Adding the rider would cost the county an estimated $182,589 this year, according to staff – to be paid to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. To cover that cost, each county department will be charged on a per-employee basis. In addition, the county will pay for claims made by employees for this benefit, with the assumption that most if not all claims would be reimbursed by the state.

The board has been discussing this possibility for several months. At its Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, the board received a staff presentation about the possibility of offering such coverage. Colleen Allen, CEO of the Autism Alliance of Michigan, attended that meeting to answer questions and advocate for coverage. The board created a committee to explore the cost to the county for providing employee health insurance coverage for autism. Committee members were Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). The committee’s charge was to (1) investigate the cost and sustainability of coverage of autism spectrum disorders; and (2) recommend a policy providing and funding coverage if the state reimbursement fund is exhausted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeannine Palms, who served on a citizens advisory committee to make recommendations for the county-owned property at 2260-2270 Platt Road, talks with commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who helped lead that effort. Palms spoke during public commentary to praise the process and urge commissioners to adopt the recommendations. (Photos by the writer.)

A citizens advisory committee made recommendations for the 13.5-acre site at 2260-2270 Platt Road, and included the desire to use a portion of the land for affordable housing. Inclusion of affordable housing is a condition for accepting a $100,000 planning grant from the state, and that condition worried some commissioners. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was particularly vocal in disagreeing with this approach. He suggested selling the land instead, then using the proceeds to pay for repairs and renovations of existing houses in the county, including those for sale through tax foreclosure auctions.

The board voted to give initial approval to the Platt Road recommendations, over dissent from Sizemore. A final vote is expected on Feb. 19. If approved, the county would then launch a much broader community planning process to determine the future use of that site.

Also debated at length was a proposal to hire a contract worker who would support budget-related work for the county board and administration. Commissioners had also discussed this issue during the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) questioned the process for hiring this kind of staff support. On Feb. 5, several commissioners expressed concern about spending money on this position and wanted more details about funding and duties. Those concerns led to a unanimous vote to postpone the item until March 5.

A proposal to create a dental clinic for low-income residents received initial approval on Feb. 5, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). The $1.5 million project includes partnering with the nonprofit Michigan Community Dental Clinics Inc. to run the clinic and with St. Joseph Mercy Health System, which would contribute space at its Haab Building in Ypsilanti at little to no cost. A final vote is expected on Feb. 19.

In other action, the board gave final approval to two items with no significant discussion: (1) creation of a new countywide program to help finance energy-efficiency projects for commercial properties – the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program; and (2) a new ordinance that allows the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. The county treasurer’s office – which is responsible for administering the dog licenses – expects to implement the changes in June or July, following an educational outreach effort.

Commissioners also passed a resolution urging Gov. Rick Snyder to use the state’s budget surplus in part for road repair, and approved a resolution honoring local attorney Jean Ledwith King for her service on the county’s historic district commission.

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) gave an update on efforts to address services to the homeless community. Advocates for the homeless had attended the board’s previous meeting, on Jan. 22, 2014. The board received a more detailed update on this situation at its Feb. 6 working session. That session will be covered in a separate Chronicle report.

Platt Road Property

Recommendations from a citizens advisory group for Platt Road property owned by Washtenaw County were on the Feb. 5 agenda for initial approval.

The 13.5-acre site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road formerly housed the juvenile center. The advisory committee, which was created by the board on Sept. 18, 2013 and met three times late last year, recommended that the county use a $100,000 grant from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) to fund a community design process for the property.

The committee recommended that the county keep the property until a design process is completed, according to a committee report. Specifically:

The CAC identified through consensus a number of principles that could apply to the site including demonstration for green technologies and sustainable design, mixed use, mixed income including affordable and moderately priced housing, minimized parking spaces, alternative transit, varied types and forms of housing for people of different ages, an urban village, less impervious surface, lower auto footprint, integration with neighborhood, visionary design, draws people to the site, opportunities to grow businesses, and connections to County Farm Park. In order to fit into its surroundings, the final composition of this site should serve to transition from the commercial aspects of Washtenaw Ave., the residential aspects of the local neighborhoods and the natural aspects of the County Park facility. Finally, it should incorporate uses that reflect its value as a county property and bring the opportunity of use or value for all Washtenaw County residents.

One of the resolved clauses stated that the county would commit to using a portion of the property for affordable housing. That’s a condition of accepting the $100,000 planning grant from MSHDA. The grant is part of a $3 million federal grant awarded to the county in 2011 and administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

The resolved clause states:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners directs the CAC to assist in hosting an intensive multi-day community design process to create a plan for the site, inclusive of affordable housing;

The resolution also directs the advisory committee to provide more detailed analysis and recommendations by Sept. 31, 2014.

Committee members are: Ron Emaus, Jeannine Palms, Vickie Wellman, Rob Burroughs, Amy Freundl, Pete Vincent, Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city councilmember), and Jennifer Hall (Ann Arbor housing commission director). Also serving on the committee were Washtenaw County staff members Meghan Bonfiglio of the county parks & recreation commission; Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management; and Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development. County commissioners on the committee are Yousef Rabhi and Andy LaBarre, who both represent districts in Ann Arbor.

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked members of the advisory committee for their work. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) described the work as a citizen-driven process, and reminded commissioners that they had discussed the need for citizen input when they created this committee last year. People had brought their ideas and values to the table, he said, and the committee was able to reach consensus so they hadn’t even needed to take a vote on the final report.

Rabhi said he didn’t think approval of these recommendations by the board was a vote about what to do with the property. It’s just a step, he said, and there will be additional, broader community engagement before anything is decided.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). In the background is Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he appreciated the citizens involvement and valued their input. He cautioned that voting on the recommendations meant that the board would be adopting them, which would lead to more limited flexibility – specifically related to affordable housing. He’d be more comfortable simply accepting the recommendations. This is a different process than the county typically uses to dispose of its property, he noted.

Peterson didn’t think the county should be in the housing business, but the recommendations indicate that the county would be committed to providing affordable housing on that Platt Road site. He noted that the value of the property is estimated at $2 million or more, and that could be used for the good of all Washtenaw County residents.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said it was important for the board to approve the recommendations. He indicated that unless he was misreading the resolution, he thought it meant that the board is just committing to a community-based process, rather than the usual way that the county deals with property. He noted that there wasn’t a community-based process when the county expanded the jail, for example. He thought it was a good commitment to make to the neighborhood, though any final decision about what to do would be made by the board.

LaBarre described the resolution as having four central elements: (1) that the county doesn’t sell all of the property, (2) that the property includes some aspect of affordable housing, (3) that development on the property should match its surrounding environment, including the commercial corridor of Washtenaw Avenue, the residential neighborhoods, and County Farm Park, and (4) that the site should include an asset that the whole county can benefit from and use.

Approving the recommendations would allow the county to leverage MSHDA dollars for a “super process” of community engagement, LaBarre said. The specific recommendations from that broader process would be acted on by the board. “We are not committing ourselves to a design process,” he said, in terms of specific actions.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, came to the podium. She said the committee is asking that the county not sell the property outright, but instead go through a community engagement process that is deliberative and visionary.

She clarified that the recommendations ask the county to retain at least a portion of the land, and to include at least some affordable housing.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith wondered what would happen to the MSHDA funding if the process results in a decision not to include affordable housing on that site. “Do we owe that money back to MSHDA?” he asked.

Callan clarified that the second resolved clause of this resolution would commit the county to including affordable housing on some portion of the site. It might be mixed income, or at income levels to be determined by the board. But MSHDA would invest funding in a planning process only if some portion of the site is used for affordable housing, she said. At this point, Callan added, “that portion is undefined.”

Smith worried that the county would owe the funding back to MSHDA if the community engagement process results in a decision not to include affordable housing. Callan replied that the site “is a county asset, and it is to be disposed of by the county board.” Sometimes the board’s decisions involve overlaying values onto the process, she noted, as the board did when it supported the Delonis Center homeless shelter.

So by approving the resolution, the board would be committing to include affordable housing on that site. Callan said she could follow up with MSHDA to confirm the agency’s position, but her opinion based on previous experience with the agency is that they’d tell the county to fund its planning process some other way if there isn’t a commitment to affordable housing.

Conan Smith said he’d be willing to put county dollars into the planning process, but at the least the county should be aware of a financial risk involved.

Rabhi said he sensed the concern that was developing among commissioners. Any time you have a discussion, you have to set parameters for that, he said, and it’s OK to do that. The recommendations outline principles that the advisory committee would like the county to adhere to during its broader planning process, Rabhi said. “If we believe in that vision, then it’s OK for us to lead. That’s what we’re elected to do.” That’s what the board is voting on, he added – a commitment to lead. He supported the resolution. Even if it turns out that the county can’t use the MSHDA funding, he said, it would be good to invest in this kind of planning process.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he’s asked many people what affordable housing is, and each person has a different answer. He didn’t support the resolution, and didn’t know why the board needed to approve anything at this point. He noted that a portion of the 13.5-acre site can’t be built on because of a small wetland area located there. “To me, if feels like I’m being set up in some way,” he said.

Peterson said he hadn’t planned for this to be a big discussion, but he again stressed the importance of involving citizens in the process. He indicated that he was troubled by other commissioners who had “challenged my intelligence about my ability to comprehend resolutions.” He said he supported affordable housing in Ann Arbor. “All affordable housing should not be on the eastern part of the county,” Peterson said. [District 6, which Peterson represents, includes Ypsilanti and portions of Ypsilanti Township, on the county's east side.]

To get the funding from MSHDA, Peterson noted, the board needs to approve the resolution that states a commitment to affordable housing on the Platt Road property. So they should be clear about what they’re voting on, he said.

LaBarre responded, saying he didn’t intend to challenge Peterson’s intelligence and that he took full responsibility for any miscommunication or lack of clarity. He hoped the board could move the resolution forward. The county isn’t getting into the housing business, he added, saying he needed to do better outreach with his colleagues on the board, and promising to do that in the coming weeks.

Conan Smith apologized to Peterson, saying that he could see how his remarks seemed combative. He said it turned out that Peterson had a much better understanding of the resolution than he had.

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

Rabhi reported that in his conversations with city of Ann Arbor officials, they had expressed interest in partnering with the county on this project. He agreed with Peterson that the county shouldn’t get into the housing business, and they need partners to do affordable housing.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that neither the staff memo nor the resolution were specific about defining affordable housing. He asked Callan to elaborate on that, and he wondered if it would be possible to define affordable housing based on a real estate market rather than income. For example, if a $100,000 condo is located on that site, would that count as affordable housing in the Ann Arbor market?

Yes, Callan replied – a $100,000 condo in Ann Arbor would count as affordable housing. To any individual, affordable housing is defined as anything costing less than 30% of gross income. So by that definition, “affordable” means different things to different people, she explained, based on income levels. But as defined for the purposes of federal or state funding, affordable housing means spending 30% or less for people earning 80% or less of the area median income (AMI). For the Ann Arbor market – which for federal purposes includes all of Washtenaw County – median income is about $50,000. So 80% of that is about $37,000, Callan said. Any household earning that amount or less would qualify for affordable housing as defined by the government.

Callan noted that affordable housing can target a range of income levels, starting at the poorest – those earning 30% or less of AMI, or about $14,000. For that income level, you could afford about $350 a month in housing costs, Callan said, which is generally available only with significant subsidies. At 80% AMI, you could afford about $1,000 a month for housing. “That’s the range we’re looking at,” she said.

Sizemore suggested selling the land, then using the proceeds to pay for repairs and renovations of existing homes in the county, including those that are for sale through tax foreclosure auctions. LaBarre replied that the advisory committee had discussed the option of an outright sale, but it hadn’t been supported. That’s why the option wasn’t presented in the resolution, he said.

Outcome: The board voted 7-1 to give initial approval to the recommendations. Dissenting was Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent. A final vote is expected on Feb. 19.

Platt Road Property: Public Commentary

Jeannine Palms, a member of the advisory committee, spoke during the second opportunity for public commentary, after the board took its initial vote on the recommendations. She began by reading a statement from another committee member, Vickie Wellman. Wellman wrote that she had been very disturbed because of the divisive politics and political fighting that’s become the norm. Many projects and tasks aren’t completed due to infighting. But the work on the Platt Road committee was the first time she’s been impressed by the sincerity, quality, professionalism, energy, and cohesion of the effort. Wellman wrote that she was especially impressed by the integrity and professionalism of the staff. Her past experiences working with this kind of group haven’t been so rewarding, she wrote. It had been a big task, and everyone worked together to come up with the recommendations. Wellman’s statement concluded by urging commissioners to support the recommendations.

