In a press release issued on Aug. 22, the OCED described a list of specifications needed for these sites [.pdf of press release]:

• Include a single room to accommodate approximately 50 adults lying down on thick mats (approximately 1,500 square feet)
• Be accessible to limited-mobility individuals
• Have multiple, accessible bathrooms on site
• Ideally equipped with showers and/or a kitchen prep space
• Space should be available every night of the week (roughly 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.) minimally from January 1 to March 31, 2015 – with potential to begin earlier than January 1 if weather dictates
• Ideally have storage space for stacked sleeping mats during daytime hours.

Any information about possible sites should be directed to to Amanda Carlisle, director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, at carlislea@ewashtenaw.org by Friday, Sept. 5.

This outreach is the result of efforts by a Winter Emergency Shelter/Warming Center Response workgroup, which has been focused on ensuring a more coordinated and sufficient response to the demands for the 2014-15 winter. From the press release: “As a result of the initial meetings of this workgroup, a need has been identified for space to host an expanded overnight warming center for individual adults for the 2015 winter season. The committee has identified a provider for the staffing of this additional overnight warming center and is working to identify the resources to support the operation of it; however, the committee has not yet identified an ideal space to host this temporary overnight warming center for the winter months.”

For background on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board Briefed on Shelter Services” and “County Board Discusses Homelessness.”

The leadership group for the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services to End Homelessness made a presentation at the board’s May 22, 2014 working session. Their recommendations include the goal of building a $50 million endowment over 20 years. Payouts from the endowment would fund supportive services – such as treatment for mental illness and substance abuse – with the intent of addressing the root causes of homelessness. The concept is called permanent supportive housing, and is part of the community’s broader  Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was created in 2004 and is being updated.

A possible millage – recommended at 0.25 mills, for no more than 20 years – would help fund supportive services while the endowment is built. County commissioners are being asked to consider putting such a millage on the ballot, possibly in 2015.

Several steps have already been taken to achieve these goals. An endowment was established in 2011, with $2.1 million in commitments so far. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s. She served on the task force and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. AAACF CEO Cheryl Elliott is another task force member. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

The first fund distribution – of $26,100 – will be made this fall in a competitive grant process. AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations.

AAACF is also helping provide a three-year, part-time development job to support fundraising for this endowment. Funding for the position will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

The foundation posted the position earlier this summer, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services, and to the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members include Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton.

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

Former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office community & economic development, talk with former University of Michigan treasurer Norm Herbert before the start of the May 22, 2014 county board working session. Guenzel and Herbert are members of a task force on supportive housing. (Photos by the writer.)

The leadership team of the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services briefed commissioners on their recommendations, including the goal of building a $50 million endowment over 20 years. Payouts from the endowment would fund supportive services – such as treatment for mental illness and substance abuse – with the intent of addressing the root causes of homelessness. The concept is called permanent supportive housing, and is part of the community’s broader Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was created in 2004 and is being updated.

A possible millage – recommended at 0.25 mills, for no more than 20 years – would help fund supportive services while the endowment is built. County commissioners are being asked to consider putting such a millage on the ballot, possibly in 2015.

Former county administrator Bob Guenzel, a task force member, told commissioners that the task force believes this approach “is absolutely the right thing to do, to end homelessness and keep people housed. We feel very strongly about that. It’s a moral issue.” There’s also a strong business case for this approach when looking at the cost of emergency services and the criminal justice system, compared to the cost of permanent supportive housing, he said.

Several steps have already been taken to achieve these goals. An endowment was established in 2011, with $2.1 million in commitments so far. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s. She’s on the task force and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. AAACF Cheryl Elliott is another task force member. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

The first fund distribution – of $26,100 – will be made this fall in a competitive grant process. AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations.

AAACF is also helping provide a three-year, part-time development job to support fundraising for this endowment. Funding for the position will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

The foundation will post this position in early June, Elliott reported, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services, and to the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members are Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton. They hope to get an additional two or three members, she said.

The next steps in this process include a request to the county board to sunset the task force at the June 4 board meeting. The board will also be asked to consider the task force’s recommendation for a millage. “Please use this year and into 2015 to set a millage strategy,” Elliott said.

The task force also stressed the importance of a public outreach and education effort, to help build awareness and support for the endowment.

The task force presentation was attended by five of the county’s nine commissioners. During their discussion, Conan Smith (D-District 9) expressed interest in having the county bond for this initiative – either for the full $50 million, or some portion of that amount. The county now has a triple-A bond rating, Smith noted. [That news had been announced earlier in the day. In general, higher ratings allow organizations to secure better terms for borrowing funds.] “This gives us an opportunity… to actually have some real impact in the community,” Smith said.

Task force members indicated that they hadn’t considered the option of bonding, and Elliott had some concerns about whether it would be legal to use taxpayer dollars for an endowment. They plan to explore the possibility, including consultation with legal counsel.

Background

By way of brief background, Washtenaw County and several other community partners developed the Blueprint to End Homelessness in 2004. Washtenaw Housing Alliance – a consortium of housing and shelter providers, social service agencies, and other groups that provide support services – was given the task of implementing the blueprint.

As part of the implementation efforts, in 2007 the county board created the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services. Its charge was this: “Explore locally viable long-term revenue sources for the creation and sustainability of supportive housing units and related services.”

The following year, the task force delivered a report and set of recommendations, which the county board adopted on Oct. 2, 2008. [.pdf of 2008 report and recommendations] As summarized in the report, the recommendations are:

Promote Supportive Housing in Washtenaw County: Mobilize new supportive housing service funding for 500 units at an average cost of $5,000/unit/year.

Charter an Implementation Process: Charter a “Phase II” planning and implementation process (via action of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners) to provide continuing leadership and coordination in advancing achievement of the recommendations articulated in this report of the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services.

Educate the Public: Design and launch a public education campaign focused on the nature and value of supportive services with an aim of raising community support and resources for supportive housing initiatives and the 500‐Unit Plan.

Secure Bridge Funding: Mobilize multi‐systems commitments of up to $1.2 million/year in public‐private resources as “bridge funding,” to support at least 200 units of supportive housing, based on the model being implemented through the Joint Integrated Funding Pilot Project in 2008‐2010. This gap funding will be replaced by new revenue sources, as described within this report.

Re‐allocate Mainstream Services Funding: Advocate with mainstream service systems to mobilize supplemental commitments of up to $500,000 per year in mainstream systems resources [e.g. Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS), Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS), Head Start) to help address inflation in services costs and expand impact of new community investment in supportive housing services.

Establish User Fees: Establish a strategy to recruit appropriate consumer service contributions (user fees) toward supportive services costs in new units created through the 500‐Unit Plan.ƒ

Explore Millage Funding: Explore the development of a millage strategy that will generate the needed amount of dedicated and sustainable revenue over a period of time not to exceed twenty years.

Raise Endowment Funding: Raise $10‐20 million in new private/corporate/foundation funding to create a Supportive Housing Services Endowment (by 2014), sufficient to generate significant continuing revenues dedicated toward the total of ongoing services costs required for 500 new units of housing.

A leadership team was formed to work on the second phase of this effort, and workgroups were established in three areas: (1) public education; (2) millage strategy; and (3) private endowment.

The results of this effort were presented to county commissioners on May 22.

Task Force Presentation

Bob Chapman – the task force chair, CEO of United Bank & Trust, and chair of the Washtenaw Community College Foundation – introduced other members of the task force leadership team, who all attended the May 22 working session:

• Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.
• Sister Yvonne Gellise, retired CEO of the Saint Joseph Mercy Health System.
• Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator.
• Norm Herbert, retired University of Michigan treasurer and associate vice president.
• Dave Lutton, president of the Charles Reinhart Company.

Their intent, Chapman said, was to give the county board some background about the Blueprint to End Homelessness and its plan for adding 500 units of permanent supportive housing, as well as the history of the task force. They would also introduce a plan for creating an endowment for supportive services, and would ask that the board formally dissolve the task force at its June 4 meeting.

Task force members Dave Lutton (standing) and Bob Guenzel.

Bob Guenzel told commissioners that this work goes back over 10 years. [It began when Guenzel was still county administrator. He retired in 2010.] The Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was developed in 2004, included major priorities that the community planned to focus on: (1) homeless prevention, to help keep people secure in their homes; and (2) housing with supportive services.

Regarding housing with services, Guenzel noted that the most difficult people to house are those who need services to help them find housing and to stay housed. The idea is to form a system of care and to engage the community to do that, he said. Dave Lutton chaired the committee on this topic, to develop realistic goals and to articulate why it’s important to provide supportive services.

Lutton spoke next, noting that there are currently about 350 units of permanent supportive housing in the county, so they haven’t met the target of 500 yet. People in these units earn below 30% of the area median income (AMI). The blueprint had called for 250 units for families and 250 units for individuals, with a goal of breaking the cycle of poverty and homelessness, “which is very challenging,” Lutton said.

Permanent supportive housing combines housing with services that people need, Lutton explained. The theory is that if housing is stabilized, there’s a better chance of addressing the underlying needs and challenges that contribute to homelessness, such as substance abuse and mental illness.

The agencies that form the Washtenaw Housing Alliance in reality are dealing with people who are earning about 15% AMI, Lutton said, so these are people who are extremely poor.

Contributing factors to homelessness are many and varied, Lutton said. Factors include lack of employment, drug and alcohol dependencies, physical disabilities, and mental illness – as well as a lack of support systems for the mentally ill, compared to a few decades ago. If people are housed, it’s much easier to tackle these other challenges, he said.

Someone living in permanent supportive housing pays no more than 30% of their income for rent. There are government vouchers and other subsidies that help offset the gap between that amount and the actual cost of housing, Lutton noted. The key factor is that the tenant holds the lease and it’s not limited by a length of tenancy. That’s another way to encourage housing stability, he said.

Permanent supportive housing requires property management, Lutton said, as well as a greater level of cooperation, coordination and communication with the landlord and support service providers. Participating landlords are “admirable, and know that they’re taking on a more challenging population than the mainstream public,” Lutton added, so it’s important to have a safety net – a quick, effective response – when a problem occurs.

Carole McCabe, executive director of Avalon Housing.

The whole system of supportive services is voluntary, Lutton explained. That is, it’s not thrust upon a family or individual. They agree to be open to the services. Services are customized according to each tenant’s needs, he noted, and include case management, crisis intervention, and assistance with all kinds of basic needs, including food and health care. When it’s done well, Lutton said, the tenant begins to feel like part of a community, and becomes connected to other tenants. “That again reinforces permanency,” he said. Lutton noted that tenants of the nonprofit Avalon Housing, which provides permanent supportive housing, stay an average of seven or eight years. A lot of what Avalon does is to create a sense of community for its tenants, he said.

Guenzel told commissioners that the task force believes this approach “is absolutely the right thing to do, to end homelessness and keep people housed. We feel very strongly about that. It’s a moral issue.”

More convincing to some people, Guenzel added, is that there’s a tremendous business case for this approach. Homelessness is very costly for taxpayers, he said. Studies – including research by the Corporation for Supportive Housing – have shown that emergency room and hospital in-patient days decreases by 50% for people who are in permanent supportive housing. Use of emergency detox services decreases by 80%. And earned income – which helps people get back on their feet, Guenzel noted – increases by 50%. So there’s a strong business case for this approach when looking at the cost of emergency systems compared to the cost of permanent supportive housing, he said.

Other community costs are also impacted, Guenzel noted. The average cost for permanent supportive housing is about $40 a day. That compares to the average daily cost of the state prison ($94), county jail ($129), and emergency shelter ($66). That’s a tremendous savings to taxpayers, he said, compared to the costs of the criminal justice system and homeless shelters.

In the past 10 years, new units of permanent supportive housing have come on line, Guenzel said. When the YMCA closed its downtown location, the city lost 100 units of low-income housing, he noted. Other units have come on line, but not all of them include support services. There are currently an estimated 350 units of permanent supportive housing, including about 75% that are managed by the nonprofit Avalon Housing. Most recently, Avalon opened a complex on Pauline Boulevard.

Guenzel noted that single-site complexes like the one on Pauline are more cost effective to offer supportive services, compared to housing at scattered sites with private landlords. But to meet the needs of the community, all types are necessary, he said.

Chapman spoke next, reminding commissioners that in 2007 the county board created the task force. Its charge was to “explore locally viable long-term revenue sources for the creation and sustainability of supportive housing units and related services.” In 2008, the task force delivered a report with recommendations, which was approved by the board.

From left: Norm Herbert, Cheryl Elliott, and Bob Chapman.

Those recommendations included starting a second phase of this effort, Chapman said. They created a leadership team and established workgroups in three areas: (1) public education; (2) millage strategy; and (3) private endowment.

Regarding public education, the real intent is to raise the public’s awareness and support for resources that would be needed to sustain supportive housing services. That was necessary, Chapman noted, because the task force’s main recommendation back in 2008 was to seek a voter-approved millage. The millage would provide dedicated revenue for a period not to exceed 20 years.

At the same time, the third initiative was to build a private endowment, Chapman explained. So at the end of a 20-year millage, there would be money available to replace those tax revenues.

However, starting in last 2008 there was a significant change, Chapman noted: “We went through the Great Recession.” That period included a reduction in state and federal funding sources, and “no appetite for a millage,” he said.

Norm Herbert picked up the presentation, noting that fundraising slowed down considerably in 2008 as well. So the task force decided to shift the priority away from a millage and toward building an endowment. They set an initial goal of $17 million. That amount was largely influenced by the amount it would take to fund supportive services for 136 units, Herbert said. They were using an annual cost of $5,000 per unit to provide the services.

The value of an endowment is that it’s permanent, and provides an annual payout in good and bad economic times, Herbert noted. “It’s a reliable source of revenue, and should provide the same or greater purchasing power over the time that these needed supportive services can be provided,” he said.

Given the challenges of building an endowment, it was important to determine “community readiness” for such an initiative, Herbert explained. The firm Hammond & Associates LLC was hired in 2013 to conduct that assessment. They held 21 one-on-one confidential interviews, as well as two group interviews. “We learned through that process that more community education was needed, both on the complexities of homelessness, and secondly, on the workings of an endowment fund and of how that would provide the ongoing needed support,” he said.

Sister Yvonne Gellise.

They also learned that professional expertise would be needed to assist with building the endowment. “It wasn’t just a matter of going out and asking for support, as we do with annual fund drives,” Herbert said. “This took on a different level of complexity, because people need to understand how an endowment works.”

Herbert reported that the task force has achieved some success so far. They established an endowment in 2011 and raised $2.1 million in commitments. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s, and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

Cheryl Elliot, the AAACF’s CEO, reported that the fund will disburse revenue annually using a process set up by AAACF with input from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, the county’s office of community & economic development, and the coordinated funding partners. The first fund distribution, of $26,100, will be made this fall in a competitive grant process, she said.

The AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations, Elliott said. She added that it looks like an additional $24,500 will be available for grants in 2015.

