittee was created by the county board of commissioners, which has the authority to appoint the three road commissioners but does not oversee the road commission’s budget or allocation of funds. State legislation enacted last year opened the possibility of absorbing the road commission into county operations, which would give county commissioners direct control over funding and operations now administered by the road commission.

According to the County Road Association of Michigan, five of the state’s 83 counties have merged their road commissions into the county government. Of those, the closest parallel to Washtenaw County in size and demographics is Ingham County, home to Lansing and East Lansing – where Michigan State University is located.

At the Dec. 4 meeting, there appeared to be universal agreement that more road funding is needed, but no clear consensus about the best way to achieve that goal. Conan Smith, a county commissioner representing District 9 in Ann Arbor, noted that there are more options to explore than just leaving the road commission unchanged, or absorbing it as a county department. He said he could almost guarantee that it wouldn’t be the best option to have the county board become the road commission.

However, he argued that there are likely structural and procedural changes that can improve the coordination of countywide transportation planning and land use planning, and to ease the burden on rural townships for funding the maintenance of roads that are used by people throughout the county.

A variety of funding mechanisms were discussed on Dec. 4, including the possibility of the county board levying a countywide road millage under Act 283 of 1909 – which at this point seems unlikely – or putting a millage question on the ballot for voters to decide.

The Dec. 4 meeting drew more than two dozen observers, including two of the three current road commissioners, several township elected officials, and many road commission employees. The subcommittee plans to schedule another meeting for early January 2014, and is expected to complete its recommendations by the end of March.

Subcommittee Background

At their Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, Washtenaw County commissioners created a new seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” Members appointed at that time included four county commissioners: Alicia Ping of Saline (R-District 3), Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9), Dan Smith of Northfield Township (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. of Ypsilanti Township (D-District 5). Also appointed were three township supervisors: Mandy Grewal of Pittsfield Township, Ken Schwartz of Superior Township and Pat Kelly of Dexter Township. The Oct. 2 resolution stated that the subcommittee would be chaired by the county board’s vice chair. That position is currently held by Ping.

Also on Oct. 2, the county board had approved an amendment to that resolution – proposed by Conan Smith – to give the subcommittee a $10,000 budget for possible research or travel costs to bring in experts on the issue. The action came late in the evening, over objections from Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who said the budget wasn’t needed and didn’t look good being amended into the resolution so late.

The resolution was also amended to put a timeframe on the work, directing the subcommittee to report back to the board no later than March 31, 2014. The final vote on the overall resolution, as amended, passed over dissent from LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Grewal resigned from the subcommittee in mid-November, and on Nov. 20, 2013 the county board appointed York Township supervisor John Stanowski to the subcommittee.

Doug Fuller, who chairs the road commission, had been asked to join the subcommittee, but declined. He agreed to act as a liaison from the road commission to the subcommittee, however, and has attended both subcommittee meetings to date.

In the past, county commissioners have discussed the possibility of expanding the three-member road commission, in part because of how its small size causes potential for violating the state’s Open Meetings Act. And some commissioners have floated the possibility of consolidating the road commission with overall county operations.

Currently, the road commission is a semi-autonomous entity that oversees the maintenance of about 1,650 miles of roads in the county that are outside of cities and villages, including about 770 miles of gravel roads. The organization employs 115 full-time staff, down from 156 in 2004.

The three road commissioners are appointed by the county board of commissioners, but decisions made by the road commission board do not require authorization by the elected county board of commissioners.

Current road commissioners are Doug Fuller, Barb Fuller – who was appointed on Oct. 16, 2013, to fill the remainder of a term following the resignation of Ken Schwartz – and Fred Veigel, who also is a member of the county’s parks & recreation commission. Barb Fuller and Doug Fuller are not related. The salary for road commissioners, which is set by the county board, is $10,500 annually.

Public Commentary

The Dec. 4 subcommittee meeting was attended by more than two dozen observers, including a few township officials and many employees of the road commission. The meeting began with public commentary.

An employee of the road commission asked whether there would be hard facts about the money that would be saved by making the road commission a county department. Alicia Ping responded, saying that’s the purpose of the subcommittee – to evaluate the pros and cons, and make a recommendation to the county board of commissioners. She felt there was good representation on the subcommittee, with four commissioners representing different parts of the county, plus three township supervisors. The subcommittee is gathering information and will be analyzing that information to make its recommendation, she said.

Another employee urged the subcommittee to look at the issue from both sides. From the county’s perspective, the pros and cons might be different than from the perspective of the townships, for example.

Ron Smith, Bridgewater Township supervisor, said he was there because Doug Fuller – chair of the road commission board – had sent him an email asking him to attend. [Fuller, as chair of the road commission, had emailed all township supervisors to inform them of the meeting.] Smith said he’s interested in this exploration process, as a relatively new supervisor. He gets a lot of comments from people about roads and the road commission, and the township has a problem getting support for road millages, he said.

Part of the problem is the interface between citizens and “the orange trucks,” he said. “They see [road commission workers] doing things they don’t understand and don’t think is correct.” Smith said Doug Fuller had been kind enough to drive around the township with him for a couple of hours, explaining some of the work that residents had asked about. “So I’d like to see this exploration,” Smith said. “I think good things can come out of it.”

Smith noted that when he had worked in private industry, “I was the guy that went into broken companies and turned them around, or didn’t” – because not each project was a success, he said. He came to this area to work for Guardian Industries, to help fix issues at the Carleton plant. Some of the issues are the same at the road commission, he added. “I watch the orange trucks drive by and I say, ‘What are they doing? Why are they doing that?’” For example, in Bridgewater Township, which is primarily rural, a worker with a shovel would be more effective than a grater in many cases, he said. So he’d like to explore the road commission’s management, and how it manages work in some of the county’s rural townships.

Subcommittee Discussion

Pat Kelly, Dexter Township’s supervisor, pointed out that the pros and cons of potentially absorbing the road commission into the county operations involve much more than money. Obviously, money is always a part of it, she said, but it’s not the only factor.

Washtenaw County commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Dan Smith, who represents District 2 on the county board, agreed that money is a consideration. “But it’s certainly for me not a motivating factor.” The road commission is already a very efficient organization, he said, and they run a very tight ship. At any large organization, there is always money that can be saved and efficiencies to be gained, he added. But he didn’t think there was a lot of money to be saved in this case.

Conan Smith, a county commissioner representing District 9 in Ann Arbor, said there are more than two options to explore. There are more options than just leaving the road commission unchanged, or absorbing it into the county operations. He said he could almost guarantee that it wouldn’t be the best option to have the county board become the road commission.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. – who represents District 5, which includes Ypsilanti Township – said his only problem with the road commission is “I think your PR is terrible.” But now that Roy Townsend is managing director, Sizemore added, “It’s changed 100%.” The road commission hasn’t done a very good job letting people know what they do, he said. Certain employees don’t answer their emails, Sizemore complained – perhaps because “they’ve got the Ann Arbor attitude, that they don’t have to,” he added.

Sizemore said he’s not willing to take over the road commission. He agreed with Dan Smith, that he didn’t think it would save a lot of money to do that. “I think we need to work closer together on some items,” he said, and the PR needs to be improved. He reported that he’s talked with other road commissions in Michigan. “They all tell me the same thing,” he said. “If it’s political, the county will take them over. If it’s economical, the county leaves them alone.” The road commission and county board both need to do a better job of PR, because now residents look at government as the enemy, Sizemore said. He thinks it’s getting better under Townsend’s leadership.

Sizemore added that he might be willing to increase the size of the road commission’s board from three members to five, but he hadn’t yet decided about that.

Subcommittee Discussion – Membership Change

Alicia Ping, who chairs the subcommittee, noted that Mandy Grewal, Pittsfield Township supervisor, had submitted a letter of resignation from the subcommittee. Grewal’s letter, dated Nov. 12, was included in the meeting packet of materials, and stated:

I am writing to recuse myself from the Committee established by the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners to review the operations of the Washtenaw County Road Commission.

I appreciate the opportunity to serve and hope to be able to volunteer my services for the continued improvement of our community another time in the future.

Based on minutes from the subcommittee’s first meeting on Oct. 29, Grewal did not attend.

By way of background, Pittsfield Township is currently embarking on a major project to upgrade South State Street. The township has created a corridor improvement authority (CIA) that will use tax increment financing (TIF) to help pay for it, as a local match to secure federal funds. On Nov. 6, 2013, the county board approved a tax-sharing agreement that outlines the county’s participation in that project. Township officials have indicated that one reason they pursued a CIA approach was that the road commission had decided not to provide funding for the project.

At the Dec. 4 subcommittee meeting, Ping also noted that the county board had made an appointment on Nov. 20, 2013 to replace Grewal with York Township supervisor John Stanowski. Ping offered the opportunity for Stanowski and other subcommittee members to introduce themselves.

County commissioner Alicia Ping, who chairs the county board’s exploratory subcommittee on the road commission.