Palms thanked the board for giving initial approval to the resolution, saying she agreed with the sentiments in Wellman’s letter. She said she’s a regular visitor to County Farm Park and has worked on projects there, and the parks in this community have been a major focus for her life. This advisory committee brought together a lot of people from different backgrounds to work in a way that was truly impressive, Palms said. It was collaborative and mutually respectful, looking for ways to grow community capital, social capital and cultural capital, to provide a model for sustainable living. The recommendations were unanimously agreed upon, she said, and it was an honor to be part of this process. She looked forward to the next steps.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked Palms for her work, and thanked other committee members who had participated. It had been energizing for him as a new commissioner to work with them on this project. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) in turn thanked LaBarre for his work in putting the committee together, and he thanked the board for moving it forward. Rabhi also thanked Palms, noting that she’s very active in the community, especially in that neighborhood.

Staffing for Budget Work

Commissioners considered a proposal to hire a contract position that would support budget-related work for the county board and administration.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

At the board’s Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, commissioners had given direction to county administrator Verna McDaniel to research and recommend staffing options that would support the board’s community investment priorities. As part of adopting a four-year budget, the board set up a new strategic model to help them determine where the county’s resources should go. The board set goals as well as outcomes that are intended to measure how those goals are being achieved.

The priority areas for investment that were approved by the board in 2013 are: (1) ensure community safety net through health and human services, inclusive of public safety; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for county residents; (4) reduce environmental impact; and (5) ensure internal labor force sustainability and effectiveness.

The dollar amount for this position wasn’t included in the resolution, which stated that “compensation shall not exceed the scope of the Administrator’s authority.” The administrator has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts, and up to $100,000 for any proposed goods, services, new construction or renovation. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

A four-page job description was also included in the board packet. The person would report to the county administrator in terms of daily operations. [.pdf of job description]

Commissioners had previously debated this issue at some length during the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) questioned the process for hiring this kind of staff support.

Staffing for Budget Work: Board Discussion

In introducing this item on Feb. 5, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) reported that this relates to the continuation of work that the board did when developing the four-year budget, as well as previous work in past years that looked at how best to invest county dollars. How did the programs and services of the county match with investments in community priorities that the board had approved? “The magnitude of that work is great,” she said, and that’s why a recommendation for a contract staff position is being made.

Brabec, who as chair of the board’s ways & means committee had taken the lead in the budget process, noted that she had emailed commissioners a job description. The “deliverable” from that person would include a report on how the outcomes of county programs and services match with budget allocations. The person would also provide a gap analysis, so that when the board makes its annual budget adjustments at the end of the year, they can make allocations based on this process.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) noted that there are about 1,300 employees in the county government. Rather than hiring someone, he said, “I would direct the county administrator to get [this work] done, and if she doesn’t get it done, then we need to figure out why it’s not getting done.”

Sizemore pointed out that there’s a “cross-lateral team” in the county administration that each get an extra 4% in their salary, plus retirement benefits based on that higher amount. [The cross-lateral team, which was created instead of filling a deputy administrator position, consists of four senior staff members: corporation counsel Curtis Hedger; finance director Kelly Belknap; Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director; and Greg Dill, infrastructure management director. The board had approved the restructuring and pay increase about two years ago at its March 7, 2012 meeting, with Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) casting the only dissenting vote.]

Sizemore then objected to the fact that the resolution didn’t include a cost estimate for the contract position. He suggested taking the extra 4% pay from the cross-lateral team to pay for the work. He didn’t know where the money would come from to pay for this, and he didn’t understand why it couldn’t be done in-house.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he understood Sizemore’s concerns, but noted that the county has slashed the capacity of the administrator’s office over the past few years. Belknap is now overseeing the finance and budget operations, which used to be the work of two people, he said. There are empty desks in the administrative offices. “I think we’re honestly at the point where we can’t ask the folks in the cross-lateral team or administration … to also take this on without some additional capacity.”

Smith said he had originally wanted to create a new permanent position to do this work. The county administrator, Verna McDaniel, had convinced him not to do that just yet, and he thought that was wise. But even so, Smith believed that additional resources are needed in order to make this happen, given that it’s a brand new process.

He clarified with McDaniel that she anticipated finding the money to pay for this contract position within line items over which she has discretionary control.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he appreciated Sizemore’s concerns. He noted that in developing the four-year budget, the board had received staff support from Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, as well as other staff members. But those staff members have other responsibilities – more than they’ve had in the past, he said. Commissioners don’t have sufficient time to invest either, he said, as their work on the board is part-time. Now, the board needs to make an investment to move this process forward.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) reminded commissioners that he spoke out last year every time the board was asked to authorize new hires, urging the board to be cautious. Many times there were extenuating circumstances related to the hires, like outside funding, Smith said. He went along with those hires, but this current request isn’t comparable, he said, and he wasn’t in favor of this hire.

Seated from left: Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who serves as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and county administrator Verna McDaniel. Standing is Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Alluding to his own experience in business, Smith noted that employees are asked to do more, but also the company cuts back on products or has longer release cycles and fewer features on the products that are released. At the county, however, “we don’t seem to be too keen on doing less.” He pointed out that even at that night’s meeting, the board would be voting on a new program – creating a dental clinic. So he was not in favor of this staff position.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) told commissioners that he appreciated the discussion, but “I take it that there’s not a vote tonight.” [Until this point, no one had publicly mentioned the intent to postpone this item.] He asked what the timeframe was for this work, and what the goals were for the individual that they’d be hiring. He also wanted to know what the expectations were for this person to collaborate, either internally within the county government, or with people in the community.

Peterson also cautioned that the board needs to be clear about who’s leading the organization. He wanted to make sure the position had a different title than “strategic program manager” – the title that was originally proposed. He suggested making the title “special assistant to the administrator for board support.” He said he didn’t want anyone to walk around with a cape thinking that they had more power than the county administrator.

Peterson supported the points made by Sizemore and Dan Smith. “The piggy bank was closed,” he said. If it’s been re-opened, he added, he wished someone would tell him, because he had a wish list of things he’d like to fund.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) agreed with Peterson, saying they had finalized the 2014-2017 budget in November of 2013, but since then several additional items have come to the board for approval that impact the budget. He hated to see a $50,000 or $100,000 request coming to the board every month. Martinez-Kratz said he felt it was the job of all commissioners to listen to constituents and gauge community impacts, and to orient their votes on the budget priorities based on that. He didn’t feel another employee was required for that.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) addressed the references to a piggy bank, saying that the point of this new job is to help the county make investments more strategically. “This is spending a small amount to make sure we’re being more deliberate about the decisions we’re making,” he said. Rabhi also pointed out that this proposal had been part of the budget document that the full board had approved in November of 2013. The job is a contract position, he noted.

Rabhi voiced support for county administrator Verna McDaniel, saying that the board has asked more of her than previous boards have requested of previous administrators. They’re asking more of the administration, he said, while they’ve also taken away resources to do the work.

However, Rabhi felt it was appropriate to postpone action on the proposal, to address some of the issues that Peterson had raised.

Staffing for Budget Work: Board Discussion – Postponement

Rabhi made a motion to postpone until the March 5 meeting.

Dan Smith then said he’d like to postpone it until May 7 – after the board receives a first-quarter budget update from the administration. At that point, the board would have a better picture of the county’s finances. He moved to amend Rabhi’s original motion.

Conan Smith noted that the board had voted on this issue in November of 2013, when they approved the budget. The intent was to have this new position work with the new budget process, he said, and he didn’t want to wait until May to approve it. If they waited, it meant they wouldn’t issue a request for proposals (RFP) until June, and the position likely wouldn’t be filled until halfway through the fiscal year, at best. He was anxious to move the proposal forward as quickly as possible.

Outcome on amending the March 5 postponement to May 7: The motion failed, with support only from Dan Smith, Rolland Sizemore Jr., and Kent Martinez-Kratz.

There was no further discussion.

Outcome on postponing to March 5: The motion passed unanimously.

After the vote, Sizemore again expressed frustration about the proposal. He wondered why the county didn’t take advantage of resources from local universities. He also asked what would happen to the report that would be completed as part of this process – would it be “put on the shelf with the 10 other reports we’ve already got on the shelf?” He noted that the city of Ann Arbor has cut its staff “and they seem to be existing pretty well.”

Sizemore also mentioned the bond proposal that the administration had floated in 2013, to cover pension and retiree health care obligations. At that time, the administrator indicated that the county needed to issue bonds for $350 million, he noted, but “now we seem to have pots of money to spend on things that come up,” like this new position. He hoped McDaniel would come back to the board with more details about the cost. He wondered who would actually hire the person – McDaniel, or the board? He hoped the person would be a resident of Washtenaw County, adding that he hated spending county tax dollars on employees who don’t live here. “I have a lot of questions, and right now I’m pretty upset about this,” Sizemore concluded.

Dental Clinic

A proposal to create a dental clinic for low-income residents of Washtenaw County was on the Feb. 5 agenda for initial approval.

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s interim public health officer.

The project is estimated to cost $1.5 million, using funds from the public health Medicaid liability account ($814,786), the public health fund balance ($663,015) and Washtenaw Health Plan ($50,000). According to the county’s public health staff, 58,000 county residents either don’t have dental insurance or on Medicaid dental insurance. However, only a few private dentists accept Medicaid. When up and running, the dental clinic is expected to serve 6,000 patients annually, including residents with income at up to 200% of the poverty level.

It’s expected that federal matching funds would supplement Medicaid reimbursement rates to provide a sustainable long-term cash flow, according to a staff memo. [.pdf of staff memo]

The resolution authorizes contract negotiations with the nonprofit Michigan Community Dental Clinics Inc. to run the clinic and with St. Joseph Mercy Health System, which would contribute space at its Haab Building in Ypsilanti at little to no cost.

The board had been briefed previously on this proposal at two working sessions over the past year.

Discussion on Feb. 5 was brief. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) praised the public health staff for their work, saying it was appropriate for them to identify the need and take on the responsibility. It was especially important to provide dental care for children, he said. Several other commissioners also expressed support.

Ellen Rabinowitz, interim health officer and executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, noted that outreach will be needed to promote the new clinic. A press release is being drafted, she said, but they’ll wait to release it until after the board takes a final vote on the project at its Feb. 19 meeting.

Outcome: Initial approval for the dental clinic was given on a 7-1 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent. A final vote is expected on Feb. 19.

Dog Licensing

A new ordinance that allows the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog was on the agenda for final approval.

Larry Murphy attended the Feb. 5 meeting of the county board. He has created a campaign committee to run for county commissioner in District 1. He is a Republican. The seat is currently held by Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz.

The resolution also establishes that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions. It also sets new licensing fees. [.pdf of dog license ordinance]

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

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

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

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

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

There was no discussion of this item on Feb. 5.

Outcome: Final approval to the dog licensing ordinance passed unanimously.

The ordinance could take effect 50 days after final approval, in late March. But the county treasurer’s office – which is responsible for administering the dog licenses – expects to implement the changes in June or July, following an educational outreach effort.

PACE Program

A resolution to create a new countywide program to help finance energy-efficiency projects for commercial properties was on the Feb. 5 agenda for final approval. Initial approval had been given at the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, which included public commentary from supporters of the initiative. [.pdf of PACE program documentation] [.pdf of PACE cover memo] [.pdf PACE resolution]

The countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program aims to help owners of commercial (not residential) properties pay for energy improvements by securing financing from commercial lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments.

The county is joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, had spoken briefly to the board on Jan. 22, 2014, and had previously answered questions about the program at the board’s Dec. 4, 2013 meeting. State Sen. Rebekah Warren also spoke briefly during public commentary on Dec. 4 to support the initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan.

The law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone will act as legal counsel. Several other counties are part of Lean & Green, according to the group’s website. Other partners listed on the site include the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which was co-founded by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith is married to Warren.

The county’s PACE program differs from the one set up by the city of Ann Arbor, which created a loan loss pool to reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. Washtenaw County does not plan to set up its own loan loss reserve.