Regarding staff to help build the endowment, in March of 2014 the AAACF board agreed to contract a three-year part-time development position at the foundation solely to support the fund development efforts for this endowment. Up to $40,000 will be needed annually for this job, Elliott said, and will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) was a member of the task force on sustainable revenues for supportive housing services.

The foundation will post this position in early June, Elliott reported, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services and the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members are Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton. They hope to get an additional two or three members, she said.

The goals for the endowment itself are large but achievable, Elliot told commissioners. Over the next five years, the goal is to raise $5 million in gifts and pledges. For the seven to ten years after that, the goal is to raise $17 million. The long-term goal is to raise $50 million in 20 years – a combination of gifts, pledges and return on investments.

Elliott outlined next steps in the process, which includes asking the county board to sunset the task force at the June 4 board meeting. The board will also be asked to consider the task force’s recommendation for a millage. “Please use this year and into 2015 to set a millage strategy,” she said.

Gellise wrapped up the presentation, joking that “I’m getting a little tired of hearing my name – but at least it’s in connection with something good.” She hoped that commissioners saw the connection between having a home and improving the health of this community – referring to a presentation earlier in the working session by the county’s health officer, Ellen Rabinowitz.

Providing supportive services for housing is not only successful in keeping people housed, Gellise said, but is also cost-effective, with a good return on resources invested. “The bottom line – and I am a bottom-line person: It is the right thing to do. We need to do it,” she said.

Gellise thanked commissioners for their support, and asked them to “keep a millage on your radar screen.”

Board Discussion

Several of the five commissioners who attended the working session thanked the task force for their service.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked for clarification about the amount needed per unit to provide housing and supportive services. The $5,000 per unit annually is the cost to provide supportive services, to eventually be covered by the endowment. The $40 per day per unit is estimated rent – to be covered by both the tenant and any available subsidy.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Smith elicited from Cheryl Elliott the fact that the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation currently manages about $76 million in total assets. Elliott said the goal is to get an 8% return on investments to allow for a 5% spending policy and 3% inflation. The goal is to preserve the inter-generational equity or purchasing power of a gift or a fund, she said. So if someone set up a $10,000 endowment 50 years ago, “that fund had better be more than $10,000 today and have been paying out grant dollars every year,” Elliott said. AAACF staff and volunteers pay serious attention to that, she added.

Responding to additional queries from Smith, Elliott reported that AAACF was founded in 1963 and over those years the return on investments has varied. The way that funds are invested has also changed, she noted. Today the portfolio is very diverse, everything from traditional U.S. stocks to emerging markets and alternative investments – hedge funds, private equity, and real assets. Elliott noted that Norman Herbert sits on the foundation’s finance and investment committee.

Herbert said that over the last 20 years, AAACF has hit its target of an 8% return. In 2008, the portfolio lost 30.8% of its value, Elliott added, but the value was recouped two years after that. However, because the payout policy is based on a 16-quarter rolling average, AAACF was able to continue making grant payouts during that time, she noted.

Smith said he asked these questions to recognize that the AAACF has been doing this work for a long time, and has been quite successful.

Board Discussion: Bond vs. Millage

Conan Smith asked Bob Guenzel whether the task force had considered bonding as an option, rather than a millage. What if the county bonded for $50 million toward this initiative?

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), one of the commissioners representing Ann Arbor, is chair of the board’s working sessions.

Guenzel replied that there would still need to be a revenue stream to pay off those bonds. Smith indicated that if the county borrows at a 2% interest rate and invests the money, getting a return of 8%, then bonds could be leveraged to pay off the debt. “It seems to me like we might be able to achieve the greater community goal in a less costly way, perhaps, in a partnership like that,” Smith said. Guenzel said they’d certainly be willing to consider it.

Smith reported that he and Mary Jo Callan – director of the county’s office of community & economic development – have been exploring the concept of “social impact” bonds as a mechanism for financing social programs. He said it would be worth taking time to look at the potential of bonding. It seemed to him like bonding would require a substantially lower revenue stream to pay it off.

The county now has a triple-A bond rating, Smith noted. [That news had been announced earlier in the day. In general, higher ratings allow organizations to secure better terms for borrowing funds.] “This gives us an opportunity, if we’re going to do projects that scale, to actually have some real impact in the community,” Smith said.

Herbert said there might be some arbitrage issues coming into play that could be a concern, so they’d need to look at that. He indicated that the possibility could be explored.

Smith then asked if the county is currently contributing to this initiative. Amanda Carlisle, executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, replied that the county provides support through its participation in coordinated funding. Avalon Housing, for example, is getting $85,000 from the county this year through coordinated funding. Carole McCabe, Avalon’s executive director, noted that the amount is a decrease from last year.

Guenzel described funding for housing and supportive services as a “hodge-podge,” including federal grants as well as the local coordinated funding.

Smith asked if the county’s contribution to Avalon Housing would be diminished, if the endowment were fully capitalized. Is that the intent? Guenzel replied that it might be the outcome, if the endowment is large enough. But “that’s a very long way off,” he added.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

“I’m not so sure it is,” Smith responded. For the sake of argument, Smith said, let’s assume the county is making a $100,000 annual investment in supportive housing now. If the county wants to ensure that same amount is provided in perpetuity, adjusted for inflation, then they’d need to give the endowment $2 million, he said. Herbert clarified that Smith’s calculation assumes a 5% distribution rate, and that 4% would probably be more reasonable to assume.

Smith suggested that the county give the endowment $2 million, and also somehow ensure that its current grantees – like Avalon Housing – would be held harmless in terms of support from the county, until the remainder of the endowment is built.

Cheryl Elliott told Smith that in Michigan, it’s not legal to put public taxpayer dollars into an endowment like this. Herbert noted that these are issues that would need to be researched.

Dave Lutton reported that the task force has been working on the understanding that a 0.25 mill tax would fund 500 units of permanent supportive housing. “We don’t think that 500 units is all that’s needed in Washtenaw County in terms of housing or permanent supportive housing, but it’s a great leap from where we’ve been,” he said. So that’s the first target of this plan.

Elliott added that the idea of a millage stems from looking at what other communities are doing, and at what would work best for Washtenaw County – a permanent endowment. Herbert noted that the intent is to build the endowment so that after a period of time, the millage is no longer needed. The goal of $50 million would support 500 units, which was part of the original Blueprint to End Homelessness.

Smith ventured that there are some “interesting financial opportunities for the county to be a partner in this strategy going forward.” That might include a millage, bonding, or potentially using county funds in an endowment-type effort, he said. This is a public good and a public responsibility, Smith added, and it’s something that taxpayers should want to be a part of.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that an advisory committee will be looking at the use of the county-owned Platt Road property, a 13.5-acre site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road. He thought there was an opportunity for affordable housing solutions at that location, and he asked the task force leadership team to consider advocating for that.

Related to the possible funding options, LaBarre asked how seriously should the county look at the possibility of bonding – assuming that a millage isn’t politically viable. Would the county’s upgraded credit rating have any kind of effect on that decision?

Herbert replied that legal counsel should be involved in helping to determine whether bonding is an option.

LaBarre then asked what the fallback plan would be, if a millage isn’t pursued or if voters reject it. Herbert responded: Under that scenario, the only real option would be to build the endowment through private donations. That’s an important part of the education initiative that the task force outlined, he said.

LaBarre wondered if there was any hope of support from the state or federal governments. “Not currently,” Herbert replied.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who was part of the task force, thanked the leadership team for their work. She was amazed at their ingenuity, passion and dedication.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also thanked the task force. A lot of things that the county is celebrating now are due to work that’s happened in the past, he said. Former county administrator Bob Guenzel had laid a lot of groundwork for this, Rabhi added. There are a lot of challenges, he noted, but the community now understands what the problem is and is seriously tackling it.

There are a lot of creative ideas, Rabhi said. He agreed with LaBarre that there’s a great opportunity at the Platt Road site. It might not result in a cash contribution from the county, but the site could be used for supportive housing, affordable housing or even mixed-income housing, he said. The 13.5 acres might be more valuable if used for housing – more so than if it were sold, he noted.

Rabhi thought there was a role for commissioners to play, even as individual community members helping to raise awareness of this initiative and to help build the endowment. “We can and should certainly play an advocacy role in helping to lead the community movement toward making that endowment a reality.”

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

From left: Washtenaw County corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2). (Photos by the writer.)

Following a lengthy discussion, commissioners voted to set a public hearing about a possible countywide road millage. The hearing will be held at their meeting on May 21 so that the public can give input on a proposal to levy up to 1 mill for roads in 2014. The tax would be levied under Act 283 of 1909.

No final decision is expected at the May 21 meeting about levying a tax – although a resolution to levy a 1-mill tax is on the May 21 agenda for initial consideration.

Commissioners all appeared to support finding a way to secure more road funding, but some voiced concern about process and timing – especially because a tax under Act 283 would be levied without voter approval.

The May 7 discussion began when Dan Smith (R-District 2) brought forward a resolution that would authorize levying a 1 mill tax – under Act 283 – in December 2014. It would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.” The board ultimately voted to postpone the resolution until May 21 over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

During the wide-ranging discussion, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) expressed concern that the public hadn’t yet been informed about the Act 283 proposal. At the request of board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Roy Townsend – managing director of the county road commission – had prepared a list of road projects that could be funded by an Act 283 millage, which was distributed at the May 7 meeting. Townsend and two of the three road commissioners – Barb Fuller and Bill McFarlane – attended the May 7 meeting, and Townsend fielded questions from the board.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger cautioned that Act 283 lays out a specific process, which calls for a presentation of proposed road projects at a meeting in late September or October, prior to the December levy. Responding to those concerns, Dan Smith noted that options might include passing a resolution this month or in June to indicate the board’s intent to levy the tax, then possibly using money from the general fund’s fund balance to pay for road work this summer. The fund balance would be reimbursed when the tax revenues are collected in December. Hedger pointed out a risk in that approach: If someone sues the county and a court issues an injunction, then the county might be unable to levy the tax – after already spending general fund dollars.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) supported the Act 283 tax. “I’m almost of a mindset of ‘Let’s do it’ – and if someone wants to sue us over it, you know, then when they file a lawsuit we can reconsider,” he said. Smith preferred the Act 283 levy over a ballot initiative that voters would be asked to approve, saying there are other funding proposals he’d rather put on the ballot – for public safety and human services.

The board discussion on this issue will continue at the May 21 meeting.

In other road-related items on the May 7 agenda, the board voted to accept the recommendations of a subcommittee that was appointed last year to explore options enabled by state legislators. The subcommittee had recommended not to make the road commission part of county operations, and not to make the job of road commissioner an elected position.

The May 7 meeting also included an update about the community’s approach to addressing homelessness. The briefing was in response to a board directive given to staff on April 2, 2014 to develop a plan for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness. The blueprint was adopted in 2004. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

Responding to information that there’s been an increase in people from outside of Washtenaw County coming to the Delonis Center shelter in Ann Arbor, Conan Smith cautioned against making that kind of distinction, saying it “dehumanized” people who are seeking help, regardless of where they’re from.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, told Smith that his point was well taken. But she noted that unless the state asks other communities to provide something close to the level of support that Washtenaw County provides, “then it’s an issue of volume. I’m sorry, but it’s not about dehumanizing.” Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, noted that 96% of the shelter’s budget comes from local public funding, and the shelter was built for people who became homeless in Washtenaw County. She said it was her job “to hold that line.”

During the May 7 meeting, commissioners also gave initial approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders. The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

In other action, the board appointed Ellen Rabinowitz as health officer for the Washtenaw public health department; passed a resolution calling for an increase in Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour; and received a first-quarter budget update from the county’s finance staff. First-quarter projections tend to be conservative, because they’re based on only three months of the year, with limited evidence of budget trends. At this point, the 2014 general fund is projected to have a $70,230 shortfall by year’s end – with total revenues of $103,404,537 and total expenditures of $103,474,767. There is no planned use of fund balance for this year’s budget.

Road Funding

The May 7 agenda included a discussion item for road funding options, but there was originally no resolution on the published agenda. At the end of the ways & means committee meeting, Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the board has discussed road commission issues for years. He said he continuously hears from residents that they’re sick of the terrible roads, and they’re tired of hearing explanations about why the roads are so bad. People seem willing to raise their taxes to do it, Smith said. He’d even heard support from “an old Dutchman” at his church, which Smith characterized as the strongest endorsement for increasing taxes that he’ll ever get.

Road commissioner Barb Fuller.

Smith thought the board needed to act on this issue, pointing to the impact that an unusually harsh winter has had on the roads. So he put forward a resolution to levy a 1-mill tax authorized under Act 283 of 1909.

Act 283 requires the road commission to submit a plan of recommended road repairs and the cost to undertake the projects. The law allows the county board to levy a millage to cover those costs, without voter approval. [.pdf of relevant section from Act 283, including summary by Lew Kidder of Scio Township.] Because the law is more than a century old and pre-dates the state’s Headlee amendment, there’s some uncertainty about the ability of county governments to use it.

Commissioners have previously held several discussions about the possibility of additional funding sources for road repair – most recently at a lengthy working session on April 17, 2014. In addition to a possible Act 283 levy, another option that’s been discussed is to put a countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot for voter approval. A draft resolution circulated at the working session called for a four-year, 0.5 mill tax – from 2014-2017 – that would raise $7.15 million in its first year.

The resolution brought forward by Dan Smith on May 7 would authorize levying a 1 mill tax under Act 283 in December 2014. It would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.” [.pdf of draft resolution]

Smith’s resolution would earmark 50% of the gross revenues to be used in the municipality in which the revenue was generated. Beyond that, 10% would be used for non-motorized transportation needs – like bike lanes and pedestrian paths – with the remainder to be allocated “based on use, need, and impact to the traveling public.”

The resolution also addresses concerns about the potential legal issues related to Act 283. From the draft resolution:

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel is directed to provide an exhaustive formal written opinion, by September 30, 2014, which clearly and convincingly details the exact mechanism under which Act 283 of 1909 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people; and that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners waives any attorney/client privilege concerning this opinion.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners asks the county’s legislative delegation, State Senators Randy Richardville and Rebekah Warren and State Representatives Gretchen Driskell, Jeff Irwin, David Rutledge and Adam Zemke, to request an Attorney General opinion regarding the ability for counties to levy a tax under Act 283 of 1909 in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

Road Funding: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d met with the road commission earlier that week. He noted that the road commission had prepared a list of possible projects that could be funded under Act 283. The project list had been prepared based on levying 0.4 mills. [.xls spreadsheet of proposed road projects based on 0.4 mill tax] [.xls spreadsheet of possible amounts raised by jurisdiction] [.pdf map showing location of proposed projects]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Rabhi said if the board decided to levy the full mill, there would be more projects that could be added to the list.

However, Rabhi said he’d spoken with the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, and now had concerns that Act 283 might not be the right approach to get road projects done this year. It might work for next year, Rabhi noted, “but unless we find a creative way of financing this, I think it’s going to be difficult for us to put the dollars levied to road projects in 2014, just because of limitations in the law.”