Stanowski said that most of his career had been spent as a prosecutor. It’s his first term as supervisor of York Township, which is located in the southern part of the county, southeast of Saline. [He was elected in November 2012.] He described York Township as a conservative community. “I tend to be a curmudgeon when it comes to spending money. I have basically conservative views on most things, and I tend to be outspoken when I feel that something’s not right.”

Regarding the road commission, Stanowski said he had no preconceived notions, but he did have some ideas. “I’ve got a tabula rasa – a clean mind.”

Other subcommittee members introduced themselves. County commissioner Dan Smith – whose district covers a portion of northern Ann Arbor, as well as the townships of Ann Arbor, Northfield, Salem, Superior and Webster – noted that he previously served on the Northfield Township board of trustees, “so I’m familiar with the townships and their view on roads as well.”

Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly noted that the subcommittee has only met once before, and that first meeting had been a short one – so Stanowski hadn’t missed a lot, she said. The subcommittee doesn’t have a clear direction yet, she said. “That’s one of the first things we need to do.”

Referring to Ron Smith’s public commentary, Kelly said she didn’t view the subcommittee’s role as trying to figure out what the road commission’s orange trucks are doing or not doing. The subcommittee needs to identify the best process to get those answers. “I don’t think we’re here to run the road commission or even to figure out why people don’t answer their emails,” she quipped, referring to Rolland Sizemore Jr.’s complaint.

Ping said she felt the subcommittee had a good balance of perspectives, and she thought that members would bring history, expertise, and representation on the question of what’s best for the county residents. Nothing is preconceived, Ping said.

Ping, whose district covers most of southern and southwestern Washtenaw County, also noted that the county is not currently running the road commission. That’s still the job of managing director Roy Townsend, overseen by the three-member road commission board, she said. [Two of those three members – the chair, Doug Fuller, and the newest member, Barb Fuller, attended the Dec. 4 subcommittee meeting. The third road commissioner is Fred Veigel.] A previous road commissioner, Ken Schwartz, was recently was appointed as Superior Township supervisor and serves on the subcommittee.

Other elected officials at the meeting to observe included Ron Smith, Bridgewater Township supervisor; Scio Township supervisor Spaulding Clark; and Webster Township supervisor John Kingsley.

Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran did not attend the Dec. 4 meeting, but had sent an email to Ping outlining the township’s position. From the email, dated Nov. 13:

Ann Arbor Charter Township has discussed the proposal that the Washtenaw County Road Commission be dissolved and its functions be folded into the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners in some fashion. No member of the Board of Trustees supports that proposal and the Board has asked me to convey that opinion to you and the County Board of Commissioners. Thank you for all of your work on behalf of Washtenaw County.

Subcommittee Discussion – Information Gathering

Alicia Ping reported that she has asked Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, to look at whether there are duplications in employee positions at the road commission and the county. That might be one area that could provide cost savings, Ping said. She asked subcommittee members whether there is other information that they’d like to collect.

John Stanowski asked whether it’s the opinion of the county board that there’s a problem with the road commission. Is the problem with the structure or administration? he asked. Or are cost savings the main concern? He wanted to know what the problem was, so that the subcommittee could work toward a solution.

Pat Kelly, Dexter Township supervisor.

Ping replied that this process was undertaken as a result of state legislation that aims to eliminate duplication and encourage consolidation of government units. The legislation – Public Act 15 of 2012 – gave county boards the authority to absorb independent road commissions. Previously, that wasn’t allowed. The law sunsets at the end of 2014, however, so the subcommittee was created to evaluate whether that’s a good move for Washtenaw County.

Conan Smith framed the question not as what problem needs to be resolved, but rather what opportunities are possible, and how can the structure be improved. When he was county board chair, he said, there was discussion about expanding the number of road commissioners so that there was more representation there. It evolved into a discussion of whether that representation should be geographic, he recalled – guaranteeing that there are spots for rural or urban townships on the road commission, for example.

[By way of background, over three years ago – at its July 7, 2010 meeting – the county board held a public hearing on the issue of expanding the road commission board. Conan Smith was chair of the board's ways & means committee that year. Jeff Irwin, who was a county commissioner at the time, had indicated an intent to make a formal resolution on the issue, but the expansion effort did not move forward. About a year later, when Smith was board chair, the issue arose again, this time related to a possible countywide millage under Act 283. The county board did not ultimately act on that, either. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Commissioners Discuss County Road Tax,"  "County Postpones Action on Road Millage," and "County Road Proposal Gets More Scrutiny."]

At the Dec. 4 meeting, Conan Smith posed this question: If the road commission were designed for 2010 instead of 1910, “how would we do it differently today?” The state legislature has offered the opportunity to think about that, and maybe the answer is that it’s perfect the way it is, he said. “I for one would argue that there are things that we can be doing better.” Some of that is related to structure and processes, he said.

Stanowski said it’s his opinion that if some things aren’t broken, don’t try to fix them – “because you’ll only make it worse.” If the subcommittee can come up with economic efficiencies, he said, perhaps that can be achieved under that existing governance structure.

Ping agreed, noting that there are options other than the two extremes of leaving things unchanged or absorbing the road commission into the county. “It’s not black or white – there’s a whole gray spectrum.” She described the subcommittee’s work as a “three-month SWOT analysis.” [SWOT refers to a planning method used to evaluate strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.] Based on that, the subcommittee will write its recommendation, she said.

Stanowski said he’s looking at the issue from the township’s point of view. York Township has about 36 miles of roads. His concern is whether big government should take over and relinquish townships to a minor position. “We may not have the population, but we have the roads,” he said. It wouldn’t be fair to have three road commissioners from the city and just two from the townships, he added. Stanowski said he wouldn’t be comfortable expanding the road commission membership unless the townships could have the majority of positions.

Pat Kelly, Dexter Township supervisor, said the subcommittee also needs to explore whether they need the new state law in order to expand the membership of the road commission. Her personal view, she said, was that expansion could be done without the new state legislation. Conan Smith agreed that if the road commission board were expanded to five members, the county board wouldn’t need the new state law to do that. But if they wanted to expand membership to seven members, it would require that new legislation.

Dan Smith pointed out that the subcommittee had been charged at recommending one of three things. One possibility is to recommend no changes, he said. It might be that after the subcommittee analyzes the information it gathers, it decides that any changes would make things worse, on balance. Another possibility is to expand the number of road commissioners from three to five, under the law that’s existed for many years. The third option, which is only available through 2014, is for the county government to absorb the duties and responsibilities of the road commission, he noted.

If the subcommittee recommends absorbing the road commission, then the next question is: “What does a road department look like as part of county government?” Dan Smith said. In that context, there are many scenarios that could take place. But he said the feedback he’s getting from township officials and residents is that the road commission is generally working pretty well, and he’s not interested in fixing something if it’s not broken.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said his goal is to figure out how the road commission and the county can work together better. There are things that the county can do to improve, too. He again encouraged more PR and education about the road commission’s work.

Subcommittee Discussion – Funding Sources

Alicia Ping told subcommittee members that at some point, she wanted to talk about the road commission’s capital improvement plan (CIP), and what the commission would do if it had adequate funding. She noted that the county board is the only entity that could levy a countywide millage for roads, or put a countywide millage on the ballot. Or it might be the county board’s role to help townships understand how they could levy their own local road millage, she said. There are some communities that currently provide their own funding for roads, she added. Ypsilanti Township decided to use bonds for road repair. Scio Township is funding road improvements through a special assessment district. Pat Kelly said that Dexter Township is looking into that possibility as well.

Roy Townsend, managing director of the Washtenaw County road commission.

Ping wanted to see how the county could be a resource to help communities get additional road funding, or to help them generate funding for themselves.

At the end of the day, Dan Smith said, it’s about fixing the roads, and finding mechanisms to do that. For the vast majority of people in the county, what happens to the road commission’s organization and structure is “insider baseball,” he said. Everyone in the room and on the subcommittee cares about the organization and structure, he added, but most people would say they just want the roads fixed.

So that raises the question about financing, Dan Smith said. The county board has the authority to levy an Act 283 tax, he noted, and townships have the authority to seek a levy under Act 51 or a special assessment district. The townships could get upset and decide not to turn over their Act 51 money to the county, if the county absorbs the road commission, he said. The underlying issue for anything that the subcommittee recommends should address how it helps fix the roads, Smith concluded.

Kelly responded, saying that so far, she didn’t see any way that the county could help the townships regarding the roads. The road commission helps the townships get things done, she said, noting that she has many of the phone numbers for road commission employees on her speed dial.

Kelly reported that the township gets Act 51 funding that in turn the road commission uses on roads. But it’s not sufficient to cover everything, she said, so Dexter Township has made a decision to spend its Act 51 funding only on its main roads. And that’s why the township is considering a special assessment district to pay for other roads.

Conan Smith asked whether a township is the unit of government that should bear the responsibility for the maintenance of all roads in its jurisdiction. Should taxpayers in Dexter Township, for example, be the only ones to pay to maintain those roads? People across the county all should share in the burden of making sure the whole county’s transportation network is robust and well-maintained, he said.