Discussion was minimal on Feb. 5. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Conan Smith (D-District 9) for his work on this initiative. Smith said he’s been talking with Levin about implementing the program, noting that bad weather had prevented Levin from attending the meeting that night.

Outcome: Final approval for the PACE program was given unanimously.

Road Repair Funding

Commissioners considered a resolution urging Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder to allocate the state’s estimated $1 billion budget surplus to road repair.

At the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) had indicated the likelihood of this resolution coming to the board. She reported that a subcommittee that’s exploring the future of the Washtenaw County road commission had met prior to the county board meeting on Jan. 22. The subcommittee, which Ping chairs, had voted to ask the county board to pass a resolution urging Gov. Rick Snyder to allocate the state’s budget surplus for road repair, distributed to local entities using the current state formula for road allocations.

The resolution’s one resolved clause initially stated:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, such funds from state surplus should be used for roadway maintenance using the fair formula allocation as prescribed by Public Act 51 of 1951 ensure Washtenaw County benefits fairly from surplus use.

Ping did not attend the Feb. 5 meeting. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) reported that Ping told him she’d be amenable to changing the resolved clause to reflect that the surplus doesn’t need to be spent entirely on roads, but should include roads. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he’d support the change, noting that there are other priorities that the surplus could be spent on, including state revenue-sharing with local governments.

The resolved clause was then unanimously amended to insert “in part”:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, such funds from state surplus should be used in part for roadway maintenance using the fair formula allocation as prescribed by Public Act 51 of 1951 to ensure Washtenaw County benefits fairly from surplus use. [.pdf of resolution]

The phrase “in part” was also inserted into the title of the resolution.

The resolution states that the Washtenaw County road commission maintains about 1,654 miles of roads, including 770 miles of gravel roads. It also is responsible for 111 bridges and more than 2,000 culverts, and is contracted by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to maintain about 580 lane miles of state trunkline roads. Road commissioners have indicated that there are several million dollars worth of needed repairs that are unfunded.

In a statement issued earlier in the day on Feb. 5, Snyder released some details for a fiscal 2015 budget proposal, including $254 million “to match federal aid and maintain Michigan’s roads and bridges, transit services and aeronautics projects across the state.”

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Services for the Homeless

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he wanted to follow-up on the discussion that the board had with members of the homeless community at the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting. He had subsequently met with representatives from that group, along with county administrator Verna McDaniel, Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community& economic development, and Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. He noted that in order to address the list of demands for increased services at the Delonis Center shelter, which had been presented to the board on Jan. 22, the county needs to partner with other entities in the community.

The board received a more detailed update on this situation at its Feb. 6 working session. That session will be covered in a separate Chronicle report.

Communications & Commentary: Deportation

Rabhi also mentioned the possible deportation of Jose Luis Sanchez-Ronquillo. He noted that a few years ago, the county board had heard from advocates lobbying against another deportation threat – of Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista. [Bautista and her supporters had attended the board's Dec. 7, 2011 meeting.] In a similar case, Rabhi said, Sanchez-Ronquillo and his wife have lived in Ann Arbor for about 16 years, and their children attend Bach Elementary School. Rabhi reported that he had attended a rally in support of Sanchez-Ronquillo, where it was announced that he’d been granted a one-year extension to stay in the country. While that’s good news, Rabhi noted that “this isn’t the first time it’s happened, and it won’t be the last.” It’s important to think about how to make this a welcoming and diverse community, he said.

Communications & Commentary: Autism Coverage

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, gave an update on a proposal that the county administration plans to make formally to the board at a future meeting: To begin offering health care coverage to county employees for the treatment of autism.

She noted that offering the coverage would result in an estimated $182,000 increase in the county’s annual health care premium. Because the county self-funds health care coverage for its employees, that amount will fluctuate based on actual claims, she said.

The main unknown is whether the state will continue to offer reimbursement for autism coverage, Heidt said. There’s been no indication that the state plans to set aside additional funds for fiscal 2014 or beyond. About $26 million that was set aside by the state in previous years could still be tapped for reimbursement. She said she’d continue to gather information and resources, and would meet with the board committee that had been established on Jan. 22, 2014 with commissioners Andy LaBarre, Felicia Brabec and Ronnie Peterson. She anticipated coming to the board with a recommendation on March 5.

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

Absent: Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Some of the crowd at the Jan. 22, 2014 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Speaking during public commentary, several people argued that the Delonis Center‘s warming center should be made available when temperatures are lower than 45 degrees. One woman presented a list of specific requests for expanded services at the homeless shelter, including 24-hour access to shower facilities and increased hours for access to laundry facilities.

There was no formal agenda item on this issue, but several commissioners agreed that the community needs to do more for the homeless. Conan Smith (D-District 9) noted that county had a 10-year plan to end homelessness, “and then we got socked by a terrible economy and made pretty dramatic reductions in the county’s spending.” [The Blueprint to End Homelessness was adopted in 2004 but appears to be dormant.]

The board ultimately voted to direct county administrator Verna McDaniel to address issues related to services for the homeless. They’ll be getting an update at their Feb. 6 working session from Ellen Schulmeister, director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) cautioned against the county overstepping its bounds, and pointed out that the shelter is run by a separate nonprofit – although the county owns and maintains the building where the shelter is located at 312 W. Huron in Ann Arbor, and contributes some funding. Ping noted that the county also currently pays the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for several parking spaces used by Delonis Center employees, and suggested that the money might be better spent on direct services to the homeless. The county is continuing to negotiate its parking contract with the DDA.

Also at the Jan. 22 meeting, the board made a range of appointments, including confirmation of Dan Ezekiel, former Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioner, to replace Nelson Meade on the county parks & recreation commission. And former state legislator Alma Wheeler Smith was appointed to fill an opening on the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) board. Richard Murphy – one of two RTA board members from Washtenaw County – was not seeking reappointment. Smith was the only eligible applicant and is the mother of county commissioner Conan Smith, who abstained from the confirmation vote.

In addition, during the Jan. 22 meeting the board created a new committee to explore the cost to the county for providing employee health insurance coverage for autism. The board had received a staff presentation earlier in the evening about the possibility of offering such coverage.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog, with a final vote expected on Feb. 5. The ordinance could take effect 50 days after that, in late March, but county treasurer Catherine McClary indicated that her office would be looking to implement the changes in June or July. Several  commissioners advocated for educational outreach to ensure that residents – especially in rural areas – will be aware of the changes.

The board also gave initial approval to establish a countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, after hearing from several people during public commentary who supported the effort. A final vote to establish the program is expected at the board’s Feb. 5 meeting.

Services for the Homeless

Although there was no agenda item directly related to the county’s support for services that aid the homeless, the issue was the focus of public commentary on Jan. 22, and of subsequent response from the board.

Eight people spoke during public commentary about issues facing the homeless and those living in poverty.

One man described his 37-year-old son who suffers from bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and short-term memory loss. For the past 8 or 9 years, the son has lived at the Embassy Hotel, at the southeast corner of Huron and Fourth. Out of his son’s roughly $700 per month disability check, the hotel is charging almost $650 for a small room with furniture in disrepair, he said. There are patches on the wall that aren’t painted, a stained lampshade, and a small refrigerator that doesn’t work properly. The hotel management talks down to his son in a degrading way, and sometimes doesn’t let his son into the hotel at night if he forgets his key. “So he’s on the streets until seven o’clock in the morning,” the man said.

After other expenses, his son only has about $10 a week for food – “that’s criminal and shameful,” he said. Some people say that living there is his son’s choice, but where else would he live? “There’s no affordable housing in downtown Ann Arbor that he can afford.” This is a problem, and it’s not just his son, the man said. “You’ve got to do something about this.”

One woman spoke as a representative of people who use the Delonis Center shelter and its warming center. The warming center operates only six months out of the year, she said. But every human being has the right to be protected from the elements, and to have access to food, clothing, computers, and medical care. The Delonis Center isn’t meeting those needs, she said. The woman ticked through a list of requests, which she also provided to commissioners in writing:

• 24-hour access to shower facilities.
• Increased, flexible hours for laundry access.
• An immediate review of the trespassing policy.
• More flexible hours for storage access.
• Breakfast and snacks for people who use the warming center.
• An end to the policy that requires people to leave the center during the day. The center should be used in the daytime for reading, computer use and other inside activities.

She requested a response from commissioners within 72 hours about their intent to implement these proposals.

Tim Green introduced himself as a member of Camp Misfit and a board  member of MISSION. There aren’t adequate services for the homeless in Washtenaw County, he said. But his biggest concern now is the freezing temperatures and the lack of adequate access to the warming center. According to the Centers for Disease Control, he said, hypothermia can set in at 45 degrees. “Do you put your dog outside for 8-10 hours, like they expect these people to do?” he asked. “You’d be put in jail for animal cruelty.” But people are on the streets with nowhere to go. The community needs a daytime warming shelter and a larger shelter for the night, he said. He’s been homeless in the past, and he continues to help people when he can. A friend of his froze to death last year because he had a drinking problem and couldn’t get into the Delonis Center, Green said. Alcoholism is obviously a disease, he said, and there should be a place to help people who need it, so they won’t freeze to death. Something needs to be done, he concluded.

Jeff Plasko provided sign language interpretation at the Jan. 22 meeting of the county board. It’s a service that the county pays for upon request.

Steve Carnes told commissioners he’s lived in Ann Arbor for about 10 years, and the previous speaker had addressed most of the issues he wanted to raise. He asked people from Camp Take Notice and Camp Misfit to stand or raise their hands – about 20 people indicated they were part of those groups. He noted that there needs to be a timely appeals process when people are asked to move their tents because of trespassing. He knows of cases that have extended over three months.

Odile Huguenot Haber said she’s been a Washtenaw County resident for about 20 years. About 65 people are sleeping on the floor of the Delonis Center, she said, plus 25 people sleeping at the rotating shelter in local churches. She told commissioners that she didn’t know if they’ve slept on the floor recently, “but it’s not great.” Some people are senior citizens, or disabled, or mentally ill, she noted. It’s crowded and not comfortable. It’s better than sleeping outside, but she pointed out that not everyone has a space inside. Haber called for a countywide meeting of all the stakeholders about homelessness to offer something better than what’s available now. “We’re not in Syria,” she said. “We’re in Ann Arbor in the United States. We can do much better.”

Speaking as a member of Camp Misfit, Tracy Williams said they keep getting pushed out of their tent homes. It happened to some friends of his recently. The city has money to “throw around for all the buildings in Ann Arbor,” he said, but they can’t fix a streetlight. People who have a place set up for the winter are having to move because neighbors feel threatened since there’s not adequate lighting, he said. Where are those people going to go? Are they going to the cemetery?

Greg Pratt introduced himself by saying “I live in Andy’s district” – District 7 in Ann Arbor, represented by Democrat Andy LaBarre. There are people freezing outside, and they’re being evicted, he said. They need warm places to go that aren’t necessarily in the homeless shelter. People who were attending that night’s meeting are speaking from a place of strong emotion, Pratt said. “There’s people’s lives on the line.” The Delonis Center needs to set the “weather amnesty” at 45 degrees – and people should be allowed to stay there even if they blow over 0.1 on a breathalyzer, he said, or have behavioral problems. Pratt added that he knew there were at least a few commissioners who wanted to help out, so he urged them to do what they can.

Speaking through a sign language interpreter, Tony Galore told commissioners that they should do whatever they can, either providing funds or building another shelter. People need to be helped, he said, “and we would help you back later.” He said raised the issue of transportation, saying he was from Miami and you could get anywhere you wanted to go there. In Michigan, it’s not so easy, he said. “To me, it’s backwards here.” He urged commissioners to help people who need access to transportation.

Services for the Homeless: Board Response

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked people for coming and telling their powerful stories. Addressing the challenge of homelessness needs to be a priority in these hard economic times, he said. There’s no excuse for the county not to allocating some funds for this purpose, Smith added. It’s not about how cold it is, he said – people deserve a home if they want one.

The county needs to adopt public policy and investment strategies reflecting that housing is a right, Smith said. The community needs systemic solutions, he added, and not simply respond to a crisis. They need to address the causes of homelessness, not just the symptom. The county had a 10-year plan to end homelessness, he noted, “and then we got socked by a terrible economy and made pretty dramatic reductions in the county’s spending.” [.pdf of the 2004  Blueprint to End Homelessness] Smith said the county would be doing what it could.

