Background to the city’s agreement includes a long process of discussions and negotiations between Washtenaw County and the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV) – a conversation that began in 2011 when the amount of funding provided to HSHV was under scrutiny. A task force was appointed, and ultimately the county board of commissioners, at its Nov. 7, 2012 meeting, authorized contracting with HSHV for $500,000 a year for animal control services. [.pdf of contract between Washtenaw County and HSHV]

Recommended as part of that task force report was for the county to pursue a cost-sharing arrangement with those municipalities in the county that collect licensing fees for animals. The city of Ann Arbor is one such municipality in the county. From the task force report:

Cost Sharing with Local Governments
Between 45 and 65 percent of the animals at the Humane Society come from jurisdictions with their own animal control ordinances or licensing programs. While the County would bear responsibility for stray dogs in those jurisdictions absent a controlling ordinance, it would also collect licensing fees from pet owners in those communities. The current system, however, drives costs to the County without providing direct revenues to offset them. The Task Force recommends that the County reach out to the communities whose ordinances either exceed the scope of the County animal control policy or that capture licensing fees, and develop a cost sharing agreement with those local governments to offset increases driven by local ordinance requirements. [.pdf of 2012 task force report]

The council’s July 7 resolution cites the cost of public animal control countywide as $951,793. The assignment of $135,570 of that cost to the city of Ann Arbor is based on the proportion of dogs that come from Ann Arbor that are housed at HSHV, factoring in the $500,000 provided to the HSHV by Washtenaw County.

The city council’s approved FY 2015 budget had already included $105,000 for such animal control services. Increased dog licensing revenue is projected to fund the remaining $32,570, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The city council’s FY 2015 budget deliberations on May 19 , 2014 resulted in two amendments that affected funding for animal control services. One was an amendment that re-allocated $75,000 for a commercial sign inventory to animal control, including deer herd management. The other was an amendment that adjusted the revenue budget upwards to reflect an assumed 30% participation rate for dog licensing in the city – which would be a total of about $63,000. That’s $48,000 more than the actual amount up to now, with the idea being that a publicity campaign could increase participation in the licensing program. The additional revenue is to be put toward animal control services.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

Declan LaBarre, son of Andy and Megan LaBarre, was the youngest of many family members who attended the Jan. 2, 2013 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners to watch the new board get sworn in. Andy LaBarre is the newest Ann Arbor commissioner, elected on Nov. 6 to represent District 7. (Photos by the writer.)

After the swearing-in of commissioners – a ceremony officiated by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum – the two main agenda items were the election of board officers, and approval of revised board rules and regulations.

Two of the four new board officers are from Ann Arbor: Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who was elected chair of the board on an 8-1 vote, with Dan Smith (R-District 2) dissenting, and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who was unanimously elected chair of the board’s working sessions.

In explaining his vote against Rabhi later in the meeting, Dan Smith cited the previous tradition of rotating the chair position between Ann Arbor representatives and commissioners from the out-county area, to ensure that all voices are well-represented in all aspects of county business. Smith’s district covers some of the county’s more rural townships, including the townships of Webster, Northfield, Salem. The chair for the previous two years, Conan Smith (D-District 9), is also from Ann Arbor.

Dan Smith said it was especially troubling to have another Ann Arbor chair because Ann Arbor districts have declined proportionately to the rest of the districts – decreasing from four districts on an 11-district board to three districts on a 9-district board, because of redistricting.

Responding to those concerns, Conan Smith said he never liked the tradition of rotating chairs on the board, and felt they should choose the right person for the times. Rabhi said he hoped to set a tone of collaboration and cooperation, and looked forward to working with Dan Smith and other commissioners to help achieve their goals for the county.

Also elected were Alicia Ping of Saline (R-District 3) as vice chair and Felicia Brabec of Pittsfield Township (D-District 4) as chair of the board’s ways & means committee. Dan Smith also dissented on the election of Brabec.