But there’s a structural problem that exists between the road commission and the county board of commissioners, and how transportation decision-making is made, Conan Smith noted. The city of Ann Arbor, which he represents, gets Act 51 money and also has a street millage, so the city takes care of its own roads. “Where’s the argument for a citizen of Ann Arbor to vote for a countywide road millage?” he asked. Kelly replied: “There isn’t one.”

That’s right, C. Smith said. But if people start rethinking that structure, “we can start to deconstruct that mentality and find ways that we can collectively invest.” He noted that he’s in Dexter Township a lot – he drives on those roads, and wants them to be well-maintained. As another example, Smith said his Ann Arbor constituents who are recreational bicyclists and cycle out to the county’s rural areas complain about the chip seal that’s used on roads. “But they’re not motivated right now to put additional money into making that a better system, because they don’t see a way to influence it effectively,” he said. Those are the kinds of opportunities to explore, he added, that might deliver more money into the system overall.

Roy Townsend, the road commission’s managing director, reported that the commission had recently passed its final 2013 budget as well as the 2014 budget, which he said he could provide to subcommittee members for their next meeting. [.pdf of Dec. 3, 2013 road commission board packet, which includes 2013 budget analysis and 2014 draft budget.]

There’s also a list of projects planned for the next five years, Townsend said, as well as a list of projects that aren’t being done because funding isn’t available. That unfunded list is a lot larger, he added. [.xls file of 2014-2018 CIP with funded projects] [.pdf of unfunded projects 2014-2018]

Townsend and Doug Fuller had presented some of this information to the county board, as part of the road commission’s annual plan, at a Nov. 21, 2013 working session. Subcommittee members had also been provided with additional financial material, to help in their analysis. [.pdf of 2013 road and bridge projects] [.pdf of 2014 projects] [.pdf of 2013 2Q budget update] [.pdf of 2012 WCRC audit] [.pdf of WCRC property appraisal] [.pdf of township contributions to roads 2011-2013] [.pdf of 2012 retiree health care valuation report] [.pdf of 2012 actuarial valuation report Municipal Employees' Retirement System (MERS)]

Barb Fuller, one of three Washtenaw County road commissioners.

Townsend noted that two year ago, he and Ken Schwartz – who served as a road commissioner at the time – came to the county board with a plan for road projects that needed funding. The county board had the option, under Act 283 of 1909, of levying a millage without voter approval to pay for specific projects. Although the board didn’t act at the time, it’s another potential funding tool, he noted.

Dan Smith pointed to North Territorial Road as an example of a road that runs the entire length of the county, crossing many jurisdictions. Salem Township put considerable resources into North Territorial, he said, and Northfield Township had invested in it too. Webster Township has put some money into the road, although there are still some bad spots there, he said.

His point, Smith said, is that North Territorial Road is a major county thoroughfare. Is it really right that these individual townships are investing in that road, given that the townships have no responsibility to spend a single penny of township tax dollars on roads? But in fact, township officials do choose to spend money on roads like this because they hear from citizens about the bad roads, he said. There are other examples beyond North Territorial, he noted, like Jackson Road, Zeeb Road, Dexter-Ann Arbor Road and Dexter-Pinckney Road.

Scio Township has taken an approach of doing a special assessment district, Dan Smith noted, and strategies like that make sense. The question is whether to fund these major roads in a different way, so that the burden isn’t put on the local community to come up with funding. If so, how do the townships fit in with that? Would changing the structure of the road commission help with that, or simply make it even worse? “I haven’t yet seen anything that makes it better,” D. Smith added, “but I’m willing to explore the alternatives and make a decision on this, one way or another, and not just let the clock run out [on the state legislation].”

Conan Smith added that right now, there’s a disconnected land use and transportation system in the county. Over the last decade, he said, the road commission has done a good job at starting to integrate its planning processes with land use planning. But as an example of the disconnect, Smith pointed to Webster Township, which he said has done a good job at maintaining the township’s rural character. That means the land values there will be predominantly based on agricultural values, which are lower than land that can be developed, he explained.

In turn, C. Smith added, that means the township’s ability to raise money through taxes is more difficult than in the city of Ann Arbor, for example. And although it benefits the entire county that the township remains rural, the township is being asked to take care of the roads in its jurisdiction, without asking anyone else to contribute, Smith said. “That’s part of the system that’s broken, in my mind, that we have the opportunity to try and fix.”

Kelly disagreed that the system is broken. Two years ago, the county board was presented with a “perfect” proposal that was well-researched. [She was referring to the possibility of levying a countywide millage under Act 283.] Conan Smith noted that the proposal had been presented without the involvement of any city representatives, “so how can I support a proposal like that and go back to my constituents?” he asked.

Superior Township supervisor Ken Schwartz, who previously served as a Washtenaw County road commissioner. He also is a former elected county commissioner.

Kelly told Smith that he would need to educate city residents about why it’s important. It’s like a drain project, she noted – only a few people might be affected, but it’s seen as a necessary project and is funded by a much broader tax base. “You’re never going to make that political case,” she said. “You’re going to have to sit up … and be counted, and say this is the right thing to do – and just do it! Why didn’t you pass that millage? I don’t understand it.”

Alicia Ping agreed with Kelly that the Act 283 proposal had been a good one. But the way that the current governance structure is set up, county commissioners were concerned that they’d be making constituents in their districts pay a tax but the county board had no control over how the money would be spent – it would be allocated by the road commission, Ping said. “There’s a disconnect between the people who collect the money and the people spend the money,” Ping said, adding that there’s no accountability between those two entities. “That’s where the problem is.”

By way of background, Act 283 of 1909 does appear to outline a process by which the county board could exert some control over how the tax dollars are spent. It directs the road commission to present an annual plan to the county board for road projects, with an estimate of how much it would cost to fund those projects. From Act 283 (Note: the county board of commissioners was previously called the county board of supervisors, and was composed of supervisors from each township):

If the determination of the board of county road commissioners shall not meet with the approval of a majority of the board of supervisors, then the said board of supervisors shall proceed to decide upon the amount of tax to be raised for such year in such county for the purposes aforesaid, and may allow or reject in whole or in part any or all of the items for the sections of roads thus submitted for its consideration; and it shall not be lawful for such county road commissioners without the consent of such board of supervisors to spend any such moneys upon any other roads than as thus specified. [.pdf of Act 283 excerpt, with an analysis prepared for the county board in 2011 by Lew Kidder of Scio Township]

Ken Schwartz – the new Superior Township supervisor who previously served as a county road commissioner – also spoke about the fact that the road commission had approached the county board in 2011 about a proposal under Act 283. He noted that Act 283 was written in 1909, and described the law as “really flawed.”

Funding should really come from the state, Schwartz said. There really are only two viable funding options for roads, he added – the state, and the local units of government. He thought the road commission had done a good job of advising the local units of government about their options.

Schwartz thought it would be very difficult for the county to figure out a different mechanism that really works. Just like Conan Smith wouldn’t feel comfortable voting for a millage that would be spent outside Ann Arbor, Schwartz said, a lot of township officials might not feel comfortable about the county board allocating Act 51 money that’s now administered by the road commission. The issue relates to taxation without representation, he said.

Schwartz felt that the local units of government will need to step up until state officials provide more funding.

John Stanowski asked Schwartz whether he thought that the populace “just didn’t trust government.” Schwartz replied that he didn’t encounter that attitude at all. “It just seemed like Act 283 was unworkable in modern times,” Schwartz added. In order to make levying a millage fair, it would require that the taxes collected in Ann Arbor and other cities would have to be handed back to the city government. “I don’t think we could dictate how [the city] would spend that money,” he said.

Dan Smith said he agreed with some of Schwartz’s comments – Act 283 is awkward and difficult to administer. One option would be to put a millage on the ballot that would clearly indicate how funds would be distributed. In Ann Arbor, for example, if voters approved a countywide road millage, perhaps the city council would agree to reduce the city’s charter tax levy by the same amount as that road millage – so that overall, there would be no tax increase on Ann Arbor taxpayers, he ventured.

D. Smith agreed that there’s a big disconnect in the current system, because the road commission is a separate legal entity from the county government. After road commissioners are appointed by the county board, “it’s their game,” he noted. “They’re the ones that run things, and yet we’re the ones who take the [political] hit for the tax. And that’s a struggle.” D. Smith then returned to his point that residents don’t really care about this kind of insider baseball – they just want the roads fixed.

Next Steps

As she wrapped up the Dec. 4 meeting, Alicia Ping reminded subcommittee members that Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, will be preparing an analysis of any duplications in employee positions at the road commission and the county. Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, will be doing a similar analysis on overlapping facilities and assets. Roy Townsend, the road commission’s managing director, will be providing budget information and a list of funded and unfunded projects.

Ping asked subcommittee members to think about any other information that they’d like to collect, and to do their own SWOT analysis from the perspective of their jurisdictions. At the next meeting, they could review this material and see where there might be tangible or non-tangible benefits to taking any particular action.