County administrator Verna McDaniel and commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said the situation that was described about conditions at the Embassy Hotel sounds “appalling” and something that he hoped the county staff could look into. Thanking others who’d spoken on behalf of the homeless, Rabhi said “it’s a human issue, and one that we can’t back away from.” It’s been a priority for Washtenaw County since he’s been on the board and even before that, he said. Other communities don’t provide the same level of support for the homeless, he noted. Nobody was turned away from the Delonis Center when temperatures dropped, he said. Even so, he added, “we still need to do more.” The county needs to identify holes in the system and patch those holes with additional resources.

Rabhi described a meeting he’d had recently with Ann Arbor city councilmember Sumi Kailasapathy and county staff who are working on homeless issues. They identified the need for more collaboration between the city and county. They talked about having a joint city/county task force to have that dialogue. Responding to a suggestion from the crowd, Rabhi said that members of the homeless community should be involved in the task force, too.

In terms of the specific list of requests that were made during the public commentary, he noted that county administrator Verna McDaniel had assured him that she’d bring together staff and others in the community to respond to the requests and make recommendations to the board.

Rabhi pointed out that the cost for opening the warming center for temperatures above 10 degrees is about $180,000 annually. He agreed with Smith that the board should allocate some amount of funding to address these basic human needs.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said it’s important to understand where the county’s role stops and the shelter’s role begins. The county doesn’t run the shelter, she noted, so getting involved risks overstepping the county’s authority.

Related to that, Ping wondered if there was an update on negotiations between the county and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. She said she brought it up because the county pays the DDA for about two dozen parking spaces used by employees of the Delonis Center. By eliminating that, the county could probably use the money to help pay for more services for the homeless, she said.

McDaniel reported that there had been several meetings between her staff and the DDA, and that she had a meeting scheduled later in the week with the DDA “to hone in where we are with that.” They’re continuing to negotiate, she said. McDaniel added that she’d report back to the board as soon as she had more information.

Rabhi said he’d support passing a resolution that would direct McDaniel and her staff to address the concerns that were raised that night.

Outcome: The board voted to direct the county administrator to address issues related to services for the homeless.

Rabhi also asked Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community and economic development, if she could prepare a report for an upcoming working session. Callan agreed to do that. She noted that although about 85% of the support for the Delonis Center comes from sources other than the county and city of Ann Arbor, the county does own and maintain the center’s building. [The board's Feb. 6 working session agenda now includes a briefing on homelessness issues by Ellen Schulmeister, director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center.

Conan Smith said the board shouldn't forget its role as funders of the shelter, with a strong financial interest in that nonprofit. They have a right and obligation to articulate their concerns to the shelter's leadership, he said. "Now, if that organization chooses not to respond to our interests, that does put our relationship in a more interesting place," Smith added. "But to date, that has not been the case. They've been always very responsive to the concerns of the board of commissioners."

Appointments

Appointments to three groups – the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA); the Washtenaw County food policy council, and the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission – were on the board’s Jan. 22 agenda. The board also made its annual appointments of county commissioners to various boards, committees and commissions.

Appointments: Regional Transit Authority

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the board, nominated Alma Wheeler Smith to fill an opening in the RTA. Richard Murphy – one of two RTA board members from Washtenaw County – was not seeking reappointment.

County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie and former state legislator Alma Wheeler Smith.

The deadline to apply for this opening had been extended, but there were only two applicants. The other applicant was Jim Casha, but as a Canadian resident he was ineligible to be appointed for the seat to represent Washtenaw County. The RTA state enabling legislation (Act 387 of 2012) mandates that board members must be residents of the county or city that they represent.

Alma Wheeler Smith, a former state legislator, is the mother of county commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9). She attended a portion of the Jan. 22 meeting but did not formally address the board.

By way of background, the RTA was established by the state legislature in late 2012. It includes a four-county region – Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw and Wayne – with each county making two appointments to the board, and the city of Detroit making one.

The county board chair appoints both of Washtenaw County’s members to the RTA board. Those appointments were first made at the end of 2012 by Conan Smith, who was chair through the end of that year. Liz Gerber, a University of Michigan professor of public policy, was appointed to a three-year term. Murphy, who works for Smith at the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, was appointed to a one-year term.

Appointments: Regional Transit Authority – Public Commentary

Jim Casha introduced himself by saying commissioners might remember his previous commentary regarding the RTA, at the board’s Jan. 8, 2014 meeting. At that time, he had objected to the RTA board’s selection of John Hertel over Larry Salci as the RTA’s CEO. He had also criticized the failure of the RTA board to acquire the 157-acre Michigan state fairgrounds property, as a way of generating revenue.

Jim Casha.

Since then, the question of Hertel as CEO has become moot, Casha noted, since Hertel decided not to accept the RTA’s offer. So the RTA board has a chance to make a different decision this time, he said, and to pick someone with more transit experience. He hoped they would again consider Salci, a former director of the southeast Michigan transportation authority in the 1970s. Salci is currently a consultant for the federal government in commuter rail initiatives nationwide, Casha said.

Casha, a Canadian resident, said he understood he wouldn’t be the county’s appointee to the RTA, “since not only do I not live in your county, I don’t even live in your country.” He noted that the Ann Arbor-to-Detroit commuter rail was a big priority to a lot of people in Ann Arbor, and it should be the No. 1 priority for the RTA.

Instead, the RTA is concentrating on bus rapid transit up Woodward Avenue and other corridors, Casha said. But the rails are already in place, and train cars have already been purchased, he noted. There’s a great potential location for a station at the state fairgrounds site. Commuter trains shouldn’t end at the New Center in downtown Detroit on Woodward, Casha said. It should continue to the fairgrounds, where it can tie into a multi-modal regional transportation center that can take anybody via bus anywhere in the region. “We could truly have a transportation system that we could be proud of,” he said. He urged commissioners to ask the county’s RTA board members to push for this. “It’s still not too late,” he concluded.

During the evening’s second opportunity for public commentary, Casha noted that the fairgrounds site could be used as a demonstration center for innovative projects – to showcase different types of housing, for example. He said he’s also trying to get legislative support for having a sesquicentennial Civil War celebration in 2015 to honor Michigan soldiers, General Ulysses Grant and Austin Blair, who served as the state’s governor during the war. The house that Grant lived in during 1849 is located at the fairgrounds. The celebration could be a catalyst for private funding, Casha said.

Appointments: Regional Transit Authority – Board Discussion

As board chair, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) is authorized to make the RTA appointments, without full board confirmation. However, he put forward his RTA nomination of Alma Wheeler Smith as part of a resolution with all of his other nominations. He told the board that there had been back-and-forth with a state official who had originally indicated that the appointment would be for another one-year term. He had clarified with state that the term is for three years. The term will end on Dec. 31, 2016, because Washtenaw County is making calendar-year appointments to conform with its existing process of making appointments.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he planned to abstain from the vote on his mother, citing what he called a “perceived conflict of interest – although you all know how independent she is.” He thought she was a great choice, but said he did not involve himself in the selection. “I did my best to stay out of [the selection process], passionate though I am about the RTA and my mother.”

Outcome: On a roll call vote along with other confirmations, Alma Wheeler Smith was appointed to the RTA board. Conan Smith abstained.

Appointments: Parks & Recreation Commission, Food Policy Council

In other appointments made on Jan. 22, Dan Ezekiel was nominated to fill a term that was recently vacated by long-time county parks & recreation commissioner Nelson Meade, who stepped down at the end of 2013. Ezekiel was one of the founding members of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. His most recent term ended in mid-2013. He was term limited for that position. For the county parks & recreation commission, Ezekiel’s term ends on Dec. 31, 2016. He also attended the Jan. 22 county board meeting, but did not formally address the board.

Jeremy Seaver and Sara Simmerman were nominated to the Washtenaw County food policy council, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2015.

Outcome: These nominations were confirmed unanimously by the board.

Appointments: Commissioner Appointments

Yousef Rabhi, as board chair, asked the board to confirm annual appointments of county commissioners to various boards, committees and commissions. [.xls spreadsheet of 2014 appointments] Only minor changes were made to previous appointments from 2013.

In addition to their salaries, commissioners receive stipend payments based on the number of meetings that a commissioner is likely to attend for a particular appointment. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increase based on the number of meetings. Each commissioner typically has several appointments. Commissioners who are appointed as alternates receive the same stipend as the regular appointments. Some appointments were not designated to be paid because no meetings were expected to be scheduled.

Commissioners can waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk. Otherwise, the stipend payments are made automatically.

In 2013, only Dan Smith (R-District 2) waived all of his stipends, according to the county clerk’s office, which administers the stipends. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) waived her stipend for the accommodations ordinance commission. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) was not appointed to any boards, committees or commissions and therefore did not receive any stipends.

For 2013, the following stipends were paid:

• Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8): $2,700 (11 paid appointments, including several stipulated by virtue of Rabhi’s position as board chair, plus 3 unpaid appointments)
• Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5): $2,350 (11 paid, 2 paid alternates, 1 unpaid)
• Conan Smith (D-District 9): $1,800 (6 paid, 2 paid alternates, 1 unpaid)
• Felicia Brabec (D-District 4): $1,450 (8 paid, 1 alternate with stipend waived)
• Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1): $800 (4 paid)
• Andy LaBarre (D-District 7): $550 (3 paid, 1 unpaid)
• Alicia Ping (R-District 3): $400 (2 paid, 2 unpaid)

In total, seven commissioners were paid $10,050 in stipends for 2013. There is no mechanism in place for validating attendance, other than checking the meeting minutes of these various groups. No one is designated to do that, however.

Outcome: All nominations were confirmed without discussion.

Coordinated Funding Policy

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a resolution stating that for the 2014 through 2016 fiscal years, departments and agencies of Washtenaw County government would not be eligible to apply for coordinated funding. There would be two exemptions: (1) if the funding was part of a collaboration of nonprofit agencies and/or community groups that can’t act as fiduciary on their own; and (2) if the applicant was the county’s Project Outreach Team (PORT). [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi talks with Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development.

The county is one of several partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners include the city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, and the RNR Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010, and has been extended twice since then. The most recent extension was approved by the county board at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, and authorized the allocation of children’s well-being and human services funding for 2014 through 2016. That resolution also authorized the continued management of those funds through the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED), using the coordinated funding approach – with some modifications.

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

At the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, OCED director Mary Jo Callan told commissioners that the resolution brought forward that evening was in response to a request made by commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) last year. He had raised concerns about county departments competing with community groups for coordinated funding dollars. He had argued that if the county programs were worth funding, then the county should fund those programs directly. This resolution formally prohibited county programs, with some exemptions, from applying for coordinated funding.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Lefiest Galimore raised concerns about the coordinated funding approach to supporting human services. It’s blocking a certain segment of nonprofits from providing services, he said, and he urged commissioners to take a look at this problem. Essentially the same organizations are being funded from one cycle to the next, he said, and it doesn’t appear that there’s any accountability. He also criticized the argument that some groups shouldn’t be funded because they don’t have the capacity to provide services. Smaller organizations have fewer resources, he noted, so they aren’t able to do as much as larger entities – and he indicated that they shouldn’t be compared in the same way.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked Mary Jo Callan how much coordinated funding is received by the Project Outreach Team (PORT). Callan wasn’t sure, but thought it was about $100,000. Smith said he really believed that coordinated funding should be a community grant program, and that if a county program needs funding, “we should just fund that program, not tell them to go through a competitive grant program with an outside set of decision-makers.” He said he’d support the resolution, but thought a better approach would be to simply fund PORT directly. It would open up more funding for other community groups that aren’t part of the county infrastructure, he noted.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) agreed with Smith. He asked what the funding source was for the money that PORT receives through coordinated funding. Callan replied that PORT’s funding comes from the city of Ann Arbor. She noted that the city had funded PORT for many years, prior to the coordinated funding program.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) also agreed with Smith, saying it would be unfair for a county department to compete against a local nonprofit. He said he had expected to see additional issues addressed as well – issues that had been raised during the board’s discussion on Nov. 6, 2013. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that other issues would be addressed separately.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked if this resolution would result in the county excluding itself from meeting a need. “Are we leaving something on the table that we really shouldn’t?” Callan replied that she didn’t think that was the case, especially because the policy specifically allowed a county department to act as a fiduciary for a nonprofit that would otherwise be ineligible for coordinated funding. The sheriff’s office, for example, has acted as fiduciary for a program that provides a lot of services to the community, she said, even though it isn’t a 501(c)3 nonprofit.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the new policy regarding coordinated funding. A final vote is expected on Feb. 5.