The first meeting of each year includes a review of the rules and regulations that govern the board’s actions. The major change, on a 5-4 vote, was to remove the ability of a commissioner to abstain from a vote. The amendment to strike the rule was put forward by Conan Smith. Others voting in favor of the deletion were Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

The question of abstaining from votes typically relates to resolutions on state or federal issues, over which the county board has no control. This year, the county board already appears to be moving to weigh in on at least one state-level issue. The board called a special working session for Jan. 3 to discuss the state’s new “right to work” law, which was passed during the legislature’s lame duck session late last year and signed into law by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. That meeting will be covered in a separate Chronicle report.

The Jan. 2 board meeting also included an update on negotiations about the county’s contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV). The agreement, which hasn’t  yet been finalized, would pay HSHV $550,000 annually to provide animal control services to the county over four years. Of that, $460,000 would come from the county’s general fund. The remaining amount would be paid through contracts with other municipalities that have animal control ordinances: the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Pittsfield, Superior and Ypsilanti. County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’s already had discussions with those entities, as well as with the city of Saline.

Some commissioners expressed concerns about the Humane Society contract. Rolland Sizemore Jr. objected to HSHV receiving amounts over $550,000 if new revenue is brought in – because he felt the revenue should come back to the county instead. Ronnie Peterson worried about the additional financial burden that just a few municipalities would bear, and wanted to see every municipality help pay for animal control services. The new contract with HSHV is expected to be finalized later this month, and does not require board approval.

Swearing In and Officer Elections

Because the new board had not yet been sworn in following the end of the 2012 terms, the Jan. 2 meeting was convened by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum. He began by noting his own experiences on county boards during a transition in the number of commissioners. When he was first elected to the board of commissioners in Ingham County – where the cities of Lansing and East Lansing are located – it was just decreasing in size from 21 commissioners to 20. Kestenbaum also was on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners in 2000 when redistricting reduced the number of seats from 15 to 11. [He decided not to run again for county commissioner, rather than compete against the other incumbent Democrat in that redrawn district – Leah Gunn. He then ran for county clerk in 2004, and was re-elected in 2008 and 2012.]

Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum holds a meat tenderizer that was serving as a gavel during the Jan. 2 county board meeting. Outgoing chair Conan Smith brought the gavel as a joke for Yousef Rabhi, who was elected chair later in the meeting.

Kestenbaum was highlighting these transitions because the new county board has just nine districts, down from the 11 over the last decade. Kestenbaum was chair of a five-member Washtenaw County apportionment commission, which in May 2011 adopted the new redistricting plan. The change included a decrease in the number of Ann Arbor districts from four to three, and put incumbents Alicia Ping, a Republican, and Democrat Wes Prater into the same district – the new District 3, covering south and southwestern Washtenaw County, including the city of Saline. Ping, a former Saline city councilmember, won the Nov. 6 race against Prater.

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, based on population changes determined by the U.S. census. This is the fewest number of districts on the county board since the 1980s.

At the Jan. 2 meeting, Kestenbaum said that the former commissioners would be missed, and that changing even a few people on the board would create a different chemistry. Of the nine commissioners, all but two – Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) – are incumbents. The other commissioners are Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Kestenbaum implored the board to consider that the work product of the entire body is more important than their individual political gain. He asked them to consider scoring points for the county and the general public, rather than for themselves or their colleagues.

Kestenbaum then read the oath of office: “Do you solemnly swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Michigan, and that you will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of the Board of Commissioners in and for the County of Washtenaw, State of Michigan, according to the best of your ability.” Commissioners responded: “I do.”

After the swearing-in ceremony, commissioners introduced their family and friends who were attending. Also in the audience was former commissioner Barbara Bergman – and she was introduced by Rabhi as his “second mom.”