Subcommittee members discussed the possibility of inviting representatives from other counties that had merged their road commissions with the county government, as well as from counties that had considered but rejected that approach. The consensus appeared to be that it would be a benefit to find a county with a similar demographic – like Ingham County, where Lansing and East Lansing are located. Ingham County did decide to absorb the road commission. Pat Kelly, Dexter Township supervisor, joked it would be good to look at a similar county that has a “900-pound gorilla in the middle” – a reference to Ann Arbor, with the University of Michigan, and East Lansing, home to Michigan State University.

Ken Swartz, Superior Township supervisor, cautioned that it’s important to understand the context for decisions made in other counties. In some cases, decisions are “overtly political, because people didn’t like each other.” And Macomb County, which is significantly bigger than Washtenaw County, went through a process to become a charter county, and absorbed the road commission through that charter process, he said. “I’m leery of comparing others that did it for purposes that weren’t strictly speaking what we’re trying to look at,” Schwartz said.

Ping estimated that their next meeting would be scheduled sometime in early January.

Despite some strong political pressure from supporters of the road commission to abandon this process, Ping told The Chronicle in a follow-up phone conversation that she intends to continue the subcommittee’s work and deliver a set of recommendations by March.

County board chair Yousef Rabhi, who attended a meeting of township supervisors held on Dec. 5, told The Chronicle in a follow-up phone conversation that he discussed the subcommittee’s mission and process at that meeting. A majority of supervisors who attended the Dec. 5 meeting were against absorbing the road commission into the county government, he reported, but he estimated that only about half of the township supervisors were there. Rabhi indicated that he expects the subcommittee to continue its work and provide recommendations to the county board by the end of March.

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 award came from the state’s Economic Vitality Incentive program (EVIP), which provides incentives for local governments to collaborate and combine operations. The county board had approved the dispatch consolidation at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting. The proposal had previously been authorized by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 5, 2011. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"]

Five requests had been made to the EVIP program related to this consolidation. The state denied a $500,000 request from the city of Ann Arbor for transition costs related to paying out leave banks, pension, VEBA and associated costs for terminated employees. Also denied was a $21,125 request from the sheriff’s office to cover 25% of the current dispatch manager’s annual salary and benefits, for time spent handling the transition.

The state did award three other requests from the sheriff’s office: (1) $65,000 for a metro dispatch project manager (an outside consultant); $37,500 to cover the cost of newly created dispatch coordinator jobs for three months, prior to the contract with Ann Arbor taking effect; and (3) $75,000 to pay for an instructional design consultant who is redesigning the sheriff’s Communications Training Officer (CTO) program for dispatch. That $75,000 will also cover a portion of employee wages for time spent cross-training.

The board’s resolution accepting the award also amended the previously approved county general fund budget for 2012. The line item for state revenue was amended from the original $4,810,249 to 4,987,749 – reflecting the additional $177,500 state grant. The total 2012 general fund budget is now $99,419,930.

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

At the Washtenaw County board of commissioners Jan. 18, 2012 meeting, Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman talks with Mary Jo Callan, director of the joint Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development. Kunselman was on hand to air concerns about the proposed countywide transit authority. (Photos by the writer.)

However, the issue emerged at the board’s Jan. 18 meeting when two people – including city councilmember Stephen Kunselman – spoke during public commentary to share their views with county commissioners. Among Kunselman’s points was a concern that Ann Arbor might end up shouldering the burden for countywide transit, if most other communities opt out.

A few commissioners responded to the public commentary. Alicia Ping – who represents a district covering Saline and several townships in southwest Washtenaw – indicated that many people in her district were not inclined to participate in a countywide transit authority. Wes Prater expressed concerns about the process so far, calling it convoluted and confusing.

The main action at the board’s Jan. 18 meeting also reflected ties between the county and Ann Arbor – a presentation and vote on the consolidation of county and Ann Arbor 911 dispatch services. The proposal, which was unanimously approved, called for entering into a contract with the city from Feb. 1, 2012 to Jan. 30, 2017. The city will pay $759,089 annually for dispatch services. In addition, the county expects to receive an increase of $677,893 annually from 911 fees. The Ann Arbor city council had already approved the agreement at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton told commissioners that he believes the dispatch model they’re developing will be among the best practices nationally, and will be replicated by other dispatch operations in the country. This partnership between Washtenaw County’s two largest public safety entities will strengthen core police services in the county, he said.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to one of the last remaining contracts with a union representing Washtenaw County employees – a two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors. A final vote by the board is expected at its Feb. 1 meeting. Negotiations continue with four remaining bargaining units that have not yet reached an agreement on a new contract.

The board also approved a brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a development in Ann Arbor at the corner of Washtenaw and Platt, and formally accepted a $3 million grant to support the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project, which focuses on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township. Arbor Hills Crossing will be located along that corridor.

County administrator Verna McDaniel updated the board on turning over the Washtenaw Head Start program to federal officials, a move that commissioners had approved last year as part of the budget process. The county will end its 46-year affiliation with Head Start on July 31. McDaniel reported that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District is interested in applying to take over the program locally, and that federal officials plan to issue a request for proposals (RFP) during the first quarter of this year.

Not mentioned during McDaniel’s update was the status of an investigation begun last year into actions of the program’s two top officials, director Patricia Horne McGee and Lovida Roach, the program’s second-in-command. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said the allegations that prompted the investigation were “founded.” Heidt said the county could not release details, but that no misuse of funds was involved. Horne McGee retired at the end of 2011. Roach will remain on leave until the county relinquishes control of Head Start, and at that point she will also retire, Heidt said.

The meeting also included a transition of sorts. Commissioner Leah Gunn has typically taken on the parliamentary action of moving the agenda at each of the board’s meetings, which entails reading off the agenda items. Gunn, who is not running for re-election this year, announced that Wednesday’s meeting was her “farewell agenda” – she would be relinquishing that task for the remainder of her tenure on the board. [Her term runs through the end of 2012.] After she completed the task this final time, Yousef Rabhi teased her, saying Gunn “moved the agenda very well.”

Countywide Transit

There was no agenda item regarding the effort that’s underway to form a countywide transit authority, but the topic came up during public commentary, prompting some commissioners to respond.

A four-party agreement is being considered by Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The agreement among the four parties would set up a framework for the transition of the AATA to a countywide transit authority, incorporated under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. AATA currently operates under Act 55 of 1963. For a discussion of the key differences between the two pieces of legislation, see Chronicle coverage: “AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit.”

If approved, the four-way agreement would assign specific conditions and responsibilities to each of the parties as part of the transition to a countywide transit authority. The role of approving, signing and filing the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority would fall to Washtenaw County. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation]

The county board has not taken any action on the proposed countywide plan. However, commissioners have been briefed by AATA staff about the proposal, most recently at the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford gave a presentation on the overall plan and the county’s role.

Countywide Transit: Public Commentary

Stephen Kunselman introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor who serves on the Ann Arbor city council. He quickly read headlines and excerpts from news articles about public transit initiatives in other communities, including Grand Rapids and Detroit. He told commissioners that any community in Washtenaw County that opts in to the Act 196 authority would have its millage revenues dictated by the whims of Ann Arbor. [The proposed governance structure includes a 15-member board, with 7 of those board members appointed from Ann Arbor.]

Kunselman also said he’s not interested in Ann Arbor “going it alone.” He plans to propose an amendment to the four-party agreement that would stipulate if Ann Arbor is the only community that opts in, then the agreement would be null and void. His final point was that true regional transportation should go beyond the borders of Washtenaw County, but that it shouldn’t be carried on the backs of Ann Arbor residents.

[Kunselman has raised similar concerns at Ann Arbor city council meetings. At its Jan. 9 meeting, the council debated the proposed four-party agreement and ultimately voted to delay voting on the accord until its Jan. 23 meeting. The council also set a public hearing on the issue for that date.]

LuAnne Bullington also spoke on the topic of the countywide transit plan. Saying she’s an Ann Arbor resident who has used public transportation for decades and has attended numerous meetings on the issue, Bullington said she knows a lot about public transportation. She asked why the board wanted to set up an Act 196 authority, when AATA is already set up to provide public transportation to other parts of the county?

Out-county communities have said they don’t want it, Bullington contended. So why is this board pushing for it? [Throughout her commentary, she repeatedly addressed commissioners and called the countywide transit proposal "your plan."] Why does the board want Ann Arbor taxpayers to pay for it – why doesn’t the county pay? Why should AATA turn over its money to an organization that doesn’t exist yet? she asked. Bullington called the countywide transit proposal a “pig in a poke.”

Countywide Transit: Commissioner Response

A few commissioners responded to the commentary on countywide transit. Wes Prater – who represents District 4, covering the southeast portion of the county – said the county board has never taken any position of any sort regarding a countywide transit authority. Individual commissioners might have made statements for or against it, he said, but there has never been any action taken by the board. It seems to be driven by the mayor and city council of Ann Arbor, he said. A lot of money has been spent on consultants to develop the plan, he said. But Prater said he doesn’t believe a countywide authority will work. Four townships have already opted out, he noted, and he estimated that more than half of the county’s townships will eventually choose not to participate.