Yousef asked Hedger when the county could collect the tax under Act 283. Hedger replied, saying he understood there’s some urgency to get money to fix roads. Hedger cautioned that Act 283 lays out a specific process, which calls for a presentation of proposed road projects at a meeting in late September or October, prior to the December levy. It’s meant to be an annual levy, with the road commission determining the projects that need to be done and how much it would cost to do the work. That project list is given to the county clerk, who passes it along to the county board for consideration at an “annual meeting of the board of supervisors.” Hedger noted that Act 283 defines the annual meeting as one that takes place after Sept. 14 and before Oct. 16. Three county board meetings are scheduled during that period this year, he noted.

However, Hedger thought it’s premature to look at levying a millage under Act 283 right now, because the process needs to be followed. The county can’t put the levy on the summer tax bills, he added. Right now, the county levies its general operating millage in July, and every other county tax in December. The state statute allows certain smaller levies to be put on the July tax bill, but not one as large as the Act 283 levy, he said.

Rabhi said he supports what Dan Smith is trying to do, and he knows the road commission is working hard to address the condition of the roads. But no effort, however well-meaning, can overcome the force of nature combined with the force of Lansing, he said, “or the unforce of Lansing.” The situation demands creative thinking, Rabhi said, and there are at least two options. One is levying a millage under Act 283, and the other is asking voters to approve a millage for roads.

Rabhi called the Act 283 levy a “stopgap, Band-aid approach.” If used properly, it can help, he added, but he didn’t know if it would be possible to use it in 2014.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) chaired the board’s subcommittee on possible road commission restructuring.

Responding to those concerns, Dan Smith noted that options might include passing a resolution this month or in June to indicate the board’s intent to levy the Act 283 tax, then possibly using money from the general fund’s fund balance to pay for road work this summer. The fund balance would be reimbursed when the tax revenues are collected in December.

Rabhi asked Hedger if it would be possible to use general fund dollars for road work, then get reimbursed later from Act 283 revenues. Hedger replied that general fund dollars can be used for anything. The reimbursement aspect is trickier, he said, because the statute states that the Act 283 revenues must be used “exclusively for the purposes herein mentioned.” So if the money is fronted from the general fund, the Act 283 revenues wouldn’t technically be used for the purposes of road project – they’d be reimbursing the county.

The bigger issue, though, is if the county paid for the work out of the general fund, but then is sued later in the year and given an injunction that would prevent levying the Act 283 tax, Hedger said. “Then we would have spent the money, and you have no way to recoup it.” He noted that as the county’s attorney, he’s paid to be a pessimist and to explain the potential downsides.

Rabhi then asked if the road commission would be comfortable spending money this year with the understanding that a millage would be levied in December. Hedger noted that the same risks would be involved for the road commission.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked whether an Act 283 millage would be subject to a voter referendum, if citizens decide to do a petition against it. Hedger said it’s not mentioned in the act, so he didn’t think it would be subject to a referendum.

Peterson wondered what would be wrong with putting a millage proposal on the ballot. Let the citizens decide, he said. Peterson complained that the board didn’t support his progressive agenda, and had cut programs like Head Start – yet he was expected to support a road millage. He said he wasn’t necessarily against the road tax, but thought residents should be allowed to weigh in.

Peterson also wondered why the road commission couldn’t issue bonds to cover the work. He said he’d support postponement until the May 21 meeting, so that these questions could be addressed, and so Hedger can put some of these things in writing.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) directed a series of questions to Roy Townsend, managing director of the road commission. He asked about the flexibility of funding that the road commission uses, including formula funding from Act 51. Are those funds discretionary? Townsend replied that the road commission receives Act 51 funding each month from the state, which varies between about $1.1 million to $1.8 million. Townsend indicated that there’s some flexibility in spending those funds. It depends on what priorities are for the townships, and how much township funding is available.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

If the road commission gets direction in May or June, Townsend said, there’s still time to do more road work this season.

Conan Smith suggested working with the road commission on projects for 2015 that could be paid with an Act 283 levy in December of 2014. That approach might free up funds this year for other projects that can be funded with non-Act 283 revenues.

Townsend hoped there’d be a way to figure out how to make more revenues available. He reported getting a call from a resident who lived on Willis Road, who had collected pieces of the road in a wheel barrel – because the road was disintegrating – and wanted the road commission to pick it up.

Conan Smith noted that Act 283 isn’t the best vehicle for road funding, but it’s an option. “I’m almost of a mindset of ‘Let’s do it’ – and if someone wants to sue us over it, you know, then when they file a lawsuit we can reconsider. But know that if you file a lawsuit, there isn’t money for the project anymore.” There’s a sense of urgency that the county board needs to meet, he said.

Responding to Peterson’s question about putting a road tax before voters, C. Smith noted that the earliest the board could get to the ballot would be August – if they voted on it that night – and after that, it would be in November. And there’s no guarantee that voters would approve it, he noted.

The other issue, C. Smith said, is that he has other priorities that can only be funded by going to the ballot. The sheriff has repeatedly articulated challenges regarding public safety, Smith said, and the only mechanism for funding that is to put a millage proposal on the ballot. Human service needs are another area that could be funded with a ballot initiative. With roads, the county has the option of going to the ballot, but also has another means of funding – Act 283. “I’d like to use the other means [for road funding], and save the ballot for those issues that I really, really deeply care about,” Smith said.

C. Smith thanked Dan Smith for bringing forward this proposal, and for designating 10% of the funds raised through Act 283 to work on the non-motorized transportation network. “If you’re a biker or a walker, you know that network is as messed up as the road system is,” C. Smith said.

C. Smith said he was comfortable taking an initial vote on this resolution that night at the ways & means committee meeting, with a final vote on May 21. If everyone else wanted to postpone, that was fine with him too.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he’d been in Lansing the previous day, and had spoken to both of the state senators who represent parts of Washtenaw County. One of those was Sen. Randy Richardville (R-District 17), who is the senate majority leader. Richardville had indicated support for a plan that’s being worked on in Lansing, that might allocate up to $2 billion for a more comprehensive fix to repair roads in Michigan. LaBarre didn’t think it would hurt to wait a few weeks to see what the state legislature would do. “I have zero faith in them as an institution – that’s probably by this point a relatively bipartisan statement – but here’s the deal: They are the only ones, short of the feds, that can dedicate enough resources to actually do this in a way that’s comprehensive.”

LaBarre also wanted to wait so that the other issues raised during the May 7 discussion could be addressed. He wanted to be in a position to defend the board’s decision, if they levied Act 283, to show they did it in the most prudent, thought-out way.

Dan Smith said he was comfortable with the options discussed – postponement or initial approval. As far as seeing what state legislators might do, “I’m greatly tired of waiting for Lansing,” he said. State lawmakers have been talking about it a long time, he noted, and if the county board wants to do anything about its infrastructure, they need to do it themselves. If the state steps in later, “so much the better for transportation infrastructure in Washtenaw County.”

He stressed that an Act 283 levy would raise revenues for projects in cities as well as townships. He also supported putting a tax proposal before voters, but he understood the concerns that Conan Smith had raised.

Road Funding: Board Discussion – Postponement

Peterson moved to postpone the Act 283 resolution until the May 21 ways & means committee meeting, for an initial vote. He stressed the need for some kind of public process – particularly since it’s an election year. [All nine county commissioner seats are up for election in 2014.]

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners postponed the resolution until May 21. Dissenting was Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Road Funding: Board Discussion – Public Hearing

Yousef Rabhi proposed scheduling a public hearing to get feedback on road funding proposals. Dan Smith moved to schedule a public hearing for the board’s May 21 meeting.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Ronnie Peterson wondered what the voters would be responding to: Would the road commission have a plan prepared before then? He also wanted a document from corporation counsel Curtis Hedger, laying out the legal issues. He thought the public should have access to the same information that commissioners have.

Rabhi said the plan that was prepared by the road commission – based on an Act 283 levy of 0.4 mills – had been approved by the road commission board. Rabhi said he appreciated Peterson’s comments, because the resolution for funding proposes a 1-mill tax.

Dan Smith noted that a public hearing isn’t required, but he was in favor of having one anyway. He thought that by the time the May 21 agenda was posted, there would be sufficient information available to the public. He wasn’t too worried about the board eventually deciding to levy less than 1 mill – he didn’t think any citizens would object to a lower levy.

Felicia Brabec wanted time to talk with township officials in the district she presents.

Rabhi noted that the board already has a plan from the road commission for projects that could be funded with Act 283 revenues. But it was confusing, given the different amounts mentioned in the road commission’s plan and Dan Smith’s resolution, so he wouldn’t support scheduling a public hearing yet.

Alicia Ping pointed out that the allocations outlined in the resolution: Of the 1 mill levy, 50% of the revenues would go back to the individual jurisdictions – townships, villages and cities – and 10% would be designated for non-motorized transportation. That brings the amount close to the 0.4 mills mentioned in the road commission plan, she said.

Dan Smith pointed out that a public hearing would be a generic public hearing about levying 1 mill under Act 283. He thought there would be more than enough information in the board packet.

Hedger suggested that the wording of the public hearing notice could be for a levy of “up to 1 mill.” Conan Smith offered that wording as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: On a 5-3 vote, commissioners approved setting a public hearing for an Act 283 levy at the May 21 meeting. Dissenting were Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson and Yousef Rabhi. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Road Funding: Public Commentary

During the evening’s second opportunity for public commentary, Jeff Hayner of Ann Arbor spoke to the board. He said he’d been watching the proceedings from home and thought he’d come to the meeting to say a few words. He’d been surprised to see a public hearing scheduled for May 21 on the Act 283 millage. He noted that a road millage had recently passed in Grand Rapids, and that the previous day, on May 6, a new transit tax had been passed by voters in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. “Now we’re paying more for buses than we pay for the roads they ride on,” Hayner said. “And it got me thinking, you know? The taxpayers’ corpse isn’t even cold yet, and you guys are reaching into their pockets for more.”

He didn’t think it was right that a tax proposal wouldn’t be put before voters for approval. He thought the state’s Headlee Amendment was put in place to give taxpayers a voice. He didn’t think it was right that taxes would be doubled. Hayner pointed out that advocates for a public transit millage had years to prepare, and even that didn’t seem like enough time for a decent conversation, he said. He urged commissioners to take more time so that they could hear from people about the possible road tax.

Road Funding: Subcommittee Recommendations

In another road-related item, the May 7 agenda included a resolution to accept the recommendations of a subcommittee that was appointed last year to explore options enabled by state legislators. The subcommittee had recommended not to make the road commission part of county operations, and not to make the job of road commissioner an elected position.

State legislation enacted in 2012 allowed for: (1) a county board of commissioners to exercise the powers and duties of a road commission; and (2) the functions of a road commission to be transferred to the county board. A sunset clause means that the laws expire on Jan. 1, 2015. That deadline prompted the county board to examine these options.

Outcome: The resolution passed, initially without dissent. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was not in the room when the vote was taken. A few minutes after the vote, Conan Smith (D-District 9) spoke with Pete Simms, a member of the county clerk’s staff who takes minutes for the board. The communication was inaudible to the public, but board chair Yousef Rabhi subsequently announced that Smith had indicated his intention to vote against the resolution.

The following night, on May 8, the board’s working session included a discussion of another restructuring option: Expanding the road commission board. See Chronicle coverage: “County Debates Expanded Road Commission.”

Road Funding: Letter to State Legislature

Dan Smith (R-District 2) drafted a letter to be sent to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, urging passage of House Bills 5117 and 5118, which would remove the sunset clause from state legislation that had been enacted in 2012 regarding the possible restructuring of road commissions. [.pdf of letter]

From the letter:

Washtenaw County’s roads are a critical public asset; stewarding this infrastructure is the responsibility of an independent entity, with negligible input or funding from the elected Board of Commissioners. Eliminating the sunset would provide the board with more options for managing roads, including the possibility of additional locally-generated revenue. We urge passage of HB 5117 and HB 5118.

Yousef Rabhi, Alicia Ping and Kent Martinez-Kratz asked that their names not be included as signatories. After consulting with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger during the meeting, Rabhi told commissioners that if anyone else wanted their names removed from the letter, they should let Smith know.

Outcome: It was not a voting item.

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders.

Community activist Lefiest Galimore and Eileen Spring, president and CEO of the nonprofit Food Gatherers.

The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. [.pdf of staff memo and list of funding allocations]

Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

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.

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized as part of the county board’s overall coordinated funding resolution, passed on Nov. 6, 2013. The changes were described in a staff memo:

The County’s Human Services and Children’s Well-being funding will continue to focus on critical services for early childhood, aging, housing/homelessness, safety net health, school-aged children and youth, and food security/hunger relief. Under this proposal, this funding will not necessarily be allocated to these six priority areas in proportional amounts consistent with historic trends. Allocations to these six priority areas will be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized.

Under this proposal, the application pre-screening process will be broadened to better accommodate smaller non-profit organizations. New types of financial documentation will allow smaller agencies to illustrate their viability in the absence of an independent audit. Capacity-building grants would be available to target smaller agencies that need to improve their governance or financial structure to be eligible for the application process, with the goal of expanding the opportunities for all agencies providing human services in the County in an equitable fashion.

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary about coordinated funding and the county’s support for nonprofits. Several others who are involved in coordinated funding – as board members or executive directors of the nonprofits that receive funding – attended the meeting but did not formally address the county board.

Lefiest Galimore noted that he had previously shared his concerns with the board about the coordinated funding approach. The process eliminates African-American organizations out of the funding process, he said. He’s heard that the issue is a nonprofit’s capacity, but “that’s no longer an acceptable excuse,” he said. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. People are trying to do good things but they can’t get funded, he said, so they’re taking money out of their own pockets. Some organizations are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars, Galimore said, but there’s no accountability. African-Americans account for 16% of the county’s population, but over 50% of people incarcerated at the county jail are African-Americans, he said, and the situation isn’t getting better.

Steve Powers, Ann Arbor city administrator.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers told commissioners he wanted them to understand that the Ann Arbor city council is fully committed to the coordinated funding process. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council endorsed the coordinated funding model, and council would be considering the city’s over $1.2 million general fund allocation for coordinated funding at its May 19 meeting. The process is bringing together the community, the public and private sector, and nonprofits to focus on outcomes that matter, he said.

Nicole Adelman, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House, told commissioners that she lives in Washtenaw County, and is also a board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and the HIV-AIDS Resource Center. She thanked the board for supporting local human service agencies, and for spending time later in the meeting to talk about homelessness in Washtenaw County. She reminded everyone of the children and families that experience homelessness, who often aren’t talked about. There are 8 parents and 13 kids at the Alpha House shelter that night, she said. Any discussion about homelessness should include not just individual adults, but also children and families.

Speaking next was Debbie Jackson, director of community impact for community impact for the United Way of Washtenaw County, one of the coordinated funding partners. She noted that together, the six partners leverage about $12.5 million for human services. On May 5, the United Way board had approved the recommendations that county commissioners were now considering. United Way’s commitment to the process this year is $1.8 million, she noted. She thanked commissioners and others in the community for their support.