Officer Elections: Rabhi Chosen As Board Chair

Later in the meeting, the board also elected its officers for the coming year. Negotiations for these positions occurs privately in the weeks or even months before the actual officer elections are held, and in recent years there has not been more than one person nominated for each leadership role. This year, four positions were elected: Board chair and vice chair, and chairs for the board’s ways & means committee and working sessions. In past years, there were also vice chairs for ways & means and the working sessions, but those roles were eliminated this year.

As anticipated, Rabhi was elected as the new chair of the board, replacing fellow Ann Arbor resident Conan Smith, who has served in that role for the past two years. [Commissioners are elected by the general public to two-year terms.] Rabhi, who was chair of the board’s working session in 2011 and 2012, had announced last year his intent to run for the board chair. Although there was no previous substantive discussion about Rabhi’s candidacy, Smith referred to Rabhi as the “chair elect” in an announcement last month regarding a selection panel for the regional transit authority board appointments, and in subsequent communications had indicated an assumption that Rabhi would be the next chair.

At the Jan. 2 meeting, Conan Smith nominated Rabhi as chair, stating: “I rise from the new 9th district – the strongest, largest, most handsome, most prosperous place in Washtenaw County, and the most educated. And as the wisest in the county, we seek leadership that is kind, just, caring – the kind of leadership that can help us all as individuals succeed as a group, the kind of leadership that can keep our tempers even and keep our spirits high. It is my great honor to nominate for the chair of Washtenaw County commission [sic], Mr. Yousef Rabhi.”

Rabhi received a round of applause, and there were no other nominations.

Outcome: Yousef Rabhi was elected as board chair on an  8-1 vote, with dissent by Dan Smith.

Rabhi thanked commissioners for putting their faith in him to lead the board. “We have some tough issues ahead of us,” he said. “But I think by working all together, we can make some real positive change in this community.”

Also nominated were Alicia Ping as board vice chair, Felicia Brabec as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and Andy LaBarre as chair of the working sessions. There were no competing nominations for these positions.

Outcome: Alicia Ping and Andy LaBarre were unanimously elected board vice chair and chair of the working sessions, respectively. Felicia Brabec was elected chair of the ways & means committee on an 8-1 vote, with Dan Smith  dissenting.

Officer elections are held each January. However, it’s been the board’s custom to elect commissioners to the same leadership roles for two consecutive years, starting with the first year of their two-year terms. So it’s likely that these officers will serve in 2013 and 2014.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) take the oath of office on Jan. 2, 2013.

Near the end of the meeting, Dan Smith explained his rationale for voting no. The board has several long-standing traditions that have served all areas of the county – rural and urban – very well, he said. One of those traditions is to ensure that all voices are well-represented in all aspects of county business. And part of that tradition is to alternate the chairship between Ann Arbor commissioners and commissioners from the out-county area. The board didn’t do that this year, he noted.

Smith said it was especially troubling to have another Ann Arbor chair because Ann Arbor districts have declined proportionately to the rest of the districts. Previously, there were four Ann Arbor districts on the 11-district board. Now there are three Ann Arbor districts out of nine total districts. Having another Ann Arbor chair makes it “much more difficult to see a benefit to the many rural areas of the county – the 20 different townships that are scattered throughout the county.”

Smith said it’s also troubling when there’s a collection of three chairs and a vice chair who can get together on their own and discuss county business, because four out of nine commissioners does not constitute a quorum. Previously, the leadership structure of three chairs and three vice chairs prevented the six from gathering separately, he said, because six members of the 11-member board represented a quorum. [Under Michigan's Open Meetings Act, meetings with a quorum must be open to the public.]

Smith observed that there’s nothing illegal about the four board officers getting together on their own, but “it creates a perception that I think is a bit troubling.” He said he wasn’t faulting the officers who had been elected that evening – he had nothing ill against them. But for people who are looking at it from a distance, there might be the perception that things are awry.