Alicia Ping – the commissioner representing District 3, which includes the city of Saline and townships in southwest Washtenaw County – reported that in her district, one mayor and one township supervisor have expressed interest in the countywide transit authority. But no one else in her district wants it, she said. Ping expressed skepticism that the authority could be considered countywide, if most communities in the county don’t join it.

Later in the meeting, Prater brought up the topic again. He said it was strange that during the discussions by AATA staff of a countywide system, no one mentioned the University of Michigan bus system. It seems like there’s a missed opportunity for collaboration there, he said. There are duplications in administration and tasks between the two systems, he said, and about 30,000 students supplementing the population of Ann Arbor.

[Even though UM also runs its own buses to provide service between its campuses, some collaboration already exists between the AATA and the university. AATA's M-Ride program, for example, allows UM students, faculty, and staff to ride AATA buses without paying a fare when they board. The program makes up about 40% of the AATA's fixed-route ridership. UM is also a part of a partnership to explore a high-capacity connector from Plymouth Road near US-23 down through downtown Ann Arbor along State Street to I-94. The middle part of that route would connect the UM north campus and central campus.]

Prater described the process of forming an Act 196 as convoluted. “When I get it figured out a little bit more, I’m going to be asking some more questions,” he said. It doesn’t seem like the out-county population is dense enough to support public transportation, Prater said, which leads him to believe that AATA and other supporters of the plan are just looking for additional tax revenues. He also noted that Gov. Rick Snyder has a plan for regional transit that would add yet another wrinkle. “It’s quite confusing,” he concluded.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said that having additional discussions about transit wouldn’t be a bad thing. He noted that an item originally on the Jan. 19 working session agenda – a discussion led by board chair Conan Smith about proposed state legislation for regional transit – would be postponed. Smith indicated that the state legislation has not moved forward yet. [See also Chronicle coverage: "AATA in Transition, Briefed on State's Plans"]

Countywide Transit: Working Session Follow-up

The following evening, at the board’s Jan. 19 working session, LuAnne Bullington returned to address the commissioners again during public commentary. She referred to the countywide transit plan as the mayor’s regional transit program – presumably a reference to Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje. She said she’d brought more documents related to the plan to give to commissioners, since it seemed to her that they weren’t informed.

Bullington questioned why there was movement forward on WALLY, a possible commuter rail service on a 26-mile route between Ann Arbor and Howell, in Livingston County.

[At its Sept. 15, 2011 meeting, the AATA board passed a resolution that expressed general support for the idea of continuing to work with surrounding communities to move forward with the Washtenaw and Livingston Line (WALLY) project. The resolution's one “resolved” clause required that the $50,000 allocated for WALLY in the 2012 budget cannot be spent, except with the explicit consent of the AATA board. At the AATA board's Jan. 19, 2012 meeting, CEO Michael Ford indicated that the WALLY project itself could not happen without some capital funding that had failed to materialize in the form of TIGER III grants. The AATA expects to see a plan for what to do about WALLY in February or March.]

Bullington said she’d been told that WALLY is dead. Yet the AATA has sent out a request for proposals (RFP) for a WALLY station that’s due Feb. 2, she said. [.pdf of RFP specifications for a WALLY railroad station feasibility study and engineering support for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.]

Bullington also wondered why the mayor is asking the county board to create a new transit authority, when the governor is talking about creating a bus rapid transit system for the four-county metro Detroit area, including Washtenaw County. And if the county is being asked to create the authority, why are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti being asked to approve a framework for it? she asked. She said that Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman had asked AATA CEO Michael Ford how much Ann Arbor taxpayers would pay for a countywide system, but contended he didn’t get an answer.

Why should there be a vote on a framework when it’s not clear what’s being voted on? she asked. She said the mayor used to sell real estate. Would anyone want to buy a $9 million house without seeing it? The cities are being set up for a bait and switch, Bullington contended. There shouldn’t be a rush about it, especially since the governor is expected to announce his transit plan in February, she concluded.

Responding to Bullington’s commentary, board chair Conan Smith said it would be worthwhile to schedule a working session about the intent of the four-party agreement. There have been some amendments proposed by other governing entities, he noted. Smith said he felt that the board should be asserting that the process isn’t being handled in the right way. If four different bodies can amend the agreement piecemeal, the process could take forever, he said. It would be better to have a negotiating committee work on the agreement, then take it back to the four governing bodies for an up or down vote.

Barbara Bergman expressed reluctance to get involved in negotiating an agreement, saying it’s not the county’s role to broker a deal.

Wes Prater said he felt like there are things going on that he doesn’t know about, and he asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to explain how the county was involved. If the county is the enabling public entity, why aren’t county staff and commissioners involved in writing the articles of incorporation or the four-party agreement? he asked. Although individual commissioners have taken a stance, the county as an entity hasn’t taken part in developing this transit plan, he said. Prater wondered why the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, was working on it – at whose request was he doing that?

As he’d done the previous evening, Prater described the process as convoluted, and he wondered why it was so difficult and confusing when there were easier ways to proceed. “It looks to me like there’s some kind of scamming going on,” he concluded.

McDaniel responded by saying that any work the corporation counsel is doing is to review documents on behalf of the board.

Noting that he has attended information sessions held by AATA, Dan Smith said his understanding is that the county’s role is extremely limited, and that the board could decide to play no role whatsoever. By participating, the county would streamline the process, he said. It’s possible for the townships and cities to create a transit authority without the county’s involvement, he said, but it would entail more red tape. If the county’s role were more extensive, Smith said he’d have some concerns. As it is, they’ll just be filing paperwork “and that’s it,” he said.

911 Dispatch Consolidation

The board was asked to give approval to move forward with consolidating 911 dispatch operations between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor. The proposal called for entering into a contract with the city from Feb. 1, 2012 to Jan. 30, 2017. The city would pay $759,089 annually for dispatch services. In addition, the county expects to receive an increase of $677,893 annually from 911 fees.

The Ann Arbor city council had already approved the agreement at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting. The city expects eventually to save $500,000 a year with the move, which will entail laying off all of the city’s current dispatchers, not all of whom would be able to obtain employment within the expanded sheriff’s office dispatch operation.

The combined operation is proposed to employ 30 full-time dispatchers and 12-15 part-time dispatchers. The county’s action on Wednesday called for creating 15 full-time employees, including 13 communications coordinators (dispatchers), one dispatch operations coordinator and one dispatch manager.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?”

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Presentation

Sheriff Jerry Clayton began his presentation by saying this consolidation is an example of good public policy. It improves services and creates efficiencies, and while both dispatch units were “magnificent,” he said, they’ll be enhanced by coming together.

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton addresses the county board of commissioners. In the background is Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff's office.

It’s not a new idea, Clayton told the board – the possibility of consolidated dispatch has been kicked around for more than two decades. If communities want their own dispatch operations, that’s their right, he said. But it makes sense to streamline operations and save money.

Since 1990, the county has operated its own dispatch, and provided dispatch services under contract with Northfield Township, the Michigan State Police, the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, and jurisdictions in the county that contract for police services. In 2009, the county restructured its dispatch operations, changing the number of supervisors and increasing the number of dispatcher positions.

In January of 2010, the county started providing dispatch services for the city of Ypsilanti. It was a decision largely driven by Ypsilanti’s difficult financial situation, Clayton said, and is an example of how the county tries to provide a safety net for communities. The savings allowed Ypsilanti to keep another police officer on the street, he said.

In May of 2010, the county dispatch co-located to the same site as the Ann Arbor dispatch operation – in the fire station across the street from Ann Arbor city hall. It was not part of a long-term plan to consolidate, Clayton said. Rather, it made sense to have dispatchers in the same room for better communication, he said, in part because crime knows no boundaries.

In March of 2011, public safety officials with the county and city of Ann Arbor began talks about how to find additional efficiencies. It was in the context of budget challenges that the city was facing, Clayton said. Ann Arbor police chief Barnett Jones asked the county for a proposal, and after further talks, Jones decided it made sense to contract out for services. The proposal was taken to city council last year, and approved at the council’s Dec. 5, 2011 meeting.

This was a major move for the city, Clayton said. The dispatch operation is in some ways the lifeline of the police force, he said, and it shows great trust in the county to contract out that service. The decision was not made lightly, he said, in part because it would be very difficult and expensive for the city to reverse the decision in the future.

The consolidation is anticipated to save the city $500,000 annually, enabling Ann Arbor to retain more police officers, Clayton said. It allows the county to maintain an adequate dispatch staff – the operation has been understaffed for some time, and has had to rely on overtime hours. That issue can now be addressed, he said.

This chart shows cost savings associated with dispatch partnerships with Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. (Image links to larger chart.)

Clayton gave three examples of the cost savings from contracts with Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, and from the county’s co-location with Ann Arbor.

Clayton said the dispatch contract with Ypsilanti brings in $73,000 annually to the county, plus an additional $75,228 in 911 fees. Co-locating with Ann Arbor saved $430,000 every eight years by eliminating the need for a phone switch replacement, and saved another $80,000 every 10 years by eliminating the need to replace a logging recorder. The county also saw a one-time $440,000 savings from co-location by eliminating the need to buy equipment for the Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS).