Carole McCabe, executive director of Avalon Housing, thanked the board for their interest in homelessness, calling it an urgent priority for the community. She reminded them that Avalon’s work to provide permanent supportive housing is an effective solution to homelessness. They operate 260 apartments at 20 different sites around Ann Arbor, providing housing to 160 adults, about 100 families and 150 children. She described the range of services that Avalon provides, and noted that Avalon is a founding member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

Chris Levleit, operations director for Michigan Ability Partners, described the work of that nonprofit in providing housing stability for veterans and others with disabilities. She encouraged commissioners to continue providing support to address homelessness.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said the board had passed a resolution to set up a committee to look at human services funding, and he wondered what the status was for that committee. He said the vote had occurred during the board’s budget discussions last year, at the same time that the board had voted to establish a committee to handle Act 88 allocations.

No one else on the board indicated that they recalled such a resolution, nor did county administrator Verna McDaniel. Peterson hoped someone could research that by the next board meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who serves as board chair, promised to follow up with Peterson.

Peterson spoke at length about the need for supporting human services nonprofits and the residents they serve – especially those struggling with homelessness. He noted that the eastern part of the county, including the Ypsilanti area that he represents, is one of the few places that has affordable housing. The county needs to be involved in addressing some of these unmet needs, he said, and in providing a better “front door” to the county’s own human service agencies.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked the representatives from local nonprofits who were attending the meeting, saying he also interacted with many of them during his “day job.” [LaBarre is vice president for government relations at the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber.] He thanked them for their work in the community.

Rabhi also thanked the nonprofit leaders, noting that they help leverage public dollars for the public good.

Outcome: Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) recused herself from the funding allocation for Food Gatherers, noting that she serves on that nonprofit’s board. Otherwise, the coordinated funding allocations were endorsed unanimously. The board is expected to take a final vote to allocate funding on May 21.

Response to Homelessness

At their May 7 meeting, commissioners were briefed on possible responses to homelessness and a lack of affordable housing in this community. The briefing came in response to a board directive given to staff on April 2, 2014 to develop a plan for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness. The blueprint was adopted in 2004. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County.

The May 7 presentation was given by three different staff members: Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community and economic development; Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center homeless shelter; and Amanda Carlisle, director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Several WHA board members also attended the May 7 meeting, including former county administrator Bob Guenzel, who serves as WHA board president, and attorney Dick Soble, the board’s secretary. [.pdf of presentation]

Schulmeister reviewed the contributing factors to homelessness, including untreated mental illness, increased poverty, a lack of affordable housing and more. She noted that 78% of the people who come to the shelter have income less than $500 per month, and 71% have no income.

The good news is that homelessness “just plain ends with housing,” she said, “and that’s an important phrase to remember.” The formula for success, she added, is permanent affordable housing plus supportive services. That includes “rapid rehousing,” where people who are homeless are quickly given housing with a short- to medium-term subsidy, coupled with supportive services.

This community has a long history of addressing the problem, including creation of the Blueprint to End Homelessness. That effort involved over 300 community members and organizations, including the private sector, sheriff’s office, University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. Carlisle reviewed the blueprint’s four main goals: prevention, housing with services, reforming the system of care, and engaging the community.

Carlisle also described some of the achievements since the blueprint was developed, and pointed commissioners to a more comprehensive report about these efforts that’s posted on WHA’s website. [.pdf of progress report] Highlights include work by Project Outreach Team (PORT) and the Justice Project Outreach Team (JPORT); the Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC), which provides a single entry-point for people seeking services; creation of an endowment for permanent supporting housing; the FUSE (Frequent User Systems Engagement) project, a national pilot program that integrates services for high-risk adults; and creation of a street outreach court and rapid re-housing program, among several other initiatives.

A map showing the percentage of households on public assistance, by census tract: Dark orange (over 30%), light orange (20-30%), tan (10-20%) and cream (0-10%).

Callan noted that a lot has happened in the last 10 years, but it’s no surprise that they haven’t come close to ending homelessness. In 2013, 4,542 people were homeless in Washtenaw County – a 25% increase since 2011. On any given night, 510 people experience homelessness in Washtenaw County. Callan also pointed out that the Delonis Center has seen a 38% increase in people using the shelter from outside of Washtenaw County, from 2012 to 2014.

Several organizations provide a total of 299 emergency shelter beds, but demand far exceeds available resources. Callan noted that the goal isn’t to add more shelter beds, because the solution to homelessness is housing. Temporary shelters are also the most expensive way to address homelessness, she said.

Callan reviewed the spectrum of affordable housing options in Washtenaw County, from temporary shelters and transitional housing to market-rate apartments, public housing, cooperatives, group homes, vouchers, and other options. She noted that during the recession, it was easier to find affordable housing to rent and easier to find landlords who were willing to reduce their rents. Now that the economy is recovering, affordable units are getting more difficult to find, Callan said.

Callan also reviewed the many barriers to helping people find housing. This is the costliest housing market in Michigan. There are only 18 units of affordable, available housing for every 100 of the lowest-income families. The fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Ann Arbor is $942, compared to the average $784 statewide. Callan noted that there’s a $106 difference in rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Ann Arbor compared to Ypsilanti – less than a mile away. “That disparity grows bigger as you go further east,” she said.

Dick Soble, a board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

To put the rent in context, Callan noted that you’d need to earn an hourly wage of $18.31 to afford a two-bedroom apartment renting at $942 a month. The living wage set by the county board is $13.65, while the federal minimum wage is $7.25. Residents who earn that federal minimum wage would have to work 100 hours a week to afford the two-bedroom apartment.

Callan noted that a growing number of residents are spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs, and there’s a growing income disparity.

Callan also highlighted the increased pressure on the county’s shelter system, with a 38% increase in the number of out-of-county people using the Delonis Center in Ann Arbor. It’s untenable for everyone to have Washtenaw County serve as the shelter for all of southeast Michigan, she said.

Schulmeister noted that the three-county region of Macomb, Oakland and Wayne have 14 shelters and a population of just over 4 million. Washtenaw County has 8 shelters for a population of 344,000. There are no shelters in Livingston County, and only two shelters in Jackson County, she noted. In the last year, 43% of the out-of-county people who used the Delonis Center came from Wayne County.

Callan laid out several options that the county and its partners have for addressing these issues:

• Restore funding for affordable housing projects, such as rapid rehousing, affordable housing development, and permanent supportive housing.
• Create and fund a mission-style shelter and/or a permanent warming center.
• Use county assets to advance affordable housing projects.
• Continue to stabilize existing providers, including PORT and local nonprofits.
• Provide funding for short-term motel/hotel stays to engage people in permanent housing programs.

As an example of costs, Callan explained that it would cost about $1.5 million annually to operate a “mission-style” shelter with a day center. That’s based on a 25,000-square-foot facility for overnight sleeping and daytime “warming” for 100 people. It assumes a staff of about 17 full-time employees but does not include capital costs or overhead like accounting.

By comparison, that same $1.5 million could provide rapid rehousing of about 200 people each year, or permanent supportive housing for 107 people. It could also pay for a new housing development with nine units, Callan noted. She again stressed that shelters are the most expensive option, and not a long-term solution. Schulmeister told commissioners that the goal is to turn over shelter beds by finding housing for people, not by kicking them out because they’ve “timed out” of the system.

Callan provided a list of advocacy options that the county board could pursue:

• Support waiver requests from HUD for an increase in the fair-market-rate allowance for Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor housing commission has already started working on this issue.
• Advocate for a “local preference” option for individuals seeking shelter services. “Does it mean we’d turn away anyone who’s not from Washtenaw County? No, we have never done that,” Callan said. But Washtenaw County is doing more than its fair share, she said, so the state should either provide more funding or allow the county’s shelter services to prioritize working with people from Washtenaw County.
• Advocate for state enabling legislation to allow “voluntary inclusionary zoning.” This is more of a city or township issue, Callan said, that would allow jurisdictions to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units in any new development.
• Implement and support new source-of-income anti-discrimination policies at the county and state level. A lot of landlords automatically exclude any income that comes from a housing voucher, and there’s nothing to prevent that.

There are also several options for the county board to engage in working to overcome homelessness, Callan said. They could support the recommendations of a task force on sustainable revenue for supportive housing services, which will be making a presentation at the board’s May 22 working session. They could participate in the Continuum of Care, a broad-based community group that focuses on housing and homelessness. In September, there will be a bus tour of housing and homelessness providers, and later in the fall there will be a “community conversation” forum on these issues.

Response to Homelessness: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he’d been hoping to see a specific timeline for how the Blueprint to End Homelessness will be updated. Amanda Carlisle of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance said the WHA board had been talking about that, and it’s something that will likely happen in the fall. Mary Jo Callan said the original blueprint was developed as a community-wide project, and the update would involve a broad community effort as well, led by the WHA.

Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College and a member of the county’s Community Action Board, and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development.

Responding to another query from Rabhi, former county administrator Bob Guenzel – who serves as WHA’s board chair – said the county and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti had authorized WHA to work on developing the blueprint 10 years ago. Then each of those three public bodies approved the blueprint. He said the WHA would appreciate that same kind of support for the update.

Rabhi hoped it would be possible to develop a more detailed timeline on how the update would occur, to ensure it would be done in 2014. Guenzel indicated that WHA has the same goal.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he was really disturbed by how homeless people are “dehumanized” if they come here from other communities. “They came here because we have high quality of life,” he said. He wanted to stop making that issue a part of the conversation regarding shelter services.

Ellen Schulmeister of the Shelter Association responded. She noted that 96% of the shelter’s budget comes from local public funding, and the shelter was built for people who became homeless in Washtenaw County. It was her job, as director, “to hold that line,” Schulmeister said. To do that, they established the location of a person’s last permanent residence as well as the reason for coming to this county. About 25% of the shelter’s spots were provided to out-of-county people. Anyone who was turned away who isn’t from Washtenaw County was given transportation to wherever they had connections, she said.

A lot of supportive services are funded based on the county’s boundaries, she noted. Many people had court cases in other counties, and didn’t have transportation to get there. There are many barriers to helping people who aren’t from this county, she said.

Conan Smith said he appreciated how Schulmeister framed the issue, calling it a “very hot-button thing” with some people objecting to their money being spent to support anyone who’s not from here. To him, that’s a poor attitude.

Schulmeister pointed out that the shelter is a limited resource. “So we have to make sure we’re taking care of the people in our community with the building that we have,” she said.

C. Smith replied that it’s a very difficult line to draw. What if someone works here but lives in Oakland County and becomes homeless there? Schulmeister said that if someone has a job in Washtenaw County, they’re considered a resident here. She told commissioners that other counties are shipping people to Washtenaw County for shelter services. “That’s not an appropriate way to treat people, either,” she said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

C. Smith told Schulmeister that she was taking the conversation too personally about the shelter. He was talking about a community attitude.

Mary Jo Callan told Smith that his point was well taken. But she noted that unless the state asks other communities to provide something close to the level of support that Washtenaw County provides, “then it’s an issue of volume. I’m sorry, but it’s not about dehumanizing.”

Smith responded: “What you’re saying is it’s a matter of triage. You’re saying a certain kind of person is a better kind of person to serve.”

“I’m not saying that,” Callan replied. “Your point is well taken, but I don’t think that’s what we’re saying.”

Smith acknowledged that it’s a huge challenge, and a comprehensive solution across the entire system is important. Regardless of where people come from, “homeless people have rights, and one of those rights to me is housing.” He hoped they wouldn’t get hung up on the distinction of where people came from. “I think we should just own the fact that we’re going to care for people because they need to be cared for.”

Smith said he thought an economic development strategy needs to be a key component of a solution to homelessness. People need an income in order to sustain their housing, he noted. He asked that Callan, Schulmeister and Carlisle give the same presentation to the county’s workforce development board. Smith said that the chamber of commerce and Ann Arbor SPARK need to understand their role in this effort, too.

Smith also wondered how many of the 4,500 homeless people would likely need supportive housing permanently. Carlisle said that an estimated 1,700 units of permanent supportive housing are needed. Callan added that an upcoming needs assessment will attempt to quantify the need.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Smith said the county wants to have a big role in addressing homelessness, because there are resources that the county can bring to bear on the issue – spanning everything from economic development to community corrections. “Please think holistically and reach out to all of our teams and engage them,” he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) indicated that she didn’t believe housing could end homelessness, because there are so many contributing factors to homelessness that also need to be addressed. If people don’t have the supportive services they need, they won’t be able to sustain their housing.

She pointed to the example of Utah, where officials decided it was more economical to providing housing to everyone who needs and wants it, as well as supportive services. She thought it was an inventive approach.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) invited Callan, Schulmeister and Carlisle to the board’s May 22 working session, to continue the discussion. He chairs the working sessions and sets the agenda.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wanted to talk more about partners who can help the county address this problem, including partnerships with surrounding counties.

Yousef Rabhi wrapped up the discussion by saying people should have a choice about where they live, but “if Washtenaw County is their only option, then we have failed them as a region.” The goal should be making sure that each individual can live in the community of their choice, for whatever reason, he said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

1st Quarter Budget Update

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, delivered a financial report on the county’s general fund budget, for first three months of 2014 – from January through March. She noted that the first-quarter projections tend to be conservative, because they’re based on only three months of the year, with limited evidence of budget trends. [.pdf of Gavalier's presentation]

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

As the board had learned at its April 16, 2014 meeting, Gavalier reported that property tax revenues will be about $720,000 greater than originally projected. The budget had been adopted in late 2013 with an assumption that the tax base would increase by 1% in 2014. According to the equalization report delivered in April, the increase is higher – 2.02%.

Also showing a revenue surplus is the sheriff’s office, with a projected surplus of $111,000 primarily due to higher-than-expected local, state and federal reimbursements.

There are currently projected revenue shortfalls in several areas, including the clerk/register of deeds office ($403,000), district court ($89,000) and interest revenue ($71,000).

In total, there’s now a projected revenue surplus of $277,335 for the general fund, Gavalier said – with shortfalls being more than offset by the property tax surplus.

On the expense side, the sheriff’s office is about $564,000 over the amount budgeted for this year, due to higher-than-expected overtime costs, expenses for inmate food and medical expenses. For all other departments combined, so far expenses are projected to be about $54,000 over budget. Those amounts are partially offset by a projected surplus of about $239,000 in tax appeals and refunds – that is, it’s expected that those expenses will be less than budgeted. Gavalier noted that most of that tax appeal and refund activity will take place in the third quarter, so the amount of any surplus would be clearer then.

Gavalier noted that structural and non-structural adjustments made to the budget since it was passed in late 2013 total about $560,000 in increased expenses. Those include the addition of autism health care coverage, the board’s decision to hire a position for budget work, a “local government initiative” intern, a position in the sheriff’s office, and allocations to keep the homeless shelter’s warming center open in April.

In total, there are $347,565 in general fund over-expenditures as of March 31.

Based on the first-quarter report of revenues and expenses, the 2014 general fund is projected to have a $70,230 shortfall by year’s end – with total revenues of $103,404,537 and total expenditures of $103,474,767. There is no planned use of fund balance for this year’s budget.