Dog Licenses

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. [This ordinance would not apply to Ann Arbor residents, as the city of Ann Arbor has its own dog licensing program.]

From left: County treasurer Catherine McClary and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dog Licenses: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) urged residents to license their dogs. The fine for a first offense is $50, he noted, which would be waived if the owner subsequently secures a license. The maximum fee for a three-year license is $30.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) thanked the treasurer’s office for developing this proposal. He wondered what kind of educational information would be available to residents. He hoped the county would invest in some kind of educational component, especially for something that had a fine attached to it.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) fully supported the idea of educational outreach, especially for rural areas. “Lots of people have lots of dogs in barns,” she said, and they aren’t necessarily aware of this ordinance. She also wondered if township offices could be allowed to sell licenses, at least during an initial period, so that it would be more convenient for residents who don’t live in Ann Arbor, where the county administrative offices are located.

County commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

County treasurer Catherine McClary came to the podium and thanked the board for acting on this ordinance. She said she sees it as a public health issue – the purpose of licensing a dog is to prove that the dog has a rabies vaccination. “I don’t see it as a punitive measure,” she said, and agreed with the need for public education.

Although the ordinance could take effect 50 days after the board’s final vote, McClary told the board that she was contemplating an effective date even later – perhaps sometime this summer – to provide enough time for a proper rollout. One thing her office is considering is to send a mailing to every property owner in the county. When they did something similar about 10 years ago, dog licensing doubled, she reported. It’s been relatively flat since then.

The treasurer’s office has been handling dog licenses for the city of Ypsilanti for about a year, McClary said. It’s also possible for township treasurers to sell the county licenses, if they choose to do that. She noted that in the past, the township treasurers were given dog tags to sell, but there was no accounting for how many licenses were sold. There also was no central database for that approach, she said. Now, the paperwork can be handled by the townships, but the county treasurer’s office keeps the central database and mails out the actual dog tags. It’s also possible for residents to apply online, by mail or by fax.

Some veterinarians also sell licenses, McClary said, and she’d like to expand that to other vets in the county. Conan Smith (D-District 9) encouraged that approach, calling it an easy point of contact for responsible pet owners.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) noted that when Conan Smith was chair of the board, “he had to deal with a very, very difficult process … in how we fund animal control in Washtenaw County.” [Rabhi was alluding to negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley over how much financial support the county would provide to HSHV.] Revenue from dog licenses was a part of that conversation, Rabhi noted. In contrast, the process of bringing forward this new ordinance happened “without too many aches and pains,” he said. Rabhi also stressed the need for educational outreach to dog owners.

Commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Rabhi noted that the licensing fee can only be used to pay for administrative costs. He wondered how the revenue from fines is distributed. McClary replied that the fine revenue is divided between the courts, the county and possibly the district libraries, which receive revenue from penal fines. She said she’d provide the board with additional information about how the revenue from fines is allocated.

Rabhi encouraged McClary to consider allowing parks staff to issue citations, because many people bring their dogs to county parks. McClary said she’d talk with parks & recreation director Bob Tetens about whether some of his staff could be deputized for that purpose.

McClary also pointed out that there’s no uniformity with the city of Ann Arbor, which issues its own licenses and has a separate fee structure. At some point, after the new county program has been running for a while, McClary said she’d like to start discussions with the city of Ann Arbor about possibly coordinating their programs.

Rabhi noted that the county funds the HSHV, which provides services in Ann Arbor too. He appreciated that Ann Arbor was starting to help pay for that, but it seemed like there was still a duplication of services in some cases – like dog licensing – and resources weren’t being aligned in order for the licensing program to be most effective.

Outcome: The board gave initial approval to the ordinance allowing the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. A final vote is expected on Feb. 5.

Health Care Coverage for Autism

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, gave a presentation on a proposal that the county administration plans to make formally to the board at a future meeting: To begin offering health care coverage to county employees for the treatment of autism. She began by introducing Colleen Allen, CEO of the Autism Alliance of Michigan, who was on hand to answer questions.

County commissioner Conan Smith. In the background is Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office.

Heidt noted that last fall, commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) had directed staff to research mental health parity, specifically focusing on autism coverage. Mental health parity refers to recognizing mental health conditions as equivalent to physical illnesses, and Washtenaw County has been a leader in providing mental health coverage, Heidt said, even before federal mandates. But one area where there isn’t parity is autism.

It hasn’t been included so far because of cost considerations, Heidt told commissioners. The county continues to recover from the economic downturn, but more recently the staff became aware of resources that are available to help provide coverage.

The federal Mental Health Parity & Addiction Equity Act of 2008 mandates that any group plan with 50 or more members – like Washtenaw County government – must offer both medical and mental health benefits. Under more recent federal health care reform, there’s been an expansion of benefits, and mental health benefits are considered a mandatory part of basic health care, starting this year.

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

Heidt described how ASD has become more common over the past few decades – 1 in 88 children are now diagnosed with ASD. That increase is related in part to increased awareness, she noted. Intervention can include medicine, behavioral treatment, or a combination of both.

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

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

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

Heidt said the county administration is recommending that starting Jan. 1, 2015, the county would offer a rider for autism coverage as part of its health benefits, as long as the state’s reimbursement program remains in effect. They would re-evaluate it on an annual basis, she said.

It would be possible to offer the benefit even earlier, Heidt noted – as soon as 90 days after approval by the board.

Health Care Coverage for Autism: Public Commentary

Ryan Schuett introduced himself as a Washtenaw County employee in support of the autism coverage that the board would be considering. He said he’s the father of a three-year-old autistic child who was diagnosed last year. He and his wife were happy to get a diagnosis, and started looking at treatment options. They initially weren’t concerned because they knew that the county provided great health care coverage, he said. But they learned that autism isn’t covered, and that has created a hardship for his family and other employees. He supported the change in coverage.

Michelle Schuett, right, spoke to county commissioner Felicia Brabec, far left, and Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director.

Michelle Schuett, who is married to Ryan Schuett, also spoke in support of the health care coverage to include treatment for autism. In the past year, her family paid for private insurance so that they could afford treatment for their daughter. She described how much of an improvement it made in her daughter’s ability to communicate. But they couldn’t continue to afford that insurance, she said, so they’re excited that the county board is considering coverage of it.

Health Care Coverage for Autism: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said the county is learning more about autism and how many people are suffering from it. The county’s public policy hasn’t kept up with the needs for families. He thanked the Schuetts for putting a human face on an issue that the county can do something about. “It’s very courageous of you to stand up like that,” he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) noted that there’s a $10,000 difference between the estimated annual costs for treatment and the top amount that the state would reimburse. Who picks up that difference? she asked.

Colleen Allen of the Autism Alliance of Michigan explained that as a self-funded entity, the county could decide how much it offers as coverage – it could be more than the state reimbursement, or less. She also noted that if left untreated, costs will emerge in other ways later in life – if a child needs special education, for example, or can’t be employed.

Several commissioners expressed support for the coverage. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) felt the county should make a long-term commitment, and not rely on state reimbursement. He hoped the board could appoint a committee that would investigate the cost and sustainability of this type of coverage, and recommend a policy for funding coverage if the state reimbursement fund is exhausted.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that his wife is a special education teacher, and the parents of the children she teaches are those who deal with this firsthand. He pointed out that the hours missed from work in dealing with a child who has ASD, not to mention the emotional toll, will affect productivity. The coverage will actually pay dividends in other ways in the future, he said. He volunteered to serve on the committee that Peterson suggested.

Conan Smith said he had initially thought the county had already offered this benefit. He reported that his wife, state Sen. Rebekah Warren, had asked him about it, and he then learned that it wasn’t coverage that the county offered. In terms of costs, he noted that applying national statistics to the number of county employees, it’s likely that only about 16 children of employees would be affected with some form of ASD. If each child needed the extra $10,000 per year in coverage – beyond what the state would reimburse – that would be a total of $160,000, he noted. He advocated for adopting the highest coverage, and he’d like to track how many employees actually access it.

Smith also supported offering the coverage as early as possible, rather than waiting until 2015.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Health Care Coverage for Autism: Committee

Later in the meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) brought forward a resolution to appoint commissioners Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) to a committee related to the health care benefits for autism. The committee’s charge was to (1) investigate the cost and sustainability of coverage of autism spectrum disorders; and (2) recommend a policy providing and funding coverage if the state reimbursement fund is exhausted.

The committee was asked to report back to the full board on Feb. 5.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to confirm the appointments to this new committee.

Health Care & Pension Benefits

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, prepared an update on the county’s overall health care and pension benefits. She provided a handout to commissioners, but did not make a formal presentation. [.pdf of health care and pension benefits presentation]

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) noted that some companies have required testing of new hires to make sure they’re nicotine-free. It wouldn’t apply to current employees, but Ping wondered if it’s something that the administration has considered for new hires. County administrator Verna McDaniel said it’s something they’d need to do more research on before bringing a recommendation to the board.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked Heidt if she could compile dollar amounts to show the county’s health care expenditures over the last decade, for both active employees and retirees.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

PACE Program

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to establish a countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program.

Andy Levin of Lean & Green Michigan.

The board had issued a notice of intent to create the program at its meeting on Jan. 8, 2014.

The goal of PACE is to help owners of commercial (not residential) properties pay for energy improvements by securing financing from commercial lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments.

The county’s proposal entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, had attended a Dec. 4, 2013 board meeting to answer questions. State Sen. Rebekah Warren also spoke briefly during public commentary on Dec. 4 to support the initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan.

The law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone would act as legal counsel. Several other counties are part of Lean & Green, according to the group’s website. Other partners listed on the site include the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which was co-founded by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith is married to Warren.

On Jan. 22, Levin again briefly addressed the board during public commentary, as did several business owners who supported the PACE initiative. The board also held a former public hearing on the proposal later in the evening, but Levin and others had left by that point and no one spoke during the formal hearing.

The county’s PACE program would differ from the one set up by the city of Ann Arbor, which created a loan loss pool to reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. Washtenaw County does not plan to set up its own loan loss reserve, and no county funds would be used for the program, according to Levin.

However, a reserve fund is mentioned in documentation that describes the program:

8. Reserve Fund

In the event Washtenaw County decides to issue bonds to provide financing for a PACE Program, Washtenaw County can determine at that time to fund a bond reserve account from any legally available funds, including funds from the proceeds of bonds.

By participating in LAGM [Lean & Green Michigan], Washtenaw County assists its constituent property owners in taking advantage of any and all appropriate loan loss reserve and gap financing programs of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (“MEDC”). Such financing mechanism can similarly be used to finance a reserve fund.

[.pdf of PACE program documentation] [.pdf of PACE cover memo] [.pdf PACE resolution]

PACE Program: Public Commentary

Six people addressed the board during public commentary about the PACE program. Kicking off the commentary was Andy Levin of Lean & Green Michigan. He told commissioners that some property owners and contractors had attended the meeting to speak about PACE and how the program affects their businesses. He thanked the board for moving the program forward.

Paul Brown introduced himself as an Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County citizen, who has spent his career working in finance. That includes some time spent working with Levin when Brown was vice president of capital markets at the Michigan Economic Development Corp. One of his tasks was to look at private capital markets, Brown said, especially those that didn’t work efficiently, and to try to “fill those gaps.” A lot of energy efficiency projects have a relatively long payout, he said, yet financing for that type of upgrade is of a relatively short duration. That results in a negative cash flow for the business. Brown described PACE as a revolutionary finance mechanism that allows a business owner to finance the project during its practical life, which makes it a cash-flow-positive scenario. When he was working for the state, Brown said, PACE was particularly attractive because it helped fill a financing gap.

From left: Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) and corporation counsel Curt Hedger.

The state’s rule of thumb is if they can put in 10% capital and get a 10-to-1 leverage in economic activity, that’s a win, Brown said. PACE creates the economic activity with contractors and installation, but it also upgrades the infrastructure of buildings, which makes Michigan more competitive as a state, he said. One of the difficult things about Michigan is that its energy costs are relatively high, compared to other states. Combine that with a relatively old infrastructure, he added, and that’s a “double whammy,” making it difficult to become a competitive environment. PACE allows businesses in the state to help correct some of those inefficiencies and make them more competitive, Brown concluded.