The new contract with Ann Arbor will bring in $759,089 annually to the county, plus an additional $678,000 in 911 fees that were previously paid to Ann Arbor.

Separately, each community that contracts with the sheriff’s office for police services pays for dispatch services too, Clayton noted. For each police services unit (PSU) – the term used to indicate one sheriff’s deputy plus overhead – the contract includes $10,707 for dispatch services. In 2012, there are contracts for 79 PSUs countywide, which will bring in an additional $845,853 for dispatch services.

Clayton outlined the benefits of consolidating dispatch services with Ann Arbor. It would save the city $500,000 annually, allowing Ann Arbor to maintain more police officers on the street. For the sheriff’s office, consolidation will relieve staffing shortages and reduce the use of overtime, as well as bring in additional revenues.

Consolidation also addresses some challenges of co-location, he said, including the lack of a common mission, common standards, and frustration over how the work is distributed. There will now be one approach to training and quality assurance, he noted. Performance will be measured uniformly, and reported regularly. Measurements will fall into four categories: (1) operations, including call volume, speed to answer and speed to dispatch; (2) financial, including overtime hours, performance to budget, and cost per 911 call; (3) service quality, such as satisfaction of law enforcement officers and citizens who use 911; and (4) development, including the number of certifications and hours of training per employee.

Clayton said he believes the model they’re developing will be among the best practices nationally, and will be replicated by other dispatch operations in the country. A partnership of Washtenaw County’s two largest public safety entities will strengthen core police services in the county, he said.

After showing some schematics of the operation’s layout, Clayton concluded his presentation by describing the proposed number of employees for the combined dispatch. The goal is to employ 30 full-time dispatchers, 12-15 part-time dispatchers, one manager and two supervisors.

As part of approving the overall project, the board was being asked to vote on a resolution that authorized creating 15 new full-time employees, including 13 communications coordinators (dispatchers), one dispatch operations coordinator and one dispatch manager.

Clayton then fielded questions and comments from commissioners, who were uniformly supportive. This report organizes the board’s discussion thematically.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Logistics

Felicia Brabec called it a wonderful example of collaboration. She asked how the consolidation would happen logistically – what would happen to people who called in on the day of the switchover, for example?

The physical logistics won’t be a problem, Clayton replied. He said the city of Ann Arbor did a great job in designing the co-location facility, where both county and Ann Arbor dispatchers have been operating. For the caller, it will be a seamless transition.

But there are significant logistics to handle in terms of personnel, he said. The county currently employs 17 dispatchers. If the board approves the proposal, another 13 dispatchers will need to be hired. Clayton said he’s hopeful that some Ann Arbor dispatchers will join the new operation, but he knows that some are planning to retire, or are seeking jobs elsewhere.

He indicated that if half of the Ann Arbor dispatchers come over, that would go a long way toward easing the transition. The county had held a job fair the previous Saturday, Clayton said, and they had identified 15 potential candidates from that event who’ll be brought back for further interviews. [The job fair was held at the same time as an Ann Arbor City Democratic Party event, which a representative from the sheriff's office attended on his behalf to announce that Clayton will be running for re-election this year.]

Another piece of the transition is training, Clayton said. After Clayton took office in 2009, the previous training program for dispatchers was scrapped, and a new one was developed that includes three weeks of classroom training. In addition, there are over 250 core tasks that dispatchers must master and prove proficiency in, he said.

All of this must be coordinated with the city, Clayton said. He did not identify a specific date when the transition will occur, saying that it’s a floating date, as different activities of the dispatch operation are aligned.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Finances

Brabec referred to the budget that Clayton had presented, and asked why there’s almost an $800,000 difference between revenues and expenditures. [The proposed 2012 dispatch budget identifies $2,653,036 in revenues and $3,449,881 in expenditures.] Clayton said that roughly $800,000 in additional revenues will come from a line item in the police services budget – communities that contract with the sheriff’s office for patrol deputies pay for dispatch services as part of their contracts.

Yousef Rabhi described the consolidation as a phenomenal project. When he was out campaigning, he said, he told residents about the co-location of Ann Arbor and county dispatchers, and people thought it was a great move. Now, it’s taken to the next level, he said.

Mark Breckenridge, the county's director of emergency management, and dispatch operations coordinator Sarah Taylor.

Rabhi asked how the E-911 funds are distributed. Mark Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency management, explained that the state collects 911 fees from wireless providers based on the number of wireless devices that are registered for Washtenaw County. Funds from those fees are paid to the county quarterly.

There is also a 911 revenue stream from landlines. The distribution of those funds is overseen by a county emergency telephone district board. At this point, each of the three dispatch centers in the county – in the sheriff’s office, Ann Arbor, and Pittsfield Township – get funds based on a formula that factors in population, landline count and call volume.

In response to another question from Rabhi, Breckenridge said that revenues from landlines are decreasing, while wireless revenues are increasing. In two years, 911 revenues will be based only on population.

Rabhi clarified with Clayton that the contract with Ann Arbor runs for five years, and that although the annual amount that Ann Arbor will pay doesn’t change, the amount reflects anticipated cost increases over that period. He also confirmed with Clayton that the contract is expected to be renegotiated in five years, and that any cost increases will be part of a renegotiated rate. Clayton said he’s already had that conversation with the city, and that they know they should anticipate a higher rate in the next contract.

Rabhi said it’s great to see a budget neutral proposal that’s helping to streamline government operations. Clayton said he appreciated the kind words that were directed at him, but that the staff has been instrumental in developing the plan, and that it was the vision of Ann Arbor police chief Barnett Jones that made the consolidation possible.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked a series of questions. He clarified with Clayton that the county is paying $12,500 annually to the city for rent at the dispatch facility. If dispatch operations eventually move to the county’s western service center on Zeeb Road, would the city then pay the county rent? Clayton said the rent that the county pays is part of the context for what the city will pay to the county after consolidation.

Sizemore asked why the dispatch operations couldn’t move to the county’s Zeeb Road facility now? [The western service center on Zeeb Road includes considerable vacant space.] Clayton replied that the sheriff’s office wants to be part of the county’s overall infrastructure plan, but it would be too much to take on a physical relocation at this time. Moving would also cost a substantial amount, he noted. Sizemore asked if Clayton is budgeting for an eventual move. The sheriff indicated that his staff is working with county administrator Verna McDaniel and Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to see how a move might fit into upcoming budgets.

Who’ll pay for equipment upgrades? Sizemore asked. The county would need to pay for upgrades for its dispatch operations regardless of whether it provides services to other entities, Clayton said. In response to another question from Sizemore, Clayton said the county has the capacity to handle dispatch operations for other communities as well.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Technology

Alicia Ping asked if there is any way to quantify the number of cell phone calls that are directed to different dispatch operations. If she places a 911 call from Pittsfield Township, do county dispatchers answer it?

Breckenridge explained that there are currently three public safety answering points (PSAPs) in Washtenaw County – that is, dispatch operations that answer 911 calls. Right now, such calls are handled by the sheriff’s office, the Ann Arbor police department, and the Pittsfield Township department of public safety. Only a limited number of PSAPs are allowed, he said, in order to eliminate confusion from overlapping cell phone service coverage.

Ping wanted to know how calls were distributed to the three PSAPs. Breckenridge said he could find out and send that information to her. Ping said her point is that the county is subsidizing certain communities that don’t pay for police services, yet rely on the county’s dispatch operations when their residents call 911.

Barbara Bergman asked whether the dispatcher could locate a caller who makes a 911 call. Yes, Breckenridge replied. If your phone has GPS, then it’s possible to spot the location directly. If the phone isn’t equipped with GPS, then it’s possible to use cell towers to triangulate the location within 50-150 yards, he said. Eventually, all cell phones will send GPS signals to make the location easy to determine.

If her constituents ask what kind of phone to buy, Bergman said, it seems she should tell them to buy a smartphone with GPS. She noted that if a triangulated location covers 150 yards, that means emergency responders might have to knock on three doors before finding the right house. Breckenridge replied that the best phone for someone to have who’s homebound is a landline. For landline calls, the dispatcher sees a display of the caller’s phone number and address.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Partnerships

Leah Gunn praised the project, noting that the county and city of Ann Arbor have been trying to coordinate dispatch operations for more than 20 years. She gave credit to Clayton for making it happen, saying that the residents of Ann Arbor trust and respect him, and obviously the ANn Arbor city council does too. It’s a great collaboration, she said.

Rob Turner thanked Clayton and his staff. A year ago, Turner recalled, the board held a retreat and reached consensus that public safety was one of the top priorities for the county. The only way to make that happen is through collaboration and partnerships. Another example is the police services steering committee, Turner said, and its work on developing a new police services contract for local communities to contract for sheriff deputy patrols.

The steering committee worked to bring costs down for the contracting communities, Turner said, adding that he realized Ann Arbor shouldered some of the financial burden for that. Now, the county is in a position to help Ann Arbor lower the city’s costs, he said. Consolidation maximizes the police services that are offered to the county’s residents, he said, noting that there are many needs, especially in some areas where crime is high.