Gavalier also reported on several items that will be monitored in the coming months:

• higher expenses in child care programs – for the trial court, children’s services detention, and the department of human services – due to increased caseloads and placements
• fringe benefits
• personal property tax reform
• Act 88 legislation repeal or reform
• annual actuarial valuations for pensions and retiree health care
• annual cost allocation plan
• state revenue-sharing

In the near future, Gavalier said, county administrator Verna McDaniel will present the board with recommendations for dealing with any projected deficits or surpluses. The next quarterly update will occur in August, with a budget affirmation process for 2015 through 2017 taking place this fall.

1st Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the “local government initiative intern” line item. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that it refers to a fellowship that’s being developed to help with budget-related work.

By way of background, at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, commissioners authorized McDaniel to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. As county administrator, McDaniel has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts. She’s taking the approach of creating a fellowship, with the hopes of tapping students from institutions like the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy, for example.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Smith then asked how the current first quarter compares to other years. Gavalier noted that one of the main differences this year is that the budget doesn’t include the use of fund balance. In recent years, the budget has used reserves to help balance the general fund budget.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked about the shortfall in the clerk/register of deeds office. It had been primarily related to a decrease in revenues from document-processing, so he wondered if there was a corresponding decrease in expenses. If so, was the $403,000 a net or gross amount? Gavalier replied that revenues and expenses are looked at separately, because most departments don’t have enough general fund revenue to cover their general fund expenditures. She noted that the budgeted revenues for the clerk/register of deeds in 2014 was $700,000 higher than 2013.

Dan Smith said that his expectation would be to see expenses decrease, if fewer documents are being processed. Gavalier said she’d follow up with him on that.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked about the budget for veterans relief. It seems that the department of veterans affairs regularly shows a shortfall, he said. If the county isn’t levying at a high enough rate to take care of veterans in Washtenaw County, the board should look at increasing that levy, he said. Rabhi asked Gavalier to comment on that.

By way of background, the board voted to levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services on Oct. 16, 2014. The rate of 1/30th of a mill was levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It was expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The previous rate, levied in December 2012, was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 in 2013.

The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Gavalier noted that the board has increased the rate in the past two years. Rabhi replied that it still might not be enough. It’s a priority to take care of veterans who have sacrificed so much, he said. Gavalier indicated it would be possible to discuss options, based on looking at the last two years and the first quarter of 2014. Rabhi noted that the levy is relatively small, which is good from a taxpayers’ perspective, but there’s a need to provide services for indigent veterans.

Switching topics, Conan Smith said he’d like to consider creating a “budget stabilization fund,” like the state has. The state has a “rainy day” fund with money set aside in case something goes wrong, he said. The county’s approach is to leave money in its fund balance, he noted. The target is to have a fund balance that’s 20% of the county’s general fund budget. Smith noted that since November 2013, the board has tapped the fund balance for about $500,000 for various reasons. “When we spend money without identifying a source, that means it comes out of fund balance,” he said. So if they really want to be deliberate in building up a strategic reserve, he thought they should consider creating a separate budget stabilization fund. He hoped the board could talk about that as part of its budget discussions.

Dan Smith said he liked the idea. The board could then as a body make decisions on allocating the funds toward specific activities. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) also supported creating some kind of designated fund reserve.

On another note, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) observed that last year, the administration and board had been on a path to borrow $350 million to cover employee pension and retiree health care costs. He thought they needed to discuss that issue too.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Rabinowitz Appointment

Ellen Rabinowitz was nominated for appointment as health officer for the Washtenaw public health department, after serving in that position on an interim basis since late last year. The appointment is effective May 19.

Ellen Rabinowitz.

Rabinowitz will receive a salary of $126,098. That salary includes her role as executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, a job she’s held for 11 years.

A staff memo notes that the county will see a savings of $30,266 in personnel costs as a result of this appointment. The salary will be covered by the public health department (80%) and the Washtenaw Health Plan (20%). Fleece’s salary was covered in full by the public health department.

The county board appointed Rabinowitz as interim health officer on Nov. 6, 2013. The appointment was spurred by the retirement of former health officer Dick Fleece, effective Dec. 28, 2013.

The position is mandated by the state, and requires a graduate degree and 5 years of full-time public health administration. Responsibilities include overseeing the county’s public health department. [.pdf of Rabinowitz resume]

Outcome: The appointment was approved unanimously. Rabinowitz received a round of applause from commissioners and staff.

Support for Minimum Wage Increase

The May 7 agenda included a resolution calling for an increase in Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

At the board’s April 2, 2014 meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had indicated his intent to bring forward this resolution. Earlier that day, President Barack Obama had given a speech at the University of Michigan that focused on the need to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10.

The resolution debated on May 7 includes a quote from Obama’s speech: “We believe our economy grows best not from the top down, but from the middle out, and from the bottom up paychecks and wages that allow you to support a family…Nobody who works full-time should be raising their family in poverty.” [.pdf of resolution]

The two resolved clauses state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby voices support for the efforts of President Obama to increase the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 per hour.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners supports the current efforts of legislators and citizen groups to increase Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

There was no discussion on this item prior to the vote.

Outcome: The resolution passed, over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Not voting yes was also Dan Smith (R-District 2), who stated “Present” for his vote. In the past, Smith has objected to the board weighing in on state-level issues. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was not in the room when the vote was taken.

Resolutions of Appreciation

The May 7 meeting included three resolutions that showed appreciation in various ways:

• Declaring the week of May 11-17, 2014 as Police and Correction Officers Week, and designating May 15, 2014 as Peace Officers Memorial Day to honor all police and corrections officers who’ve lost their lives in the line of duty;
• Recognizing work of the county’s office of community & economic development as part of the 50th anniversary of the federal Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, when community action agencies were created, and declaring May 2014 as Community Action Month;
• Honoring Tyler Lukomski, a Chelsea resident, for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College and a member of the county’s Community Action Board, accepted the resolution declaring May as Community Action Month. He thanked commissioners for including human services in their list of budget priorities, and for committing $1.15 million to coordinated funding.

Communications & Commentary

During the May 7 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: Environmental Issues

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d been in Lansing talking with Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality staff about the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume. He said it seems like there’s progress on that issue, although the timeline is much longer than he hoped. He said he’d continue to press on that.

Rabhi also said he’d met with residents from the west side of the county about the threat of oil extraction. A drilling permit has been applied for in Scio Township, and residents are afraid that the state will grant the permit. Residents might be coming to the county board to ask for support in delaying the permitting process, so that there could be more community input. He hoped to bring forward a resolution at the May 21 meeting.

Update: A resolution is now on the May 21 agenda. The two resolved clauses state:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Washtenaw County, Michigan:

1. Opposes said oil exploration and drilling, and any future oil exploration and drilling in this area and other areas within the boundaries of Washtenaw County; and

2. Respectfully requests that the Michigan Supervisor of Wells, as part of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, deny the permit application to drill the Wing 1-15 well as proposed; and

3. Hereby requests that the State of Michigan and federal legislators move to enact legislation and improve regulations to reduce the risks to public health, safety, welfare and the environment posed by the oil and gas industry, and re-commit to promoting and protecting quality of life, our economic well-being, and our environment through less reliance on non-renewable energy resources.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted as the County’s official comment on said oil drilling permit and application by the Clerk, to each elected official representing Washtenaw County in Lansing, the Office of the Governor, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a similar resolution opposing oil exploration in Scio Township.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The May 7 presentation was given by three different staff: Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community and economic development; Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center homeless shelter; and Amanda Carlisle, director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Several WHA board members also attended the May 7 meeting, including former county administrator Bob Guenzel. [.pdf of presentation]

In 2013, 4,542 people were homeless in Washtenaw County – a 25% increase since 2011. On any given night, 510 people experience homelessness in Washtenaw County. Several organizations provide a total of 299 emergency shelter beds, but demand far exceeds available resources.

Callan and Schulmeister reviewed the many barriers to helping people find housing. They also provided several suggestions for addressing these issues:

• Restore funding for affordable housing projects, such as rapid rehousing, affordable housing development, and permanent supportive housing.
• Create and fund a mission-style shelter and/or a permanent warming center.
• Use county assets to advance affordable housing projects.
• Continue to stabilize existing providers, including PORT and local nonprofits.
• Provide funding for short-term motel/hotel stays to engage people in permanent housing programs.

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

The board voted to direct county administrator Verna McDaniel to work with community partners to address immediate needs of the homeless. [In general, McDaniel has budgetary 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.] The resolution also directs the administration to develop a plan by May 7 for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was adopted in 2004 but appears to be dormant. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

The agenda item on homelessness was added after about a half dozen advocates for the homeless – including several people who’ve been staying at the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor – raised concerns that the shelter’s overnight winter warming center will be closing on April 6. The warming center is typically open from mid-November through March. It’s located in the shelter’s dining room, and is set up for a maximum of 65 people. Because this winter has been particularly harsh, the warming center has accommodated more than 70 people at times.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) suggested allocating $40,000 to the shelter to keep the warming center open another month. Other commissioners had concerns about throwing money at the shelter without any input from shelter staff, and without knowing specifically how the money would be used. Because the item hadn’t been on the agenda, representatives from the shelter staff weren’t at the meeting.

The county owns the Delonis Center building, but does not operate the shelter. Operations are handled by the nonprofit Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, led by executive director Ellen Schulmeister. Schulmeister had briefed commissioners about services for the homeless at their Feb. 6, 2014 working session. Her briefing had come in response to advocacy from several homeless advocates at the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when commissioners had also discussed the need to do more.

The county budget included $51,230 for the Delonis Center in 2013 and that amount was increased to $160,000 this year as part of the regular budget approval process late last year. The county funding is set to increase again to $200,000 in 2015 and remain at that level through 2017. The Shelter Association’s annual budget is $2.583 million.

Some commissioners thought there should be a strategic plan in place before any additional funding is given – and they seemed to assume that such a plan doesn’t already exist. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, noted that the city of Ann Arbor and several other entities are working on this issue, in partnership with the Shelter Association.

The vote on the resolution was 6-2, over dissent from Republicans Dan Smith (District 2) and Alicia Ping (District 3), who both objected to the process. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Dan Smith called it “completely and entirely inappropriate” to be making policy and budgetary decisions on the fly, in response to a few people who showed up to speak during public commentary. He supported updating the Blueprint to End Homelessness, but thought it was a discussion that should take place at a working session before taking action at a regular board meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded by saying that commissioners are elected to work for the people. When people come to the board, it’s important to address their concerns in a serious manner, he said.

Because of the length of the meeting, some men who are staying at the shelter missed the 9:30 p.m. curfew. Typically, anyone showing up after that time isn’t allowed inside. Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management, contacted the shelter staff and made arrangements for the men to be accommodated.

Update: McDaniel has allocated $35,000 to the Delonis Center, which has agreed to keep the warming center open through April 30. The funding will come from the county’s unearmarked reserves.

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

Billboard on West Huron, facing eastbound traffic, to seek support for the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. The Delonis Center homeless shelter is located across the street. (Photos by the writer.)

Ellen Schulmeister, the Shelter Association’s executive director, called this season “The Winter of Great Effort,” with harsher weather and more demand for services. She described efforts to shelter the homeless in the short term, but noted that the broader goal is to find housing and provide support services to eliminate chronic homelessness.

Schulmeister reported that the county’s funding to the Delonis Center had been cut during the economic downturn, and she hoped that levels would increase. ”We need you to do that,” she said.

Washtenaw County government owns the building where the Delonis Center is located, and pays for maintenance. In addition, the county provided $51,230 for the Delonis Center in 2013 and increased that amount to $160,000 this year. The county funding is set to increase again to $200,000 in 2015 and remain at that level through 2017. The Shelter Association’s annual budget is $2.583 million.

Yousef Rabhi, chair of the county board, called the Delonis Center’s work ”inspirational,” but noted that the issue needs to be addressed by the entire community. He’s working to organize a summit, bringing together stakeholders from the government, nonprofits and other entities working to end homelessness. Rabhi said the effort should include representatives from the Ann Arbor District Library – because the downtown library serves as a de facto shelter during the day, even though that’s not the library’s purpose.

Schulmeister agreed on the importance of partnerships, adding that the barriers also include a lack of affordable housing and jobs. “It takes a community to house someone – it really does,” she said.

The Feb. 6 working session also included an update from Barbara Niess-May, executive director of SafeHouse Center, a shelter for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. As with the Delonis Center, the county also owns the SafeHouse building and pays for maintenance, as well as providing funding for the nonprofit’s services.

Niess-May told commissioners that she’s been doing this work for 20 years, but this is the worst time for funding she’s seen for these kinds of programs. She pointed out that funding from the county has dropped to $48,000 annually through 2017, and she hoped that the amount could be increased. The total SafeHouse budget is $1.4 million.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the number of people that SafeHouse serves each year – more than 5,000 – represents almost 2% of the county’s population. He highlighted the fact that Washtenaw County has fewer domestic violence homicides per capita than any other county in the state. To him, a statistic like that directly connects to the county’s mandates because of the clear reduction of work load on the court system and jail, as well as the number of lives saved. He considered SafeHouse part of the county’s mandate for public safety and justice.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) observed that the board has discussed the option of a human services millage that would support services like those that SafeHouse offers. He encouraged Niess-May to include the county’s funding cuts as part of her communications to others in the community. It might lead them to support raising additional revenue for SafeHouse and other organizations, he said. 

Homeless Services

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) began the presentation about homeless services by noting that at the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, several people attended to advocate for the homeless. He thanked Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, for attending the working session to give commissioners an update.

Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, talks with commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) at a Feb. 6 working session of the county board.

Schulmeister introduced the Shelter Association’s board president, Debbie Beuche, who also was on hand to answer questions. The winter has been rough, Schulmeister said, with the kind of weather that they haven’t seen for 20 years. She hoped it wouldn’t persist, but she’d heard that the next few winters are expected to be equally bad. “If that’s the case, we really have to figure out what we’re going to do.”

This kind of weather puts a huge focus on individuals who are homeless and out in the community. She knew there had been news reports and people talking directly to the board, and she wanted to clarify what the Shelter Association and the Delonis Center actually do.

The Delonis Center, located at 312 W. Huron in Ann Arbor, has been around for 10 years. It’s owned by the county and run by the nonprofit Shelter Association, under a subcontract with the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. The Delonis Center was built to house 50 beds, Schulmeister said, but there have been 75 beds since 2009.

The Shelter Association’s mission “to end homelessness one person at a time,” Schulmeister said. The association’s residential program is focused on working with people to get them into housing, she added, so that they leave the shelter successfully. The residential program has a success rate of over 50%.  There are case managers working with 18 or fewer people at a time, in addition to mental health case managers, medical case managers, and a housing coordinator. They all work together with the goal of finding housing for people, she said. They focus on finding people income, and finding housing. Every year that the Delonis Center has been open, they’ve housed about 200 people annually.

Last year, given the demand for the shelter’s residential program, they added a “vulnerability screening” during intake to make sure that the most vulnerable people were getting into the shelter. As a result, that means it sometimes takes longer to move people out of the shelter and into housing, she explained, so there’s lower turnover.