The next speaker was Scott Ringlein, president and CEO of The Energy Alliance Group of Michigan, a partner of Lean & Green Michigan. He described a current project that they’re working on for McDonald’s in Washtenaw County – installing a geothermal system for about $85,000. With existing programs, like Michigan Saves, the business would only get financing for a 60-month period. But with PACE, that financing could be extended to 10-20 years, he said, which would result in immediate positive cash flow. A lot of technologies that are used for energy efficiency have a life of 20-30 years, Ringlein said. Another advantage is that the financing is tied to the property, not the business, he noted.

Alexis Blizman, policy director for the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center, also supported the countywide PACE program. The economic benefits of the program and the ability for businesses to save money are really important, she said, but the program also benefits the environment. Investments in energy efficiency can significantly reduce greenhouse gases, she said, and help mitigate climate change. It’s the best way to reduce stress on the energy grid, to eliminate the need for new power generation, and to allow for time for the market to change so that the price of renewable energy decreases. She urged commissioners to support the program.

Mike Larson of Simon Property Group – developers of Briarwood Mall – also supported the PACE initiative, saying it allowed businesses to do projects that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. Briarwood Mall recently underwent a significant renovation, he noted. Upgrades included replacing all the lights with LED lighting – a costly but important change, he said. Larson concluded by urging commissioners to adopt the PACE program.

Zach Mathie of Patriot Solar Group in Albion, Michigan, expressed support for the county’s PACE program. It’s good for businesses, the community, and renewable energy, he said.

County treasurer Catherine McClary, speaking later in the meeting about the dog licensing agenda item, also addressed the board about the PACE program, saying there are compelling reasons to support it. From the perspective of the treasurer’s office, if a PACE project is delinquent, it would be no different than anyone else who might have a delinquent tax or special assessment, she said. Her office would initially advance money to the county to cover it, but if she couldn’t recover the delinquent taxes or assessment in a foreclosure or auction, then the county would have a charge-back and repay those funds.

The charge-back is one of two risks that McClary identified. The second risk is if an entity that’s exempt from special assessments – like a local government – purchases the property at a foreclosure auction. In that case, the stream of revenue from the special assessment would no longer be available. That risk can be mitigated if it’s clear that the financing entity, such as a bank, accepts the risk rather than the county. She said she’d be glad to work with whoever administers the program to ensure that the county taxpayers are protected.

The board also held a formal public hearing on the PACE program later in the evening. No one spoke during at that time.

PACE Program: Public Commentary – Board Response

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked the speakers who had supported PACE, noting that many of them had come from long distances. The county has supported this kind of environmental initiative and has enjoyed being on the forefront of innovation, he said. He hoped that by mid-February, there would be a PACE program that businesses could take advantage of in Washtenaw County.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also said he appreciated hearing from supporters of the PACE program, and he looked forward to acting on that.

There was no other discussion of this item before the board vote.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to establish a countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. A final vote to establish the program is expected at the board’s Feb. 5 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Staff to Support Board’s Budget Priorities

Toward the end of the meeting, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked about an item that was on the Jan. 22 agenda, but not discussed. The item was listed as part of the county administrator’s report, and referred to direction that the board had given to county administrator Verna McDaniel at the board’s Nov. 20, 2013 meeting: To research and recommend staffing options that would support the board’s community investment priorities.

County commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Peterson said he assumed that this directive emerged from a meeting of the board’s leadership. Addressing board chair Yousef Rabhi, Peterson said: “Give me some history … regarding this position, and where you’re going with it.”

Rabhi reminded Peterson that the board had discussed the need to continue the budget process beyond just a vote to approve it, which was taken at the end of 2013. McDaniel reported that she’s still gathering information in order to develop a recommendation. She planned to bring something to the board at a future meeting, and said she’s been working with Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and other commissioners on a proposal. [Brabec is chair of the board's ways & means committee, on which all commissioners serve. She also led the board's budget process.]

Brabec added that with a four-year budget, the board also set up a new strategic model to help them determine where the county’s resources should go. To do that, the board needs some staff support, she said. The board set goals as well as outcomes that are intended to measure how those goals are being achieved. If the board doesn’t continue to move forward on these things, “there was really no point in doing that process,” she said.

Peterson said it sounded really vague to him. Brabec replied that they need to do a needs assessment and gap analysis – that’s the first step. Peterson contended that “somewhere, some major strategy is being laid” – he had read all of the budget documents, he said, and it wasn’t clear to him what was being proposed. He asked whether the proposal is simply a series of reports. He criticized commissioners for not paying attention to the agenda item that had mentioned the staffing recommendation.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said his expectation was that the recommendation wouldn’t call for reports, but would be for staffing. He had hoped that McDaniel would hire a senior-level position, but she’d heard from other commissioners that such a position wasn’t broadly supported. “I think the reason you don’t have something in front of you today is that there’s tension about how we effectively staff the function that we’re describing,” Smith said. He expected McDaniel will now bring forward a job description or scope of work for a contracted position. He hoped the person would attend board meetings or working sessions to provide regular updates, and to work with the county’s senior staff and department heads as this process moves forward.

Peterson wondered how they arrived at this decision. It was important to discuss this as a board, he said. He criticized the board leadership, saying that part of their role is to communicate with other commissioners.

By way of background, the board – including Peterson – discussed this issue at length at its Nov. 20, 2013 meeting. From The Chronicle’s report of that session:

Regarding the “community outcomes” document and the revised budget document that now included a section on “community impact investing,” Peterson wondered if there was any indication about the amount of staff time and resources that would be required to implement this approach. He said he didn’t have a problem with the budget priorities themselves, but it wasn’t clear how those priorities would be carried out, or what line item in the budget was designated for this purpose. He said he’d like to see a timeframe for how the board could start addressing these priorities during the remainder of their term, which runs through 2014. Was any of this information in the budget document? he asked.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) replied, saying that the revisions added to the budget document on community impact investing had stemmed from the community outcomes resolution that was also on the Nov. 20 agenda. Other commissioners have raised similar questions about how these outcomes will be implemented, she said. The county administrator, Verna McDaniel, will be taking the lead on that. Brabec pointed to text in the revised budget document that outlined this approach: “The County Administrator will bring a planned recommendation to implement the Community Impacts process with appropriate staffing and budget at the first business meeting in 2014, January 22, for BOC approval.”

Where will the funding come from to implement this process? Peterson asked again. The county already has a lot of obligations, he noted.

Rabhi responded to Petersen, saying that in the previous two-year budget approach, the first year would be spent developing the budget, but the second year would be focused on other things. The intention of the proposed four-year budget and community outcomes approach is to help keep the board involved in the budget as a “living document,” Rabhi said, and to have an active role in managing the budget as circumstances change.

The Feb. 5 agenda now includes an item that would authorize the “creation of a contractual, qualified professional position to assist the BOC to develop strategies and provide oversight for the integration of the Board-defined community impacts and outcomes into organizational and departmental programs, policies and budget priorities.”

According to a staff memo, the position would report to the county administrator, and compensation would not exceed the scope of the administrator’s authority. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution on Feb. 5 agenda]

Communications & Commentary: Road Funding

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) reported that a subcommittee that’s exploring the future of the Washtenaw County road commission had met prior to the county board meeting that night. The subcommittee, which Ping chairs, had voted to ask the county board to pass a resolution urging Gov. Rick Snyder to allocate the state’s budget surplus for road repair, distributed to local entities using the current state formula for road allocations. [A resolution on this issue is now on the board's Feb. 5 agenda.]

Communications & Commentary: Mayoral Race

At the end of the Jan. 22 meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reiterated his statements from earlier in the month that he would not be running for the mayor of Ann Arbor this year. He restated his commitment to the county board.

The Chronicle queried another Ann Arbor commissioner, Democrat Conan Smith (D-District 9), about the possibility of a mayoral candidacy or a decision to run for re-election to the county board. Smith’s reply, via email on Jan. 23: “I haven’t made any decisions about 2014 at all at this point.”

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

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr.

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

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

Expansion of the Medicaid program would cover individuals and families earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level, and provide coverage for over 10,000 Washtenaw County residents who are not currently eligible. The resolution cites additional reasons to support the action:

Without the expansion, approximately 5,000 Washtenaw Health Plan (WHP) members will have no coverage options at all because their income is below 100% of poverty, thus by law, these individuals cannot buy subsidized coverage through the insurance exchange; and

WHP funding will be significantly cut on January 1, 2014, and ultimately eliminated completely, regardless of whether or not the state expands Medicaid, thus Washtenaw County’s ability to provide services to this population will be severely limited and these residents will be left to seek care in hospital emergency rooms, adding additional economic burdens to Washtenaw County residents who must indirectly pay those costs;

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder supports the expansion, but it’s not clear whether the Republican-controlled Michigan legislature will approve it.

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

AATA board members met in a workroom at AATA headquarters for their July 16 special meeting. Clockwise around the table starting at the far left: Anya Dale, David Nacht (obscured behind Dale), Jesse Bernstein, CEO Michael Ford, Sue Gott and Eli Cooper. (Photos by the writer.)

However, the longest and most vigorous discussion took place on an item not actually on the published agenda: compliance by the AATA with Michigan’s Public Act 152, signed into law in September 2011, which limits employer health care contributions to a fixed dollar amount. At their July 16 meeting, board members took no further action on the issue, letting the vote taken at their previous meeting on June 21, 2012 stand – for now. An additional special meeting might be called sometime in the next week.

The board’s discussion of new information, obtained from the Michigan attorney general’s office, as well as additional analysis of Act 152, suggested a kind of vindication for the position of two dissenters – Charles Griffith and Roger Kerson – in the board’s June 21 action.

That action had been to limit the AATA’s contributions to no more than 80% of the non-union employee health care cost. Adopting the 80% limit is another way for a public entity to comply with Act 152. And the board had voted on June 21 to do that for its non-union employees – because open enrollment was fast approaching for those employees.

As part of that compliance decision, AATA put together a new health care option, which would allow its non-union employees to choose a health care option that would cost them the same as before – but increase their co-pays. And by the time of the July 16 meeting, employees were participating in the open enrollment process, using the boardroom for that activity.

So the board met in a smaller workroom to handle its business for the July 16 special meeting.

That business included a $60,000 increase in the contract with Steer Davies Gleave, the international consulting firm the AATA hired to assist with the development of its transit master plan. The work has included identifying new service options and financial analysis for AATA’s initiative to expand its governance and service area countywide. With this and other previous increases, the value of the contract now totals $780,622, from a deal first signed in April 2010 for just under $400,000. Some of the additional $60,000 will essentially be passed through to a local consulting firm, Carlisle Wortman Associates.

In other business, the board struck a task-order style deal for marketing and advertising with Quack! Media and Pace & Partners Inc. – a three-year arrangement that could be extended for another two years. The $500,000 total authorized by the board works out to $100,000 a year.

The board also authorized an increase in the contract it has with Blue Cab to provide its NightRide service, which operates after the hours when fixed-route service stops running. The increase is from $28 to $32 per service hour for a contract that extends through 2013. Of the $4 increase, $3 is attributed to the AATA’s relatively new living wage policy.

In a final piece of business, the board authorized a $104,000 contract with RBV Contracting to relocate a fire hydrant as part of AATA’s bus garage expansion project.

Compliance with Michigan’s Public Act 152

The board discussed at length an action it had taken at its previous meeting on June 21, 2012 in order to comply with Michigan’s Public Act 152, which was signed into law last year. The board did not take any action on the issue at its July 16 meeting, but left open the possibility of calling a special meeting before July 23, when the “drop dead” date falls for health care open enrollment for AATA’s non-union employees. The health care plan year begins Aug. 1.

Public Act 152: Background

Public Act 152 limits the amount that a public employer like the AATA can make to its employees’ medical benefits plans – $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for two-person coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. However, the act provides another option, under which a public employer can choose through a vote of its governing body (in this case, the AATA board) to not apply the hard dollar cap. Instead, the employer can limit its contribution to 80% of the medical benefit, leaving the employee to cover the remaining 20%. It’s this 80/20 option that the AATA board had exercised in its June 21 vote.