Turner told Clayton that other police forces within the county view Clayton as a friend and partner, and speak highly of him. Though there are ways to improve, Turner said he’s very impressed with the work that’s been done so far.

Wes Prater told Clayton that he’d done an amazing job in putting this consolidation together. He hoped it would make it easier for Clayton to actually take a vacation in the next 3-4 years. Clayton indicated that his wife hoped so, too.

Dan Smith pointed to some of the historical information that Clayton had mentioned – the county has been handling dispatch for Northfield Township since 1990. Smith – who represents District 2, which includes that township – said he’s never heard of any problems related to dispatch operations. When he served on the township board, Smith said, he did a ride-along with the police in a pursuit situation. The dispatchers handled it smoothly, he said, and you couldn’t tell that the dispatchers weren’t located in Northfield Township. He said he was certain that it will work out as well for Ann Arbor as it has for the township.

Outcome: The board unanimously authorized moving forward with consolidating 911 dispatch operations between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor.

Head Start Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel gave an update on the process of relinquishing administration of the local Head Start program, which the county has managed for 46 years. Federal officials have been formally notified, she said, and the program will be officially relinquished back to the feds on July 31, 2012. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Options Weighed for Washtenaw Head Start," "Head Start Advocates Make Emotional Plea" and "Washtenaw County Budget Set for 2012-2013"]

Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie talks with county administrator Verna McDaniel.

McDaniel also noted that the former Head Start director, Patricia Horne McGee, had retired as of Dec. 31. Cassandra Sheriff, site director for the Ypsilanti Head Start location, is acting as interim director.

McDaniel and board chair Conan Smith met earlier this month with the local Head Start policy council. McDaniel described it as a positive meeting, with members asking pertinent questions about the transition process. The council had expressed interest in meeting with officials from the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), which is applying to the federal government to become the designated grantee of the program. So another meeting was held, McDaniel said, with WISD superintendent Scott Menzel attending.

Menzel had praised the Head Start program, and said he believes in continuity, McDaniel reported. He had said he didn’t want to be presumptuous and assume that WISD would be named the grantee. But if that happens, WISD would want to retain Head Start’s stellar staff and have as little disruption to the program as possible. McDaniel said the policy council was supportive of WISD’s application, and would likely submit letters of support to federal officials.

A request for proposals (RFP) will likely be issued by the federal-level Head Start agency in the first quarter of 2012, McDaniel said. County staff are providing information required to draft the RFP, she said.

Head Start Update: Commissioner Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked whether the county is prepared to do everything it needs to do in order to relinquish the program. McDaniel replied that the staff has made a commitment to provide all required information to the federal officials, including an inventory.

Brabec asked what the status was regarding the main Head Start building and the debt that the county held on that. Previously, county staff had reported that the county owes about $2.6 million on the bond and makes $167,000 in bond payments annually at the building, located at 1661 Leforge Road in Ypsilanti. The bond payment schedule runs through 2022.

McDaniel said that nothing is certain. It will depend on the entity that’s eventually chosen to take over the program, she said. A discussion of assets – including the Leforge building – would be part of that transition.

Yousef Rabhi asked whether the county would submit a letter of support for the WISD. McDaniel indicated that the county could submit a letter of support for the WISD, if the board wanted to do that.

Head Start Update: Administrative Investigation

During her update, McDaniel did not mention that Horne McGee and senior management assistant Lovida Roach – Horne McGee’s second-in-command – had been placed on administrative leave on Dec. 13, pending the outcome of an investigation that had started in October. [See Chronicle coverage: "Two Head Start Managers Put on Leave"]

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said that the allegations which prompted the investigation were “founded.” Citing the fact that it was a personnel issue, Heidt said the county could not release details, but that no misuse of funds was involved. When the investigation started, Horne McGee chose to retire at year’s end, Heidt said. Roach will remain on leave, using personal time she has accrued, until the county relinquishes control of Head Start. At that point, Roach will also retire, Heidt said.

AFSCME Local 3052 Agreement

One of the last remaining contracts with a union representing Washtenaw County employees was given initial approval by the board at its Jan. 18 meeting. The tentative two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors, has been ratified by its membership. A final vote by the board is expected at its Feb. 1 meeting.

AFSCME Local 3052 was one of five bargaining units – out of 17 units representing county employees – that did not reach an agreement with the county by the end of 2011, when its previous contracts expired. Negotiations continue with the other four units – representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office.

The new agreement, which runs from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013, calls for a 10% retirement contribution from employees, and a 10-year vesting period for new hires. Employees will take 10 unpaid “bank leave” days in 2012 and 2013, with no furlough days imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay.

The default health care plan will comply with the state’s hard cap on costs. The cap limits the amount that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare annually: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. Employees have the option to upgrade their plans for additional annual costs of $2,724 or $1,772, based on the plan.

The agreement also eliminates longevity pay for new hires, and reduces longevity pay by 25% for current employees in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013. The collective bargaining agreement stipulates that if county property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012, a 1% wage increase would become effective Jan. 1, 2013.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board voted unanimously to approved the AFSCME Local 3052 agreement.

Arbor Hills Brownfield Plan

The board was asked to give final approval to a brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw in Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor city council approved the plan at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting, and the county board had given initial approval on Dec. 7.

Members of the development team for Arbor Hills Crossing, from left: Arthur Siegal of Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss; Anne Jamieson-Urena of AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services; and Bill Carpenter of reFORM studios.

The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces. The brownfield plan includes $6.7 million in tax increment financing to be paid back over a 19-year period.

Because Ann Arbor is part of the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority, all brownfield plans in the city must get approval from the county board as well as from the Ann Arbor city council.

Wednesday’s meeting included a public hearing on the brownfield plan. The only speakers were three members of the development team: Anne Jamieson-Urena, director of brownfield and redevelopment incentives for AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services; Arthur Siegal, an attorney with Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss; and Bill Carpenter, an architect with reFORM studios. They all spoke briefly, highlighting attributes of the project and asking for the board’s support of the brownfield plan.

There was no discussion of the project among commissioners.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing.

$3 Million HUD Community Grant

On the agenda was a resolution to approve the acceptance of a three-year, $3 million grant recently awarded by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The approval included authorizing $65,000 in matching funds from the county’s housing contingency fund, and the hiring of a full-time management analyst.

HUD’s Community Challenge Planning Grant grant was awarded to support the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project, which focuses on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township. County administrator Verna McDaniel had announced news of the grant award at a Nov. 17, 2011 working session of the county board.

According to the grant application, the project focuses on “removing barriers to create a coordinated approach to expanding existing affordable and energy efficient housing options and connecting them to job centers and healthy food through an enhanced multi-modal transportation corridor.” It’s part of the Reimagining Washtenaw project, which has been underway for several years. The joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development, led by Mary Jo Callan, is taking the lead on the project. Callan was on hand at the Jan. 18 meeting to answer questions, but commissioners had none.

In addition to the county and four other jurisdictions, partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Arts Alliance, Community Housing Alternatives, Eastern Michigan University, Food System Economic Partnership, Growing Hope, Habitat for Humanity, SEMCOG, Ann Arbor SPARK, University of Michigan Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, Washtenaw County Public Health, and the Ypsilanti Housing Commission.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board unanimously approved a resolution to accept the $3 million grant, approve matching funds and hire a full-time management analyst.

Board Appointments

Board chair Conan Smith announced nominations of commissioners to fill slots on more than two dozen advisory committees, commissions and boards. He also nominated sheriff Jerry Clayton to act as liaison to the 800 Megahertz oversight committee, which oversees the countywide millage passed in 2006 for an emergency communications system. [.pdf of 2012 appointments]

Smith noted that the board is planning to evaluate its participation in the Literacy Coalition of Washtenaw County – he is the commissioner designated as a member of that group, which has been struggling with funding and engagement of its membership. [See Chronicle coverage: "Literacy Coalition Faces Uncertain Future"]

Responsibility for the police services steering committee, which has worked on the issue of sheriff deputies that serve local communities on a contract basis, will be shifted to the sheriff’s office rather than the board of commissioners, Smith said. The number of commissioners serving on that committee will be reduced from four to two – Rob Turner and Alica Ping.

Smith also proposed that the public safety and justice oversight committee, which had been formed to oversee the jail expansion, would be dissolved because that project has been completed.

Outcome: All appointments and other changes were approved unanimously, without comment.

Communications & Commentary

During each meeting, there are opportunities for public commentary and for communications from commissioners and staff. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Board Retreat

Ronnie Peterson apologized for arriving late to the meeting – he said he’d been in Lansing, and had a flat tire on the trip back to Ann Arbor. He noted that board chair Conan Smith had asked staff to call commissioners and schedule a retreat for Saturday, Jan. 21. Peterson said he’d be unable to attend – he would be out of town, he said. He expressed frustration that alternative dates hadn’t been considered. Smith apologized, indicating that he had misinterpreted a conversation he’d had with Peterson about the retreat.