In addition to the Shelter Association’s residential program, the Delonis Center building is used to provide services to as many people as possible, Schulmeister said, both residential and non-residential. So the services are available to people who are homeless – whether they are living in tents, or couch-surfing with friends and family, or living on the street. Anyone can walk in and sign up for services, including food, showers, laundry, help finding housing and jobs, and a variety of other services. In this way, the Shelter Association serves between 1,200 to 1,400 people each year, Schulmeister reported.

Delonis Center at 312 W. Huron in Ann Arbor.

In fiscal 2012, 239 individuals were housed and services were provided to 1,262 people. In FY 2013, 190 people were housed, with services provided to 1,463 people. Year-to-date in FY 2014, 108 people have been housed and 1,081 people served. The Shelter Association also manages a housing voucher program through the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for about 40 people.

The non-residential homeless population is about double the size of the people in the Shelter Association’s residential program, Schulmeister said, “so we want to make sure that we are helping to keep people from freezing to death outside, because nobody deserves to do that, regardless of what their situation is.”

To help do that, a church rotating shelter provides sleeping space for up to 25 sober men. The men report to the Delonis Center, take a breathalyzer test, shower, have dinner at the shelter, then are picked up by churches to spend the night at a church. At 7 a.m. the next day, volunteers pick them up to take them to breakfast at St. Andrews.

In addition, the Delonis Center operates a warming center in its dining room, for a maximum of 65 people. The warming center is open from mid-November through March. There is no drug testing, but people are given a breathalyzer test and can’t get in if their blood alcohol level is over .10 – above the legal intoxication level of .08.

In the last few weeks because of the brutal weather, the warming center has had over 70 people, Schulmeister reported, and one night there were nearly 90 people. People are staying in the residential floors, in hallways, and in common rooms. The staff hasn’t turned anyone away due to being full, she said. They’re also encouraging people with high blood alcohol levels to go to the Home of New Vision’s engagement center or to the hospital to detox before they return. “We have not turned anybody away,” she said.

The center has relaxed its sobriety requirements, she added, and has allowed some people to stay there who are on the center’s “trespass list.”

Schulmeister told commissioners that the center is stretching its capacity, but that’s not unusual during bad weather. “It’s just that there’s been a lot,” she said.

The Delonis Center is intended to be a working place, Schulmeister said, where people were working to end their homelessness. Residents are allowed to be on the second floor, and non-residents are allowed to be there when they’re receiving services. “But they are not allowed to hang out at the shelter,” she said.

So one service that the Delonis Center doesn’t offer is a day shelter, where people can spend the day. “We don’t have that because we were asked not to have that,” she said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

However, whenever there’s bad weather – including freezing temperatures, snowstorms, thunderstorms, or tornadoes – the center allows people to come in and spend time during the day. The temperature in the winter for this “weather amnesty” is 10 degrees or less during the daytime, either wind chill or temperature. That’s when it starts to get dangerously cold, Schulmeister said. That number was based on the policy used by the Center for Homelessness in South Bend, Indiana, which served as a model when the Delonis Center was being built.

Last year, there were five weather amnesty days. So far this season, as of early February, there had been 35 weather amnesty days, Schulmeister reported. On those days, over 50 people have stayed in the dining room during the day – a couple of days, there were over 80 people, she said.

The staff is “pretty fried,” Schulmeister said, but that’s what happens in the winter. This has been an unusually bad season, she added. “My manager calls it The Winter of Great Effort, and that’s exactly what it is.”

The Shelter Association’s annual budget is $2.583 million. All government funding, including the federal housing voucher program, accounts for about 57% of the budget. County funding accounts for 6% of the budget, not including the building and maintenance. The coordinated funding allocation from the community comes from the city of Ann Arbor and United Way, not the county. The city’s funding accounts for 9% of the budget, with the United Way providing 3%.

The association also gets state funding, and some funds from the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA). There’s also funding for setting aside 10 beds for veterans.

All of that accounts for about $480,000. The remaining $2.103 million is raised from donations, foundation grants, and contributions from corporations. The board and the association’s development staff works hard to raise those funds, Schulmeister said. They focus a lot on major gifts, but also do mailings, fundraising events, and one-on-one solicitations. “It is gratifying to know that our community supports our shelter in the way that it does,” she told commissioners.

The association’s regular fundraising goal is around $955,000 but has been stretched to $1.1 million in order to prevent them from tapping reserves. Costs are increasing too, she noted. For example, Schulmeister said she’s happy that the Affordable Care Act is in place, but one result is that costs for the Shelter Association are increasing by at least $50,000.

A few years ago during the economic downturn, when the county board had to cut its budget, funding for the Shelter Association also was cut, Schulmeister noted. Some of that was restored for 2014, she added, and she hoped the board would restore more in coming years. “We need you to do that,” she said.

The county provided $51,230 to the Delonis Center in 2013 and increased that amount to $160,000 this year. The budget is set to increase again to $200,000 in 2015 and remain at that level through 2017.

Homeless Services: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) told Schulmeister that the discussions in the community on this issue are good to have, “because we need to raise the profile that what is going on this winter is not unique to this winter. … We need to continue to fight for those that are homeless and those that are suffering through this winter right now.”

He noted that he participated in a great conversation recently with three clients of the Delonis Center warming shelter. Hearing their stories about trying to get back on their feet were eye-opening, he said. One was a teacher who got laid off during the bad economy. She had applied for a job as a substitute teacher, and had gone to apply with all of her belongings in her car. Because the employer could tell she was homeless, she wasn’t considered for the job, Rabhi said. Another client was a man with a minimum wage job who pays for a gym membership so that he can have a place to shower, Rabhi said. The man has to walk over a mile from the nearest bus stop to get to the gym in the morning, then walk back to take the bus to work.

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

“The barriers that are in place for the homeless are immense,” Rabhi said, telling Schulmeister that the work of the Delonis Center is “inspirational.”

Partnerships are at the core of being able to provide these services, Rabhi said, and such efforts need to be better coordinated. It’s been a while since there’s been a community discussion about how to support the homeless, he noted, and how to work on some of the barriers that exist.

He supported having a summit about homelessness. He also noted that the downtown library serves as a day warming shelter, even though that’s not its purpose. It’s important to have the Ann Arbor District Library director and a representative from the AADL board at the table in having these discussions, he said.

Schulmeister noted that the library serves this role all year round, not just during the winter. Having computers at the library is great, she said, because it’s an important resource for people. It provides access to information that people who are homeless wouldn’t otherwise have.

Schulmeister said the community conversation also needs to address the difficulty of housing people in Washtenaw County. There’s the “landlord factor,” she said, as well as issues with drugs, alcohol and mental illness. A lack of jobs is another issue, as well as someone’s felony background. Some people are working hard and are being helped by the Shelter Association, but still can’t find housing. “That is one of the saddest and worst things that we face. It takes a community to house someone – it really does.” It takes an employer who’s willing to take a chance, she said, and a landlord who’s willing to take a chance.

People who are homeless are a non-homogeneous population, Schulmeister said. Some people are working hard and take personal responsibility, and others don’t. Some people don’t want to spend their money on housing because it’s too expensive. They’ll choose not to be housed, and instead spend their money on other things. “Trying to give them better choices is what we have to strive for,” she said.

The barriers are reflected in the Delonis Center, because it becomes difficult to turn over the beds there. At that point, “we’re not a flow-through – we’re a collection agency,” Schulmeister said. “We’re just collecting people and keeping them there. That’s not useful for them or for us.”

Rabhi said it’s also important to address state and federal assistance, with cuts to food stamps and income tax credits. The barriers are becoming greater, he said, “because poor folks aren’t being prioritized any more.”

This community has all the pieces to help address this problem, Rabhi said, and it’s time to talk about taking the next steps.

Rabhi also pointed out that because of Washtenaw County’s services, people come here from other counties seeking help. So homelessness is a global issue that needs to be addressed in a global way. He hoped that Washtenaw County could coordinate with entities in nearby counties to address the issue regionally.

Schulmeister agreed. She noted that Detroit has shelters, but not enough to house all the homeless there. There aren’t any shelters in western Wayne County or Livingston County. There are some shelters in Monroe County, but those are mostly focused on families. “There just is not enough supply for the demand,” she said. “And even if we got everyone into a shelter, then what?”

SafeHouse Center

The Feb. 6 working session also included a presentation from Barbara Niess-May, executive director for the SafeHouse Center. She briefed the board on the status of this nonprofit, which provides support services and shelter for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The center serves over 5,000 women, children and some men each year. While the center is probably best known for its shelter services, she said, they also provide legal advocacy, 24/7 response, support groups, counseling, and prevention/awareness activities.

Barbara Niess-May, executive director for the SafeHouse Center.

She told commissioners that she’s been doing this work for 20 years, but this is the worst time for funding she’s seen for these kinds of programs. In the mid-1990s, the federal government prioritized funding for these programs to make our communities safer, she said. In Michigan, about 100 women die each year because of intimate-partner homicide, and half of those are murder suicides, she noted. “It wracks communities for decades.”

If commissioners were wondering why they don’t hear about this kind of violence in Washtenaw County, she said, it’s because SafeHouse partners with law enforcement. “Because of the work that SafeHouse Center does, we are a safe community,” she said, with fewer domestic violence homicides per capita than any other county in the state.

She had come to the board because of funding losses that SafeHouse has experienced. The center has lost about 10% of its budget. The SafeHouse shelter budget alone is about $300,000 per year. The U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) cut $100,000 in funding for SafeHouse’s shelter budget, she said – a third of the shelter’s operation budget. That supports about 300 women and children each year.

Niess-May said that earlier in the evening she had a SafeHouse board meeting and told the board that if they can’t raise $100,000, they’d have to make changes in operations.

She said some people might wonder why SafeHouse isn’t publicizing its financial situation. “The primary reason is because I don’t want survivors to think that there isn’t a place to go. It’s not safe for me to start ringing the cow bell and saying we are in big trouble.” The last thing she wants is for some assailant to tell a survivor that they don’t have the option of going to SafeHouse because of budget cuts, she said.

SafeHouse staff, board and volunteers are taking their fundraising effort very seriously, Niess-May told commissioners. In the first quarter of their current fiscal year, SafeHouse raised more money than they’d ever raised before – yet still fell short of its first-quarter goal by $35,000, she said. Niess-May added that she’s worried about sustainability, because funders aren’t providing long-term commitments.

About 12 years ago, she told commissioners, the county approached SafeHouse and asked the nonprofit to support sexual assault survivors in this community. SafeHouse took on that role, under the assumption that it would be revenue-neutral. At that time, SafeHouse received an annual grant of $120,000 for those services. Now, funding from the county is $48,000 a year. Her understanding is that the county’s four-year budget from 2014-2017 keeps funding at that same level. “That concerns me, and I felt strongly about sharing that in this forum.”

SafeHouse is in a really difficult situation, she said. They had to add almost $200,000 to the nonprofit’s fundraising goal, which was about a 50% increase from last year to this year, she said. “I am hopeful that the county can help us at some point.” She said she deeply appreciates the county’s support and partnership, saying it’s made a tremendous difference in the lives of survivors.

SafeHouse Center: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the number of people served by SafeHouse each year – more than 5,000 – represents almost 2% of the county’s population. He was also impressed with Niess-May’s report that Washtenaw County had the lowest per capita number of domestic violence homicides in the state. He noted that the board often talks about its mandates for providing services. To him, a statistic like that directly connects to the county’s mandates because of the clear reduction of work on the court system and jail, as well as the number of lives saved. He thanked Niess-May for her work and presentation to the board.

Commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), chair of the board’s working sessions.

Niess-May said this work is done with 23 staff members and 150 active volunteers who provide 15,000 hours of service every year. SafeHouse is trying to leverage every resource as creatively as they can, she said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said everyone needs to be aware that the county has cut funding to SafeHouse, and that there are consequences to their investment decisions. In general, Smith said the public trusts county government, so a lot of people probably assume that the county is helping in the way that it always has. “They need to know we’re not,” he said. The resources haven’t been there to support SafeHouse, he added, while the need has increased.

C. Smith noted that the board has discussed the option of a human services millage that would support services like those that SafeHouse offers. He encouraged Niess-May to include the county’s funding cuts as part of her communications to others in the community. It might lead them to support raising additional revenue for SafeHouse and other organizations, he said.

Niess-May noted that over the last 10 years, SafeHouse has seen over $1 million in total funding cuts.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Niess-May for her work, and said the community is fortunate to have an organization like SafeHouse that stands up for people who need help. He noted that he wanted to understand SafeHouse’s situation, noting that financial strain is coming from multiple sources.

He clarified with Niess-May that the $300,000 budget she’d mentioned in her presentation is only for the shelter portion of the operations. The entire SafeHouse budget is $1.4 million, she reported. The county’s line item of $48,000 includes a small portion for the shelter, but most of it is for support services.

In addition to the $100,000 in cuts from HUD, other cuts mentioned by Niess-May include:

• $7,633 cut in funds from the Victims of Crime Act, which resulted in eliminating SafeHouse’s translation services for survivors who don’t speak English, as well as professional development for staff and staff mileage reimbursement.
• $7,000 cut from the city of Ann Arbor’s Grant to Encourage Arrest Policy funding, which resulted in a loss of salary and support expenses for legal advocacy.
• $3,600 cut in Legal Assistance to Victims funding, which also resulted in less support for legal advocacy.

Niess-May also cited higher expenses, including health insurance and keeping up with the city of Ann Arbor’s living wage. In total, all of this has created a budget gap of about $200,000. As a result, SafeHouse has raised its fundraising goal from $400,000 to $600,000.

Rabhi asked what the consequences would be if SafeHouse doesn’t raise the additional $200,000. Niess-May replied that she couldn’t speak for her board, because in the end it would be a policy decision. But the options that staff have looked at include closing rooms at the shelter, and reducing response to calls from law enforcement. “We’re running lean,” she said.

Rabhi asked Niess-May to explain the full extent of the county’s support, in addition to the $48,000 line item. SafeHouse also gets about $100,000 from the coordinated funding process. Those funds are awarded through a competitive application in which several funding agencies participate – including the county, city of Ann Arbor, and United Way of Washtenaw County.

County administrator Verna McDaniel also noted that the county owns the building where SafeHouse is located. SafeHouse pays rent and utilities, but the county pays for upkeep on the facility.

Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

In response to a query from Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), Niess-May reported that when the facility was built, the understanding was that SafeHouse would be providing residential and non-residential services to survivors of domestic violence. That’s in the language of the lease, she said, and was in the ballot language for the bond that’s paying for the building, which voters approved in 1992. Later, about 12 years ago, the county also asked SafeHouse to also provide services for survivors of sexual assault.

Dan Smith, responding to a comment earlier in the discussion about a possible human services millage, said he didn’t consider SafeHouse as a human services provider. Rather, he considered it part of the county’s mandate for public safety and justice.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) praised SafeHouse, and noted that residents had approved the bond to pay for the building. That reflects the fact that this is a community value, she said, and it’s important to keep that in mind. Brabec agreed with Dan Smith that SafeHouse provides public safety services, but she also felt that it fit into human services as well. In terms of the county budget, SafeHouse touches on many of the community impacts that the county is trying to address. “We have the opportunity to impact and change lives,” Brabec said.