The board’s special meeting on July 16 was held in AATA headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Highway, instead of the usual location at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library. But it was not held in the dedicated boardroom – because that space was being used for open enrollment in the health care plan.

As part of its compliance with the 80/20 provision, AATA had put together health plan options for non-union employees that would essentially make their health care costs roughly the same as current costs – if they choose to opt for higher co-pays.

Two board members dissented on the June 21 vote: Charles Griffith and Roger Kerson. Neither was able to attend the July 16 meeting. David Nacht, who had not attended the June 21 meeting, was present on July 16.

That led to deliberations that covered much of the same ground as the June 21 discussion. However, a couple of new points are worth highlighting, which were made plainer to the AATA by a letter the Michigan attorney general’s office sent to the U.S. Dept. of Labor. The letter pointed to two specific ways that transit agencies could comply with Act 152, without limiting contributions to employee health care. [.pdf of May 29, 2012 letter] First, a transit agency could vote under Section 8 of Act 152 to exempt itself from compliance. Based on the AATA board member deliberations on June 21, their understanding was that they could not, as appointed officials, exercise that option.

The Michigan attorney general’s letter also points to Section 9 as a way to comply. Section 9 of Act 152 provides an explicit penalty for non-compliance, suggesting that the law in some sense does not apply to transit agencies – because the penalties involve taking back 10% of state funds that such agencies don’t receive anyway. Those funds include the state’s current version of state-shared revenue, as well as school aid funds – which the AATA does not receive. From Act 152:

15.569 Noncompliance by public employer; penalty.
Sec. 9.
If a public employer fails to comply with this act, the public employer shall permit the state treasurer to reduce by 10% each economic vitality incentive program payment received under 2011 PA 63 and the department of education shall assess the public employer a penalty equal to 10% of each payment of any funds for which the public employer qualifies under the state school aid act of 1979, 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 to 388.1772, during the period that the public employer fails to comply with this act. [.pdf of full text of Act 152]

Why was the Michigan attorney general’s office communicating with the U.S. Department of Labor? It’s because Title 49 of United States Code 4333 5333 on labor standards set out conditions for receipt of financial assistance from a range of federal programs – and among those conditions are protection of employment conditions that derive from collective bargaining rights. Based on the Michigan attorney general’s letter, the U.S. Dept. of Labor has found the use of Section 8 or Section 9 by Michigan transit agencies an acceptable way to continue to meet its USC 5333 obligations. From USC 5333(b):

(b) Employee Protective Arrangements.—
(1) As a condition of financial assistance under sections 5307–5312, 5316, 5318, 5323 (a)(1), 5323 (b), 5323 (d), 5328, 5337, and 5338 (b) of this title, the interests of employees affected by the assistance shall be protected under arrangements the Secretary of Labor concludes are fair and equitable. …
(2) Arrangements under this subsection shall include provisions that may be necessary for—
(A) the preservation of rights, privileges, and benefits (including continuation of pension rights and benefits) under existing collective bargaining agreements or otherwise;
(B) the continuation of collective bargaining rights;
(C) the protection of individual employees against a worsening of their positions related to employment;
(D) assurances of employment to employees of acquired public transportation systems;
(E) assurances of priority of reemployment of employees whose employment is ended or who are laid off; and
(F) paid training or retraining programs.

Public Act 152: Board Deliberations

Board chair Jesse Bernstein began by posing a question about the employee health insurance benefits, which David Nacht translated roughly as follows: If the board doesn’t rescind its June 21 motion today, and takes action later to rescind, would that “screw up” what’s happening right now in open enrollment? In response to Nacht, Ed Robertson, AATA’s human resources manager, told him: “I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to that question.”

Board member David Nacht deliberates at the July 16, 2012 meeting.

Robertson clarified that the new health plan, about which AATA’s non-union employees are currently making choices, starts Aug. 1. [AATA's union employees are not immediately affected, as their contract goes through the end of the year; however, they participate in the same health care plan as non-union employees.]

Robertson indicated that his uncertainty was based on the fact that he’s not sure what information has already been transmitted to the AATA’s health insurance carrier. He stressed he was not saying the plan couldn’t be revised. Bernstein confirmed with Robertson that employees are making their decisions on health care coverage, based on the motion the board passed on June 21. Bernstein ventured that the board needs to find a way to “back out of it.”

Nacht, who is an attorney but does not provide legal counsel to the AATA, responded by saying the first thing the AATA must do is make sure it follows the law. As he understood the draft resolution that the board had been presented that day, there’s at least an oral opinion from the U.S. Dept. of Labor that Michigan’s Act 152 violates federal law with regard to the AATA’s labor union. However, Nacht continued, the AATA might still have a legal obligation under the state law to follow it with respect to the AATA’s non-union employees. Nacht said he understood that there’s an attorney general opinion, which has some relevance – because Michigan attorney general opinions are treated as legally binding in the absence of a court opinion.

But the bottom line is, said Nacht, that “we need our lawyer to tell us what to do.” The board risks breaking a law, if the board says it doesn’t have to follow a state law. So he concluded that the board should get legal advice, before passing a resolution saying that the AATA isn’t going to follow a state law.

Michael Ford, the AATA’s chief executive officer, commented that other transit agencies in Michigan are doing this “right now as we speak.” Robertson confirmed Ford’s statement, saying that’s what the AATA had been told by the U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bernstein indicated that he felt the board needs to find out how to back out of the board’s previous vote for non-union administrative staff, so that on Aug. 1 they can continue with the health plan they have now, if they choose to do that.

Nacht responded to Bernstein by saying if the state passed a law saying the AATA should follow it, he was not sure why the AATA should back out of it. Bernstein indicated his understanding was that there were certain criteria – based on the receipt of certain kinds of money from the state. The AATA does not receive that kind of money from the state, he said. If the law doesn’t cover the AATA, he continued, he didn’t know why the AATA would put its non-union employees through this procedure.

Ford asked Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, to explain further, building on Bernstein’s comments. White said that Act 152 contains an opt-out provision for cities [Section 8] – which allows a governing body to take a 2/3 vote to opt out of following the law. [It's not clear why AATA believes Section 8 could not also apply to a transit agency.] For non-cities, White continued, there is a separate clause [Section 9], which he summarized as saying that are no penalties for not following the law. The legislature had given “an out” for both cities and non-cities in Act 152, White concluded.

Nacht ventured that the board has both a legal issue and a policy issue. The policy issue, he said, is complicated. He said it’s not something that he’d be prepared to say how he feels, because he hasn’t seen a memo analyzing it. It’d be possible to say, for example, Nacht said, that we have to comply with this law, but we’re concerned about regressive impacts on employees, and want to have some budgetary compensation for employees – but at the same time we want our organization to do what most public entities are doing.

Otherwise put, the AATA’s position might be that it doesn’t want employees to take a hit, because the agency is concerned about its people, Nacht said. But in the spirit of the legislature’s action, as much as the AATA cares about its people, the board also has a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayer dollars. The board needs to discuss its obligations under both law and policy, before it does anything, Nacht said: “We need to have a conversation about that.”

Bernstein ventured that the board did have a conversation about that at its last meeting [which Nacht did not attend]. Bernstein told Nacht that the consensus was that the board did not want to negatively impact “any employee” based on Act 152. He felt the sentiment on the board was fairly clear.

Eli Cooper picked up on Bernstein’s phrase “any employee” and noted that he felt the consensus was more about “employees as a class,” and the board had looked to the staff to recommend something that was equitable to the employees as a group. He agreed with Nacht that it’s a legal and a policy issue. Cooper conveyed some dissatisfaction with the fact that the draft resolution had been presented “as we walk into a meeting without an opportunity to review any background.” The issue was not “ripe for decision making,” he ventured.

He did appreciate the urgency of the matter, Cooper said. If the board can collect more information in the next day or two, there are still more calendar days when an emergency meeting of the board could be called – if the legal opinions and the policy analysis is such that the board is compelled to take action.

Ford responded to Cooper’s comment about the late introduction of the issue, saying he took responsibility for it. The AATA had just received the information, and he felt it was important for the board to be aware of it. He noted that the board had given staff direction at its last meeting to follow up on the issue. Ford said there’d not yet been an opportunity to follow up with legal counsel.

Nacht then apologized for not attending the last meeting, but noted that he’d read the minutes. From the minutes, he didn’t get the sense of the kind of consensus on the board that Bernstein had articulated. What he’d see in the minutes, Nacht said, was a divided vote. And he guessed that the additional information has been resolved “in favor of the dissenters.” Bernstein stressed to Nacht that “none of us were thrilled with this from a legal or a policy position.” The board was looking for a way – if the AATA had to comply with the law – to be fair to employees. It’s coming up at a bad time, he said, because of the tight deadline.

Bernstein asked for clarification from Karen Wheeler, Ford’s executive assistant, about what the rules are on voting if people are not present. [Bernstein was anticipating the possibility of convening a special meeting, and having some people participate by telephone or by sending a proxy.] Wheeler’s answer: “You cannot do it.” Bernstein confirmed that a person had to be present to vote, and could not vote by phone or with a proxy.

Nacht asked why the board could not deal with it as a financial matter. For now, he suggested, the AATA complies with the law until its lawyer gives a different opinion. If the board’s lawyer writes a letter saying the AATA doesn’t have to follow the law, then the board is in a whole different position about voting. He felt differently about voting under that kind of situation. But Nacht stressed that the decision has a financial impact for employees and their families. So through the budget process, the AATA can compensate and adjust if there’s a board consensus that there should be neutral impact to employees financially.

Bernstein returned to Cooper’s comment on individual employees, stressing that the potential impact to an employee is difficult to predict, because it’s dependent on each employee’s medical experience during the year. Ed Robertson had left the room during the deliberations to get some additional information, but returned to tell the board that the “drop-dead date” on open enrollment was a week from that day [July 23] for management staff.

Bernstein ventured that they should give staff a chance to gather more data and to get a legal opinion. Sue Gott stressed that she wanted a legal opinion in writing – so she could read it ahead of time. Nacht also ventured that he’d like to have a legal opinion on supplemental employee compensation based on health care receipts. Bernstein indicated no enthusiasm for that approach, saying it would be a “total nightmare,” citing concerns about breaching confidentiality. Responding to Nacht’s suggestion that confidentiality concerns could be addressed by using third-party administrators, Bernstein feared that costs would keep getting added.

Ford tried to extract some specific direction from the board. He ventured that he was supposed to get a legal opinion and then convene a special meeting. He’d need board members’ schedules for that, he noted. Nacht clarified for Ford that he’d like a legal opinion on three subjects: (1) How does compliance with Act 152 affect the AATA as it relates to USC 5333(b) for union employees? (2) How does compliance with Act 152 affect the AATA as it relates to USC 5333(b) for non-union employees? and (3) To the extent the AATA is following the law, what are some legal options about the AATA’s ability to adjust employee compensation? The deliberations concluded with Bernstein querying Ford: “Michael, are you clear?” “Got it,” was Ford’s reply.

Outcome: The board took no action on the issue, but held out the possibility for a special meeting to be convened in order to vote on the question.

Transit Master Plan Consultant Contract

The board considered adding $60,000 to the contract with Steer Davies Gleave, a consulting firm originally hired on April 21, 2010 to help develop a transportation master plan (TMP). The TMP is the basis for the AATA’s initiative possibly to convert the AATA to an Act 196 transit authority, with the intent to expand geographically the agency’s governance and service coverage area countywide. The consulting firm is assisting the AATA in that effort.

The original contract with Steer Davies Gleave was for $399,805. Over the last two years, the contract amount has been increased by board authorization on three occasions (on Nov. 18, 2010, July 19, 2011 and Feb. 16, 2012), which brought the total contract to $720,622. The July 16, 2012 authorization brought that total to $780,622.

Among other things, this most recent contract increase was to cover the following items: documentation of financial analysis; methodology for an equity analysis of the new service program; design and monitoring of the long-term countywide district-based community input; and administration of a community input planning tool. Of the additional amount in the contract, a portion will essentially be passed through to a local consultant, Carlisle Wortman Associates of Ann Arbor.