Peterson also said he wanted to ensure that the board’s strategic planning included public input, and that such input should be encouraged.

Peterson’s comments were the only time that the board retreat was mentioned. At the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting, board chair Conan Smith made a presentation that outlined some possible strategic goals for the coming year, and had indicated that a retreat might be in the offing. A notice announcing the meeting was posted at the end of the day on Thursday, Jan. 12, at the county administration building in downtown Ann Arbor, in accordance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act. However, county offices were closed on Friday and the following Monday, for Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Smith did not mention the retreat during opportunities for communications at the Jan. 18 board meeting.

[The four-hour retreat was subsequently held on Saturday morning at the county's parks and recreation offices on Platt Road. Other than county commissioners, staff, the sheriff and prosecuting attorney, the only others who attended the retreat were The Chronicle and Andy LaBarre, a candidate for county commissioner.]

Comm/Comm: Honoring Paul Bunten

Commissioner Alicia Ping presented a resolution honoring Paul Bunten, who recently retired as police chief for the city of Saline. Ping, a former Saline city councilmember, now represents District 3 on the county board, which includes Saline. The resolution recognized Bunten for his 47 years of public service. Bunten was not at the meeting, but will be given a framed plaque of the resolution.

Several other commissioners expressed their thanks to Bunten. Leah Gunn noted that he had worked for many years at Ann Arbor’s police department. When former Ann Arbor police chief Dan Oates left that position, she said, Bunten stepped in for Oates as chair of the emergency communications committee, which campaigned for a millage that voters approved in 2006. The millage supported a new 800 megahertz system that enabled emergency responders from all jurisdictions to communicate with each other.

Barbara Bergman said she’d worked with Bunten on several different committees, and he was always a pleasure to work with, giving good advice and support. Wes Prater noted that he’d worked with Bunten back when Bunten was a rookie, “and then he was a lot of fun!”

Comm/Comm: Fracking

Yousef Rabhi said that he and commissioner Alicia Ping are concerned about fracking, which he said is happening in Washtenaw County and becoming more common. The term – also known as hydraulic fracturing – refers to a practice of extracting oil or gas by injecting high-pressurized fluid into rock. He said he and Ping have received emails from residents who are concerned about the practice, with questions about property rights, property values, environmental impact and the health of humans and neighborhoods. The state regulates fracking, Rabhi said, but the county needs to be aware of it and start thinking about how to handle it.

Wes Prater commented that the reason behind increased fracking stems from regulations being removed several years ago from the federal Clean Water Act. Companies are ruining the underground water supply, he said. He’s heard that it’s happening near Adrian. [Adrian is located in Lenawee County, immediately south of Washtenaw County.]

Barbara Bergman said she hadn’t realized that fracking was taking place locally and that she was “absolutely horrified.” If the board agrees that it’s a dangerous practice, then they need to make a big noise about it, she said.

Comm/Comm: Trial Court Renovations

Rob Turner gave an update on renovations at the Washtenaw County trial court in downtown Ann Arbor, at the corner of Huron and Main. The trial court includes the 22nd circuit court, juvenile court, probate court and Friend of the Court program. The renovation is now on schedule, Turner said, and the third phase will likely be done by Feb. 10, with the entire project completed by mid-March. It’s on time and on budget, he said – the contingency funds aren’t even being used. He said he’s been told that chief judge Donald Shelton is “ecstatic.”

Turner reported that Jason Fee with the county facilities unit will be making a presentation to the board about this project in February. Rolland Sizemore Jr. commented that the county’s facilities workers are the reason why this project is going well, and he asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to convey his compliments to the staff.

Comm/Comm: WATS & WCHO Moves – Zeeb Road Facility

As the county board’s liaison to the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), Yousef Rabhi reported that WATS has been leasing office space from the county’s western Washtenaw service center on Zeeb Road, but has been asked to leave. The Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan, will be moving into that space instead. The county has offered WATS four other options, Rabhi said, but WATS officials have decided to look elsewhere – at leasing from landlords in the private sector, or from other public entities. WATS hasn’t definitely ruled out other county facilities, Rabhi said, and he encouraged commissioners to express their support for the county’s continued relationship with WATS.

Barbara Bergman, who serves on the WCHO board, reported that only the administrative offices of WCHO will be relocating to Zeeb Road. The parts of the organization that provide services to consumers, including the community support and treatment services unit (CSTS), will remain at accessible locations, such as the county’s 555 Towner St. building in Ypsilanti.

A space plan update for all of the county’s facilities is being developed and will be presented at an upcoming board working session.

Comm/Comm: Eastern Leaders Group

Leah Gunn reported that earlier in the month she had attended a meeting of the Eastern Leaders Group. She noted that she’s been a member of the ELG steering committee since it was formed. Because Gunn is stepping down from the board of commissioners – she has decided not to run for re-election this year – commissioner Felicia Brabec will now serve on the leadership team in her place, Gunn said. At the end of the ELG meeting, Gunn reported that commissioner Ronnie Peterson, who also serves on the ELG steering committee, had given a speech praising her work, and she appreciated it. “We don’t get praised too often,” she said.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During public commentary at the beginning of the Jan. 18 meeting, Thomas Partridge said he wanted to send a message straight to Lansing, on behalf of the county’s most vulnerable residents. Priority should be given to human services – affordable housing, health care, and education – rather than spending money on railroad stations and bridges. He noted that Gov. Rick Snyder would be giving the State of the State address that same night. He said Snyder and his allies bought the governor’s office through corrupt means, and that a recall effort is still underway. The county’s economy hasn’t recovered, Partridge said, and until it does, there must be attention paid to altruistic attitudes and finding solutions to very serious problems.

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

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

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

The board authorized the county administration to enter into a contract with the city from Feb. 1, 2012 to Jan. 30, 2017. The city would pay $759,089 annually for dispatch services. In addition, the county expects to receive an increase of $677,893 annually from 911 fees.

The Ann Arbor city council had already approved the agreement at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting. The city expects eventually to save $500,000 a year with the move, which will entail laying off all of the city’s current dispatchers, not all of whom would be able to obtain employment within the expanded sheriff’s office dispatch operation.

The combined operation is proposed to employ 30 full-time dispatchers and 10 part-time dispatchers. The county’s action on Wednesday authorized the creation of 15 full-time employees, including 13 communications coordinators (dispatchers), one dispatch operations coordinator and one dispatch manager.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?”

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

OCD director Mary Jo Callan will lead the new office of community & economic development. The goal is to cut costs by eliminating duplicated services in the face of declining revenues, while finding ways to deliver those services more efficiently to citizens. The change resulted in a net loss of nine jobs. However, jobs in other departments have been found for all but one of the affected employees. Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources manager, said she’s continuing to work to find a position for that employee.

Commissioners were briefed on the restructuring at a May 5, 2011 working session, and also discussed it at a June 28 agenda briefing.

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.

Hey, the party is over. We don’t save much anymore. We spend what we earn, borrow some more from other governments, to buy all of the latest plasma electronics at low prices at Wal-mart. America’s largest retailer then ships the $10 billion we borrowed in merchandise payments back to China each year and we start the cycle all over again.

When the financial market’s balloon recently exploded, our government blows up another balloon by printing more money and distributing it out to banks to loan to us so we can keep spending and avoid the party-ending migraine hangover. This new infusion of money cheapens the value of the dollar so we have to borrow more to just maintain the same lifestyle. In some respects this spend-and-borrow lifestyle is our own Madoff ponzi scheme with our children and grandchildren being the eventual victims of our own actions.

To withdraw from this spend-and-borrow addiction, we in the private sector need to start making competitive American products for the global marketplace and saving a part of the profits. Those of us in the public sector need to shrink the size of government and make it more efficient.

Why do we need 1,242 townships in Michigan? Can’t the townships’ duties of assessing property, collecting taxes, conducting elections, and providing fire and police services be turned over to local counties (who also provide most of these services) in an effort to pull Michigan from its fiscal crisis? I could just as easily send my taxes to the county offices as to the township treasurer’s farm on Old U.S. 12 (who then remits the taxes back to the county). On second thought, why do I have to mail the payment anywhere? I should be able to pay the taxes over the Internet, just as I do many of the other household bills.

Why do we need 84 county road commissions in Michigan? Are the roads in Washtenaw County so different than the roads in Livingston that we need separate commissioners, lawyers, accountants, auditors, maintenance supervisors, etc.? Recently I was trying to get to Detroit Metropolitan Airport on a snowy afternoon. I had no problem on Washtenaw roads but when the snowplow got off at the county line, the Wayne section of the freeway had not been plowed and traffic was at a crawl. If the Washtenaw road supervisor had more regional responsibility, I likely would have made my flight on time.

These local entities were established before Michigan became a state and their size allowed people living on the perimeter to walk to the township hall and return the same day. The argument for the status quo is that the township people are friendlier and provide more personal service. Unfortunately, this form of localism is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Public and private sector consolidations will eventually happen. A weak dollar and a shrinking property tax base will require that hard choices be made. The party is over. Let’s not leave our hangover to our children.