Niess-May said she was sensing an undercurrent that she’d stay away from, but she noted that Washtenaw County is the only county in the state where an organization like SafeHouse has partnered with every law enforcement agency in the county. Whenever there’s a domestic violence or sexual assault call in the county – and there are about 2,000 every year – the law enforcement agencies call SafeHouse. Of those, 1,700 are for domestic violence, she said, resulting in 250 people who get convicted. “So the rest of them are still out there.”

“Most men are good men,” Niess-May added. “Ninety percent are good men. It’s the 10 percent that offend and keep re-offending.”

Washtenaw County and SafeHouse have a model that’s unique in the state, she concluded. “And it’s paying off in huge dividends.”

Addressing Niess-May’s comment about an undercurrent in the discussion, LaBarre noted that it’s far easier to make the case to fund public safety. “You don’t theoretically need human services if you’re dead,” he said. So commissioners are considering how to think about SafeHouse in that context.

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

Absent: Alicia Ping, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

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!

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!

A skeleton – wearing an Ann Arbor District Library T-shirt – was part of the non-traditional collections on display at the Feb. 3, 2014 AADL board retreat. (Photos by the writer.)

Discussion during the retreat, held at AADL’s downtown location on South Fifth Avenue, often touched on issues specific to that area. Dealing with the chronically homeless is one of the biggest challenges there, AADL director Josie Parker told the board, because during the hours that it’s open, the library is the shelter of last resort for many people.

“We are not a social service agency, yet we act as a de facto one,” Parker said. “We have a lot to contribute to this conversation because of our experience over the last 15 years.” The board discussed the need to define the library’s advocacy role in general for issues that trustees think are important, though Parker noted that the first responsibility for both the AADL administration and the board is to advocate for the library.

Other challenges faced by AADL include urban development, changes in the education system, issues related to providing Internet access, and “blurred lines” – instances where AADL is providing services to people who don’t live within the district’s boundaries. Also related to work outside the library’s boundaries, Parker reported that she’s talking with other directors of district libraries in Washtenaw County about the possibility of doing a study on the economic development impact of libraries.

The retreat began with a review of AADL’s non-traditional collections, and items from those collections were on display in the meeting room. The library has circulated art prints for more than 30 years, but has been expanding into other areas more recently, including science kits, musical instruments, home tools and craft equipment.

Parker told the board that the public library’s mission – to distribute materials that support the reading, education and even entertainment of the public – isn’t limited to bound volumes. The items for AADL’s non-traditional collections aren’t generally available to rent elsewhere, and are usually expensive to buy, she noted. “What are the limits of sharing? That’s what we’re pushing on.”

The final portion of the retreat was facilitated by local consultant Sandra Greenstone, who has played a similar role at previous retreats. Trustees generated a list of questions that they’d like to answer to help inform their work on the next strategic plan. Many of the issues related to the downtown library, but there was no discussion about putting another ballot proposal before voters. In November 2012, voters defeated a bond proposal that would have funded a new downtown library.

How all of this fits into the next strategic plan is a work in progress. The board will be handling the next steps at the committee level, with an update expected at the board’s Feb. 17 meeting.

Setting the Stage

Prue Rosenthal, the board’s president, began the retreat by saying that oftentimes people are asked for feedback at retreats like this. Although the board was going to get information from staff about what the library is doing and plans to do, Rosenthal hoped that the board would also focus “on what might be.” As an example, she cited the possibility of having games that the adult community could be invited to play – she mentioned Luminosity as the kind of game she had in mind. “What I’m hoping we’ll do is think forward,” she said.

Librarian Mariah Cherem, far left, with AADL trustees Jan Barney Newman, Rebecca Head and Margaret Leary.

AADL director Josie Parker told the board that the staff had set up items around the room that are currently in circulation, as well as things that the library plans to circulate soon. Staff were on hand to talk with board members about these items.

Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and production, gave an overview of the different collections on display, including “Book Clubs To Go” for adults, thematically-related kids books in “Stories To Go” kits, and “Science Tools” that range from dinosaur kits to telescopes and light meters. About three years ago, the AADL added a “Music Tools” collection, which has proven popular, he said. “Science To Go” kits were created with science tools, and “Home Tools” is a collection that started with energy meters, as part of a program in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor. Other items are now being added.

“Art Tools” is another collection that’s relatively new, and includes items like a drum card – a device used to take fleece off a sheep and start turning it into yarn. “We now have pretty close to the full set of tools you’d need to go straight from sheep to sweater,” Neiburger said.

These non-traditional collections have grown over the years. In 2011, excluding art prints, there were 18 non-traditional items in circulation, mostly energy meters. Those items were checked out 149 times. In 2012-2013, AADL made a major investment in these collections, increasing the number of items to 236 by the end of fiscal 2013. AADL projects there will be about 300 items and about 3,800 checkouts by the end of this fiscal year – on June 30, 2014. That’s over 10 checkouts per item over the year, Neiburger noted, calling it a very high number for any kind of collection. “Clearly we’ve found something that really is connecting with an audience.”

The library has about 600,000 items all of its collections, including books. So the non-traditional collections are relatively small by comparison, Neiburger said. But they are high-value, active use collections.

Not all of the items in the boardroom that night are in active circulation yet, Neiburger noted, and some are just in beta circulation to get input from a small number of users. One such device reads the codes off of cars – for example, when your “check engine” light comes on, you can hook the tool to your car, find out the diagnostic code, and look up what you need online to fix the problem.

In addition to items that can be reserved, AADL also has a category called “Up For Grabs” – items that can’t be put on hold, and are available on the shelf for walk-ins.

Parker told the board that the public library’s mission – to distribute materials that support the reading, education and entertainment of the public – isn’t limited to bound volumes. The items for AADL’s non-traditional collections are chosen carefully so that they don’t compete with local businesses. The items aren’t generally available to rent, and are usually expensive to buy, she noted. “What are the limits of sharing? That’s what we’re pushing on.”

Margaret Leary wondered whether there’s any evidence that expanding what the library lends attracts different people to the library. The telescopes have brought in a new audience, Parker said, including young males – a group that typically loses interest in the library. But Parker also noted that this kind of lending isn’t new: AADL has been lending framed artwork for over 30 years.

Board members spent about 30 minutes talking with staff about these collections.

Public Library Trends

When the group reconvened, Josie Parker told the board the she and Eli Neiburger would be following up on information they’d presented at a Sept. 30, 2009 board retreat held at the law firm Dykema. Discussions at that retreat were used to help develop the 2010-2015 strategic plan. [All but one of the current board members – Nancy Kaplan – also served on the board at that time.]

To put things in perspective, Neiburger noted that when he gave his presentation in 2009, “I speculated that Apple would be releasing a tablet called the iPad in the next year.”

AADL staff and trustees at the Feb. 3 board retreat.

It’s a very challenging time for the “content industry,” Neiburger said. From the first quarter of 2012 through the first quarter of 2013, sales of eBooks declined by 5%. Although adult eBook sales actually grew during that period, it was offset by a sharp decline in eBook sales for kids and teens. He noted that “Hunger Games” was released in 2012, adding that when the financial health of an entire format is influenced by the release of a single title or series, that doesn’t bode well for the long-term survivability of that format.

On the print side, all book sales were also down about 5%, and paperback books sales were down about 11%. Hardcover sales, however, were up 12%. That trend counters the notion that everything is moving to digital, Neiburger said. “So the story’s not quite what it sometimes seems to be, especially for people who are avid book readers.”

In terms of a long-term trend, Neiburger said the sales trend for eBooks don’t look like an adoption curve. That is, the trend doesn’t indicate that everyone is switching to the eBook format. Sales of tablets like the iPad are growing, he noted, but those devices are being used more for streaming services – like movies – than for eBooks. He pointed out that Netflix “is off like a shot,” with a business model that charges a fixed monthly price for unlimited usage. Cable TV is still popular, but there’s a “big bomb” awaiting that service, Neiburger said: unbundling. “If people are ever able to actually choose what channels they want to subscribe to, the cable industry is going to be in a lot of trouble very quickly,” he said.

The most telling things about these trends are the popularity of the fixed price/unlimited usage model, he said, and how cable TV does extremely poorly with younger consumers.

Neiburger described another streaming service – Spotify, which provides online music – and noted that paid subscribers hear music without ads. But Spotify has more unpaid subscribers than paid ones, and those unpaid subscribers have to listen to ads. “What this shows is how much more willing people are to consume a free service, even if it’s got ads on it,” he said. The thought of reading an ad-sponsored book “is kind of a horrifying idea,” he added. But that’s the dominant method by which most content is monetized, including radio, newspapers/magazines, and cable TV.

Neiburger noted that the birth of impartiality for newspapers occurred when newspaper owners decided to drop the price to a penny and started selling their readership to advertisers. At that point, there couldn’t be one newspaper for each point of view, he said. It resulted in newspapers trying to encompass a range of views, and reach a larger market.

The fixed price/unlimited usage model is now coming to eBooks in the form of a new service called Oyster, which launched in the fall of 2013. For $9.95 a month, people can read an unlimited amount of books. It doesn’t include all books, Neiburger said, but several major publishers are participating.

Neiburger said AADL is seeing an impact from this kind of model, specifically from services like Netflix and Spotify. An opportunity for the library is to have items that are harder to find, and that won’t be part of the services offered by these larger companies, he said.

Neiburger also reported results from a survey recently released by the Pew Research Center, which showed that a growing number of Americans are reading eBooks. But only 4% said that they only read eBooks – it’s a niche, not a transition, he said.

Regarding data about AADL usage, Neiburger showed that the library system’s door counts have grown from about 1.2 million in 2004, compared to the current door count of between 1.6 million to 1.7 million annually. During that period, the library opened three new branches – Malletts Creek in 2004, Pittsfield in 2006, and Traverwood in 2008. Each of those openings lifted the door count for the entire system, Neiburger noted. Another lifting force was the “recession bump” between 2008-2010, he said. That’s now beginning to flatten, but the door count is still higher now than it was in 2008.

For checkouts and renewals, there were 2.5 million in 2004 compared to about 9 million in 2013 – although it’s been basically flat since 2011. The library received more than 112,000 reference questions in 2004, which dropped to about 62,000 questions in 2013. There’s been a slight uptick recently driven by Old News requests – primarily for obituaries. Event attendance has almost doubled over the past 10 years, from about 45,000 in 2004 to 86,000 in 2013.

The library launched its current website in 2005, starting at about 5 million page views per year and growing to about 85 million page views in 2013.

External Pressures/Opportunities

Josie Parker then presented an overview of some of the outside pressures and challenges that the AADL faces, and Eli Neiburger outlined how those challenges might provide opportunities for AADL.

External Pressures/Opportunities: Education

Parker noted that school libraries haven’t been funded well or consistently for many years. As a public library, “we are now filling gaps in ways that we might not have expected to,” she said. If there isn’t a media center at their school, children will go elsewhere – like the public library. But while the public library is providing uses that it didn’t before, that’s not being followed by additional funding, she noted.

Trustee Ed Surovell talks with AADL director Josie Parker.

There are many opportunities to continue developing programs and services for schools, Neiburger said. For example, AADL has a new kids page – called Jump! – that links to homework help, event listings, and other resources.

Non-traditional collections are another example. A music teacher had checked out two musical tools for her class, which meant that her students had to share. So AADL created a kit with 30 of the devices, Neiburger said, so that each student in a classroom would have one to use. The kits can also be used by a Boy Scout or Girl Scout troop, or any other group.

Another example is the model that AADL uses for digital downloads, which allows users – including teachers – to keep the item after it’s downloaded. For now, this mostly applies to the music collection, but AADL is in the middle of major negotiations for other collections, he said.

The AADL has put infrastructure in place to deliver a variety of content, Neiburger noted, and the library is establishing licensing agreements directly with the rightsholders – not with vendors and publishers.

The AADL will continue to reach out in developing new services, Neiburger said. One challenge related to K-12 efforts, he added, is that it’s hard for teachers to find time to partner with the library, “because it’s hard to show how it connects to test scores.”

Parker noted that it’s not clear to AADL how any of this will evolve. However, she’s sure that AADL wants no part of some of the services that are being sold to libraries now, like Freegal. Such services charge tens of thousands of dollars in set-up costs, as well as a click-per-use fee. Those services also put a limit on what users can access, Parker noted. AADL is taking a different approach, she said, even though the outcome is uncertain. [Some of these issues were covered in more detail at previous board meetings. For example, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Library Signs Digital Music Deal" and "AADL Board Briefed on Public Library Trends."]

Regarding classes offered by AADL for adults, Neiburger reported that demand is way down, and in many cases, the same people were taking classes over and over. People don’t necessarily want to be trained to use new software or learn how to apply for a job, he noted – they’re just trying to complete a task. So there’s an opportunity for AADL staff to offer one-on-one help, he said, and to develop a service around that approach.

AADL also is looking for opportunities for classes that have a unique topic. As an example, All Hands Active held a 3-D printing workshop at AADL. They were teaching something that required you to be in the presence of the device that you were learning about, Neiburger said, and “that’s a big opportunity.” There’s also a need for places to do “noisy group work,” he said, and there aren’t many spots in the community that provide that kind of space. AADL needs to think about reconfiguring its space to accommodate these kinds of things, he said, without disturbing other patrons. “A 3-D printer has a distinct odor to it. 3-D printing geeks also have a distinct odor to them,” he joked.

Neiburger also noted that the library is taking its collections outside of its own facilities. AADL held a stargazing party at Leslie Science & Nature Center to launch its telescope collection, for example. AADL also participates in the Neutral Zone’s Washington Street Fair, the Mini Maker Faire, FoolMoon, Top of the Park and other events. It’s an opportunity to reach new audiences who don’t necessarily know what the library offers, he said.

External Pressures: Internet Access

Parker reported that increasingly, other public institutions are moving services online, then telling citizens to access that service or information by using computers at the public library. That includes information about taxes, health care, Secretary of State services, and unemployment services. “In many cases in this country, the public library is the last access point for most folks,” she said.

AADL trustee Rebecca Head.

The Ann Arbor community is a bit different, she noted, but it’s still happening. Parker also pointed out that when these other institutions direct citizens to the public library, “please don’t think that they talked to us about that first. Most of the time, they did not.” She noted that some of these public institutions have shifted services online because they don’t have the staff to support public access, so “they’re taking the path of least resistance.”

Rebecca Head noted that it’s difficult for the downtown library to install more computers, given the building’s infrastructure. Parker clarified that it’s possible to put in more computers at the downtown library. “It’s just a very high cost to do that,” she said.

Parker noted that computing is a common need that runs through all types of services that the library provides, from K-12 education to job searching to tax preparation.

There’s an equity issue here, Head observed. “Libraries have always stood for providing access to people who might not otherwise have access.” It puts an extra burden on the library, she added.