The previous increases to the contract covered an expanded public process, support to a financial task force, and the generation of a draft five-year service program. [.pdf of detail on Steer Davies Gleave contract changes]

Board member David Nacht said his understanding was that to some extent the additional funds would go to a local company [Carlisle Wortman Associates], which CEO Michael Ford confirmed. Nacht ask: “Is this going to be it, ya think, with this contract?” Ford indicated that the AATA is trying to “internalize” all the work that SDG has been doing until now. It’s his hope that this would be the final revision to the contract, he indicated.

Anya Dale, who serves as chair of the planning and development committee that had recommended the additional funds, noted that the resolution states it’s the “final contract amendment.” Ford indicated that if there were some compelling reason, it could be brought back, but the AATA is trying to bring the work in-house and “own it.”

Board chair Jesse Bernstein ventured that if the AATA needed some help from an international consultant like SDG, they could be hired for new contract, but this would finalize the transit master plan process. Nacht asked his colleagues to imagine that there’s some kind of an election in the spring [for example, on the question of a countywide transit millage to support expanded service]. No matter the outcome of that election, Nacht supposed, there would still not be any continuation of the SDG contract.

AATA strategic planner Michael Benham confirmed Nacht’s understanding. The intent is to bring the work in-house so that any changes to the plan or the service that might result from a popular vote could be implemented by the AATA staff. He expected that any necessary changes that might come from the results of an election would be, for example, to add a service here or take away a service there.

Sue Gott asked Benham to elaborate generally on the value SDG is bringing in terms of additional expertise, and productivity for added deliverables. She wondered if the issue was a matter of additional expertise or time and availability of AATA staff.

Benham clarified that the need for outside help had been the combination of the sheer volume of the issues that had to be handled, and with the fact that the AATA didn’t have staff on board who could do some of the analysis necessary. Now that the basic plan has been created, he said, AATA staff is in a position to do adjustments and revisions. Creation of the plan by AATA staff would have been difficult, he said. Gott asked if it’s fair to say that the majority of what SDG is bringing is added expertise. Ford indicated that it’s the expertise that SDG brings, as well as their international experience.

Responding to the mention of SDG’s international experience as critical – as it relates to some of the work that the additional funding will pay for, David Nacht asked, “Really? I mean, to attend the DAC [countywide district advisory committee] meetings and organize the DAC meetings?” Benham indicated that a lot of what this final contract revision is covering could be thought of as “training.” SDG has a lot of expertise, he said, and the AATA is asking SDG to hand it over to the AATA now.

Nacht told Benham that what he really heard Benham saying, and what sells Nacht on it, is not that SDG has international expertise. Rather, it’s that AATA has invested a lot of money with SDG to figure out the complexity of the service that will generate the actual routes for the buses in a countywide system. So as the AATA works with communities in the county and tries to transfer that knowledge – so people really understand it – the AATA needs to understand all of that, too, Nacht said. So it’s really in-house training for the AATA, so that AATA can run a countywide system, Nacht concluded.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the $60,000 contract increase with Steer Davies Gleave.

NightRide Contract

The board considered an increase in its contract with Blue Cab, which is the vendor that operates the AATA’s NightRide service. The increase is from $28 to $32 per service hour for a contract that extends through 2013. The current three-year contract was set to expire in November 2012.

The NightRide is a shared cab service with a basic fare of $5, which is available weekdays from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. and weekends from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Those are hours when the AATA’s regular fixed-route service does not operate.

Of the $4 per service hour cost increase in Blue Cab’s contract, $3 is analyzed by the AATA as based on compliance with the AATA’s relatively new living wage policy. The other $1 is analyzed as a general cost increase.

The geographic coverage area of AATA’s NightRide was expanded eastward to Golfside Road in March 2011 and further to downtown Ypsilanti in January 2012 – as part of a broader effort to improve work transportation between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Ridership has increased about 40% from last year – with about 25 points of that increase due to broader geographic coverage and the other 15 points due to demand in Ann Arbor.

Ridership on the AATA’s NightRide service showed a clear increase starting in January 2012. 

During her report from the planning and development committee, Anya Dale characterized the increased net cost to the AATA of the hourly operating increase as coming to around $46,000.

During deliberations, board member David Nacht asked if there’d been any complaints about Blue Cab by patrons. Board chair Jesse Bernstein noted that he’d been thanked several times by restaurant employees for the geographic expansion of service.

Chris White, manager of AATA service development, indicated that the number of complaints about Blue Cab has been low historically. However, he allowed that in recent months, complaints had shown an increase. White attributed the increased complaints to the fact that a lot of new people are using the NightRide. White also said that Blue Cab has been good at addressing complaints when they’ve occurred.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the Blue Cab contract extension.

Marketing, Public Relations Contract

The board was asked to authorize purchasing up to $500,000 of marketing and public relations services from Quack! Media and Pace & Partners Inc. over the next five years.

The marketing and public relations work will cover “public relations, education, community outreach and other communication services in support of AATA’s initiatives and general operations.” The two firms were selected after the issuance of a request for proposals that generated 13 responses from the 35 firms to whom the request was sent. Quack! Media is an Ann Arbor firm, while Pace & Partners is based in Lansing.

Board member David Nacht led off deliberations by asking why the AATA had switched vendors. Mary Stasiak, AATA director of community relations, explained that it had been a competitive procurement process. The decision was based on relative experience and qualifications, she continued. There was some specific experience, approach and management style the AATA was looking for, she said, to help move the strategic marketing and information plan forward. It requires a more sophisticated effort and project management, she said. The two companies the AATA had settled on use the same project management software, and they also have transit-related experience, she said.

Nacht confirmed with Stasiak that the AATA had a consultant study the AATA’s marketing efforts and that the request for proposals (RFP) had been designed in part based on findings of that study. But the company that performed the study is one of the companies that is being awarded the contract, Nacht said. He wondered: “So they came up with a recommendation that we should change in a way where they had a competitive advantage?” No, Stasiak said, because all respondents to the RFP were provided with the same information – the same marketing and strategic plan.

Nacht wanted to know if the situation had been scrutinized to make sure that the deck wasn’t stacked – that the consultant didn’t say, “What AATA really needs is a company that provides X” when the company “knows fully well that they have X better than their competition.” That’s always a danger, Nacht said. Stasiak came back to her point that all the bidders had the same information.

AATA board member Eli Cooper deliberates at the July 16, 2012 special meeting. To his right is board member Sue Gott. To her right is CEO Michael Ford.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein noted that the RFP was generated by AATA staff. Eli Cooper noted that the proposals had been reviewed by AATA staff and had been winnowed down from 13 to 5 and ultimately decided based on AATA’s needs, not whether the firm could “do X better.”

Subsequent board discussion clarified that the total limit on the contract is $500,000 over possibly five years – three years plus two one-year extensions. Stasiak indicated that the previous contract with the previous vendor had resulted in expenditures of $427,000 over three years. Nacht got clarification that the contract is subject to 30-day termination. Bernstein and Sue Gott indicated that they were interested in monitoring the performance of the two firms. Bernstein said there should be substantial reporting back to the performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee. Cooper drew out the fact that the contract is an “on-call” or “task-order” type contract. Nacht ventured that the AATA has the option not to give the two companies any tasks.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the media and marketing contract with Quack! Media and Pace & Partners Inc. over the next five years.

Fire Hydrant Contractor

The board considered a $104,000 contract with RBV Contracting to relocate a fire hydrant as part of the AATA’s bus garage expansion project. The city of Ann Arbor is requiring the relocation of the hydrant – located on the south end of the AATA’s property at 2700 S. Industrial Highway.

In the new location, the hydrant will connect to the neighboring property, which is owned by the University of Michigan. The change will create a continuous loop connection of the fire hydrant system in the area.

Commenting on the resolution, Eli Cooper – who sits on the planning and development committee that had recommended the action – noted that moving the hydrant is a city requirement for occupying the new space. David Nacht wondered why the board even need to vote on the action. Board chair Jesse Bernstein told him it was because it’s a lot of money. [With the contingency, the project went over the $100,000 threshold that requires board approval.]

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the contract to relocate the fire hydrant.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its July 16 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Countywide Expansion

In his update to the board, CEO Michael Ford alerted the board to the fact that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners would be giving final consideration to the four-party agreement (between the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, the AATA and Washtenaw County) and the articles of incorporation of a new transit authority at the county board’s Aug. 1 meeting. The county board gave initial approval to the two documents at its July 11, 2012 ways & means committee meeting, after lengthy deliberations.

Comm/Comm: New Blake Transit Center

Ford noted that the new downtown Blake Transit Center would be reviewed by the city planning commission at its meeting the following day, on July 17. [Outcome of that review was an affirmation by the planning commission that the project meets city requirements for private development, with two exceptions involving landscaping and driveway width. The key change in the site, compared to the current configuration, will be moving the transit center building from the Fourth Avenue side of the midblock driveway to the Fifth Avenue side. The buses will also enter the driveway from the Fourth Avenue side and exit onto Fifth Avenue – which is the reverse of the current traffic flow. ]

Ford told the board that he hopes to be able to bring the Blake Transit Center proposal to the  Aug. 20 Ann Arbor city council meeting.

Comm/Comm: Triennial Review

In his update to the board, Ford noted that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) had come in to review the way that the AATA handles its federal grants, which the FTA does every three years. Ford told the board that the AATA had done a very good job. A typical transit agency will have about seven deficiencies, Ford said, but FTA had found only one at the AATA – and that one was corrected “on the spot.” The FTA had told the AATA was the review was “top notch,” so Ford  commended the AATA staff on that.

Comm/Comm: Revisions to Five-Year Service Plan

Jim Mogensen reminded board members that a while back he’d addressed them about the parallels between the current countywide plan and the plans from the mid-1970s. A barrier to implementing that vision at that time was the confluence of money and politics, he noted. Now that conversation has opened again with all its complexity.

He observed that there are 15 different amendments to the service plan that are being looked at – so Mogensen ventured that it might be good to have a central place with all of that documented so that people can track what’s going on. Board chair Jesse Bernstein responded to Mogensen by saying, “We’re with you and that’s [strategic planner] Michael Benham’s job.”

Comm/Comm: General Complaints

Thomas Partridge addressed the board as an advocate for those who need transportation services the most. He complained that Blue Cab had not undergone sufficient evaluation and scrutiny. He expressed continued concerns about problems with service on the A-Ride service, for which the AATA contracts with SelectRide. He claimed there are violations so serious that they’re violations of criminal and civil laws. He questioned the continued “proclivity” of the board to go to outside contractors and pay their expensive rates without the board first exploring AATA’s ability to provide services in-house.

When he reached the end of his two-minute time, Partridge told board chair Jesse Bernstein he would appreciate additional time – otherwise Bernstein would be giving the appearance that the board didn’t want to hear constructive criticism. Bernstein explained to Partridge that there’s a rule that everyone gets two minutes. Partridge replied that before 1920 there was a law that said women couldn’t vote.

Present: David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Anya Dale.

Absent: Charles Griffith, Roger Kerson.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. in the fourth floor conference room at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. 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 law limits the amount that a public employer like the AATA can make to its employee’s medical benefits plans – $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for two-person coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. However, the act provides another option – under which a public employer can choose through a vote of its governing body (in this case, the AATA board) – to not apply the hard dollar cap. Instead, the employer can limit its contribution to 80% of the medical benefit, leaving the employee to cover the remaining 20%. It’s this 80/20 option that the AATA board exercised in its June 21 vote.

The AATA put together health plan options for non-union employees that would essentially make their health care costs roughly the same as current costs – if they choose to opt for higher co-pays.

Deliberations by the board included animated discussion among the board members as they weighed the possibility that they could delay the implementation of the 80/20 plan for non-union employees until it’s implemented for union employees, which is not required until their union contract is renewed at the end of the year. Board members Charles Griffith and Roger Kerson voted against the resolution – because they did not want to impose the reduced health care benefit on AATA employees until it was absolutely necessary. They felt that it was possible to delay based on the way that some other transit agencies in Michigan had proceeded; however, that  ran counter to the opinion of the AATA’s legal counsel.

Kerson appeared to speak for the majority of the board, however, when he suggested that just because the state had given public entities “a hammer,” it did not mean that they had to use that hammer against their employees. So there seemed to be a majority sentiment that the “windfall” that the AATA would realize from its reduced health care costs should be put back into compensation for employees, to “make them whole.”

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth Ave., where the AATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]