Prue Rosenthal wondered what percentage of people in AADL’s district don’t have access to computers and the Internet. Parker didn’t have that information at hand, but noted that the percentage went up during the recession. That’s why the library’s “recession bump” occurred, as people turned to AADL for that service.

Neiburger noted that even if someone does have a computer and Internet access at home, they can’t always use it for everything if the equipment and software aren’t up to date.

As another example, Parker reported that the library has held classes on PowerSchool, the homework-tracking software used by Ann Arbor Public Schools, because some parents need help in using it.

Parker also raised another issue associated with ubiquitous public access to computers. Sometimes, people will use the computer for purposes that aren’t allowed, she said. Although the library has rules of behavior and monitors computer usage, she said, the staff can’t completely guarantee that a patron won’t look at something online that offends someone else. She cited precautions that are in place. Computers designated for adults have a filter option, she noted, and in the youth department, no one over the age of 14 can be online unless they’re with a child. There is no Internet access in children’s areas at the branches. So the library has done many things to mitigate risk, she said, but “it’s impossible to totally eliminate the possibility.”

The fear that someone will inappropriately use a public library computer for pornography is not enough to offset the positive benefits of providing Internet access for job searches, research and other purposes, Parker told the board.

External Pressures: Urban Development

Parker showed the board an aerial view of the downtown library at the northeast corner of Fifth and William. She pointed out the surrounding properties – including the adjacent city-owned underground parking structure known as Library Lane, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s Blake Transit Center across the street, and the surface lot at the opposite corner of Fifth and William that’s being bought from the city by hotelier Dennis Dahlmann.

Parker cited several questions that relate to AADL’s downtown building: What will surround the downtown library and who supports it? What’s happening that the library can’t control? Where does AADL have a voice? These are questions that she doesn’t have answers to, Parker said, noting that urban development is a big pressure.

External Pressures: Chronically Homeless

This community has seen a change since Parker started working at AADL, she said. A decade or more ago, the staff could identify about 20 homeless people who regularly came to the library, compared to hundreds of homeless today. For the chronically homeless, the library is their last resort, Parker said. “People who have other options, take them. The ones who don’t, come here.”

Screenshot from a Jan. 24, 2014 Channel 7 news report, interviewing a homeless man in front of the downtown Ann Arbor library.

She pointed to a Jan. 24 Channel 7 News report, which included an interview with a homeless man standing in front of the downtown library. The library was a backdrop for the report, she noted, and the homeless man discussed the library as a place where he could be warm.

“We are not part of the community conversation about the solution [to homelessness],” Parker told the board. “We are not a social service agency, yet we act as a de facto one. My point here is that while we aren’t a social service agency, we have a lot to contribute to this conversation because of our experience over the last 15 years. Yet we’re not in that conversation.”

Prue Rosenthal asked how Parker would ideally want to participate in that community conversation. Parker replied that the library staff has tried to insert themselves where they thought it was appropriate. She said she admired all the people who work with the homeless, because the chronically homeless are dealing with a range of other issues too.

But because the library isn’t a social service agency, she added, “we are not seen as equals in this conversation. So we’re a backdrop.” If the library is the last resort for shelter, then the community needs to consider what that means to ask its public library to provide that shelter. “This isn’t a hit on anyone,” Parker added. “But this is real. It costs a lot of money in security and safety and training.”

“It’s something that we just have to start being more vocal about,” she said.

Parker noted that it’s not about the fact that a person is homeless. The library will always be a refuge, Parker said. It’s about people who can’t behave, and who have needs that the library can’t meet.

“This one is our biggest challenge,” she concluded.

External Pressures: Blurred Lines/Clarity of Mission

Parker pointed out that the library provides support for other community organizations by providing a computer server that’s outside of AADL’s firewall. Examples include ArborWiki, Huron Valley Community Network, Washtenaw Literacy and the Ann Arbor Book Festival. That’s a form of blurring lines, she said, because many people involved in these groups or who use the services and programs of these groups don’t live in the AADL district.

From left: Trustees Prue Rosenthal and Rebecca Head look at some of the non-traditional items in the AADL’s collections.

Another example is the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which the AADL manages. Anyone who lives in Washtenaw County and who is eligible for the National Library Service can receive an AADL card, even if they live outside of AADL’s district.

Barbara Murphy noted that anybody anywhere can use the AADL website too – they don’t have to live within the AADL district to gain access to it.

For K-12 education, school librarians can place a link on the school’s media center computers to access AADL databases. That service is provided because schools generally can’t afford those databases, Parker said. A couple of companies have objected to expanding the use of their databases in that way, she noted. When that happens, AADL removes those databases from being accessed via the school computers.

Based on her conversations over the past few months with the new dean of libraries at the University of Michigan, James Hilton, and the new Ann Arbor Public Schools superintendent, Jeanice Kerr Swift, Parker said she expects AADL will be looking at more instances of blurring lines in the future.

Responding to a query from Nancy Kaplan, Parker said that talking with Swift had been a big uplift as a library director, because Swift understands the value of having a media center at a school.

Parker also noted that the board is being asked to vote on a policy change – likely at its Feb. 17 meeting – to allow the library to issue cards to students who go to school within the AADL district, but who don’t live here. “That’s the next step for us in blurring those lines – carefully but deliberately,” Parker said.

Margaret Leary wondered if Parker saw any future collaboration happening with the UM library. “I do,” Parker replied. “But I don’t know exactly what it will look like.”

Historically, libraries have resisted these types of ventures for fear of being overwhelmed, Parker said, “and it rarely happens.” For example, when Parker became AADL director, she wanted to eliminate the limits on renewals and holds. There was a lot of fear among staff that this would cause the shelves to be emptied, she said. The limits were lifted and although some adjustments had to be made, it wasn’t a big deal.

Parker noted that unlike many larger cities, AADL isn’t a city library – it’s not part of the city government. So the tax revenues are tied directly to what the library collects from district property owners. That makes it more difficult in some ways, Parker said. She gave the example of Nashville, which has a major problem with illiteracy and high school graduation rates. The school system and library system are departments of the city government, so the city manager can direct those departments to work together, and can provide more funding “because the money is all in the same pot,” Parker explained.

She wasn’t advocating not to be a district library, noting that if AADL hadn’t been independent, it would be a shadow of its current operation. AADL is strong and recognizable in the community, Parker said, and other institutions are looking at how the library can step in to help. That’s a good thing, she added, but “it’s not an automatic easy step to take.”

Murphy suggested that as AADL increases its communications with residents, they should make it clear that the library is separate from city government and other organizations, and doesn’t receive funding from the city government. Parker agreed, noting that it’s a message that has to be made repeatedly.

Parker also reported that she’s talking with other directors of district libraries in Washtenaw County about how to start a process to do an economic development impact study of libraries. It will take collaboration and a pooling of resources to do, she said.

Strategic Plan

Josie Parker reminded trustees that at their Aug. 19, 2013 meeting, they had received an update on activities related to goals in the five-year strategic plan, from 2010-2015. [.pdf of strategic plan, with updates highlighted in yellow] The five-year plan was initially adopted at the board’s March 15, 2010 meeting. It includes goals and objectives for the library in the categories of services, products, finances, communications, organizational development and facilities.

Parker asked if the board had any questions about the current strategic plan.

Responding to a query from Nancy Kaplan, Parker noted that the AADL doesn’t do traditional donor development, nor does it have a foundation. Donor development hasn’t been a priority, but it’s something that the board could discuss if they choose to, she said. One issue is that AADL has a stable source of revenue from the millage it levies, while “many of our nonprofit colleagues in town do not,” Parker noted. So the library is sensitive to that.

However, when someone approaches the library and wants to donate, Parker added, of course she meets with them. For example, a family is donating about $18,000 to the library for an endowment fund in honor of a family member who recently died, and the library staff is working with the family to make that happen.

The library’s legal and financial advisors have indicated that $15,000 is the minimum amount that AADL should accept for an endowment, Parker said.

Kaplan posed the hypothetical scenario of someone donating a half-million dollars in exchange for AADL naming a room after that person. Would that be possible? That would be a board decision, Parker replied. She noted that the fireplace area at the Malletts Creek branch is named after a donor. The tree bases inside the Traverwood branch also are named in honor of people whose families donated money.

Ed Surovell reported that when one of the branches was being designed, a potential donor had indicated interest in contributing about $1 million in order to have naming rights to the building. There was disagreement on the board’s part as to whether that was enough money to name a building, he said. It became a moot point because the donation didn’t materialize, Surovell noted, but it’s a legitimate question.

Next Steps: Information Gathering

The final portion of the retreat was facilitated by local consultant Sandra Greenstone, who has played a similar role at previous retreats. She reminded the board that a decade ago, the discussion had centered on a lack of community space in Ann Arbor. Staff concerns had included the fear of losing print books completely, and questions about why the library had added videos to its collection.

Sandra Greenstone, a local consultant who acted as facilitator at the AADL’s Feb. 3, 2014 retreat.

She reviewed information that had been gathered to support decision-making of the strategic plan 10 years ago, including demographics, technology trends, and what was happening in the political and financial spheres. Staff teams had worked to develop reports in each area, which were presented to the board. The library administration also talked with community stakeholders, surveyed patrons, and held large meetings with staff to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the AADL. There was also a large community-wide meeting to help the board move forward with the strategic plan.

Five years ago, the focus in strategic planning had included technology trends as well as what might happen to the downtown library. [The board ultimately put a bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot to pay for a new downtown library, but that effort was defeated at the polls.]

Now, Greenstone asked how the board wanted to structure its discussion about the future of AADL. She recommended starting with trustees identifying the questions that they had, and the information they needed to gather in order to shape their next strategic plan. What process did they want to use to move forward?

She reviewed AADL’s mission statement, and asked whether it still applied:

The existence of the Ann Arbor District Library assures public ownership of print collections, digital resources, and gathering spaces for the citizens of the library district. We are committed to sustaining the value of public library services for the greater Ann Arbor community through the use of traditional and innovative technologies.

Some new information is already being collected. At its Jan. 20, 2014 meeting, the library board authorized adjusting its budget to include $25,000 for a satisfaction survey of 500-600 library district residents, to be conducted by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA. Last year, the library also commissioned a communications audit by Allerton-Hill Consulting. [.pdf of Allerton-Hill report]  The board has also been receiving statistical information at board meetings over the past few months about library operations, and library managers have been making presentations to the board about various strategic initiatives. Parker said these efforts will help inform development of the next strategic plan, which will begin on July 1, 2015.

Greenstone asked trustees to generate questions regarding what they need to know in order to develop the next strategic plan. Here’s a summary of their responses:

• Who is the library not serving or able to serve – in terms of demographics, or of materials that aren’t available now at the library?
• What kind of context will the library be operating in within the next five years – regarding the broader context of Washtenaw County and southeast Michigan?
• Demographics, including a breakdown of age, education levels, economics, family size, housing. What’s the profile of the library’s users?
• How are the schools changing – in terms of demographics and funding – and how does that impact AADL?
• Does AADL need to do some kind of strategic planning focused on its resources – not collections, but finances, staff and facilities?
• What kind of continuing education does the board need to help inform its decisions? Are there different, better ways that the staff can use the board as a resource?
• Does AADL need more branches, in the context of the overall system and the growing population in townships served by AADL? What’s the role and location of branches? Specifically, Nancy Kaplan noted that the branch in Westgate Plaza doesn’t offer programs, because it’s so small. What kinds of programs and services do people want at the branches, as opposed to downtown?
• How will AADL help address the homeless problem in Ann Arbor, and how it impacts the library?
• What’s the role of the library within the community? How does the library board and administration advocate for what it wants in the community? “We still want to be that ‘third place’ – we still want to be that community center,” Prue Rosenthal said. “We didn’t get the new building to do that, but we still want to be that.” There seemed to be consensus among trustees that the downtown library should be some sort of community “commons.”
• What do the downtown businesses, residents and others who use downtown want from the library? Margaret Leary noted that the type of library building might matter to these groups, for example. “It’s part of the fabric of the downtown,” she said. “An entity that brings 600,000 or 700,000 people downtown matters to people who have businesses downtown. If that entity brought 1.2 million people instead of 600,000, that would matter too.”
• Who uses the downtown library, and how do they use it differently than the branches are used?
• How will the downtown library be affected by dramatic changes around it? The former Y lot across from the library is being purchased from the city by Dennis Dahlmann, though it’s not clear what his plans are for that site. A new Blake Transit Center is being built nearby, and in the future there might be something built on top of the city-owned underground parking structure that’s adjacent to the library. Does the library board and administration have a role in giving input for those sites?

Regarding changes around the downtown library and whether AADL has a role in influencing what happens, Greenstone recalled a previous discussion she had with some of the board members, during which Ed Surovell had said, “We should lead the way.”

At the retreat, Surovell noted that there’s a “very fluid set of players” who are making decisions that impact the downtown, including the city council, DDA board, AAATA, Dahlmann and others. Regarding the sale of the former Y site, Surovell said, “I would have hoped that council would have been more proscriptive” about how that site should be developed.

In general, the city can do whatever it wants, Surovell said. “It may be extremely important for the library to voice its opinions, but we have virtually no muscle. We are not an arm of the city. And we have at times been in conflict with the city – not because we don’t like them, but because our goals are different.” There are people who hope the library would go in a different direction, he added, which “is not surprising – it’s a democracy.”

But as a bottom line, “I think the truth is you don’t know anything right now,” Surovell said, “and whatever might be known to others is not known to you. … Should we speak up? I’d be delighted to say yes. But how?”

Rosenthal said she didn’t think this was something they needed to discuss that night, but it’s something the board needs to explore.

Parker told the board that she felt her responsibility and the board’s responsibility is to advocate for the public library first. “Whatever falls out after that, fine. But that’s the first thing.”

Next Steps: Committee Work

Board members indicated they’d be interested in having more discussions like this, as preparation for developing the strategic plan. Parker noted that as board president, it’s up to Rosenthal to set the agenda for regular meetings or working sessions.

When Greenstone asked about whether there might be a public working session, Parker replied that all board meetings or working sessions are public. Greenstone expressed some confusion about an earlier meeting, and Parker clarified that the meeting Greenstone was referring to had been a committee meeting, and therefore wasn’t open to the public. [AADL board committees consist of no more than three trustees. Because that does not constitute a quorum of the seven-member board, the committee meetings are not subject to the state's Open Meetings Act.]

Greenstone then stated that perhaps at some point the board could consider forming a new committee that would work on developing some of these ideas.

Margaret Leary noted that the information gathering they’d identified falls into two categories. Some of it is simply data that can be researched, like demographic information. Some of it involves asking other people for input and opinions.

Trustees reached consensus that a subset of the board – possibly the existing executive committee or communications committee – should meet to figure out what the process should be, and propose recommendations to the board.

Rosenthal said she’d talk with Parker and the board’s vice president, Barbara Murphy, to figure out what the next steps should be. The board is expected to get an update at its next meeting on Feb. 17.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Next regular meeting: Monday, Feb. 17, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out 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!