He again stated that he was sure everything would be conducted above board – it was simply a matter of perception. “So it’s disappointing to me that we’re starting out a new year and a new board with breaking some of these traditions.” Noting that there’s another tough budget to face with a significant shortfall, Smith said he was hopeful the board could face these challenges together “despite this rough start to the year.”

Conan Smith responded, saying he had a different perspective. He never liked the tradition of de facto rotating chairs on the board. He felt it was better to evaluate the quality of the board’s leadership against the times they were in, and pick people that the board felt would address the issues of the moment. “Really, that’s the appropriate way for this board to work,” he said.

Rabhi represents someone who’s particularly well-suited for the time, Smith contended, adding that it is a smaller board with a lot of new people. Smith told Rabhi: “You’ve been an excellent consensus builder during your two years on the board already, and I think you’re the kind of person that should be the chair.” [Regarding the number of new commissioners, seven of the nine commissioners are incumbents. There are only two newly elected commissioners – Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Three of the incumbents – Dan Smith, Alicia Ping and Yousef Rabhi – were elected to their first terms in 2010. Felicia Brabec was appointed in October of 2011 to fill a vacancy left by resigning commissioner Kristin Judge. The board's longest-serving members are Ronnie Peterson of Ypsilanti and Rolland Sizemore Jr. of Ypsilanti Township, who were both first elected in 2000. Conan Smith was first elected in 2004.]

Prior to the start of their Jan. 2, 2013 meeting, the new nine-member Washtenaw County board of commissioners posed for their official group photo, taken by Anne Keesor of Anne Keesor Photography. This photo was taken while commissioners were getting ready for Keesor’s shot. From left, standing: Conan Smith, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Dan Smith. Middle row: Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr. Front row: Andy LaBarre, Yousef Rabhi, Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson.

Even though they shared a common city and a friendship, Conan Smith said he didn’t support Rabhi because Rabhi was from Ann Arbor. If Rabhi wasn’t the right person for the job, “I’d support somebody else – and I think that’s the way we ought to be making decisions on board leadership.”

As for the issue about a quorum, Conan Smith said that what actually happened in the past four years while he was board chair is that the three chairs would get together separately – they wouldn’t meet with the vice chairs. Because of that, people who were elected as leadership were exempted from important conversations, he said, and that’s more of a problem.

The way that the leadership is structured now, he said, allows the three chairs and vice chair to meet, to set the direction of the board, to consider the variety of issues that are in front of them, and to bring those issues back to the board. The leadership isn’t empowered to make decisions on behalf of the board, but he expects the leadership team to regularly meet and to work with county administration. “In order to do that, sometimes you need to be able to meet off-line,” Smith said. “That is, frankly, an important consideration when trying to lead a board through complex and possibly contentious issues.”

Rabhi spoke next, saying that some people might perceive Dan Smith’s vote and comments as something personal against him. “Despite commissioner Dan Smith’s concerns of myself being chair, I intend to work with each and every commissioner to move this county forward,” Rabhi said. “That’s really the tone that I will set this year – a tone of collaboration and cooperation, because we all bring different sets of experiences to the table, and we all come from different backgrounds. And that’s a strength, not a weakness.”

Officer Elections: Compensation

Based on increases to compensation that were approved by the board at its Dec. 2, 2012 meeting, the three chairs – Rabhi, Brabec and LaBarre – will each earn a base salary of $18,750. That’s $3,000 more than other commissioners. None of the positions are considered to be full-time jobs.

Also starting this year, commissioners will 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, so the new system will likely add several hundred dollars to their compensation. Commissioners will be able to waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk. In the past, commissioners were eligible for per diem payments for attending certain meetings, but had to file for those payments after the fact. The stipend payments will be made automatically.

Appointments to various boards, commissions and committees will be made at a future meeting. Rabhi has announced his intent to hold an appointments caucus in order to determine preferences for those appointments.

Revised Board Rules & Regulations

As part of the standard first-meeting-of-the-year action, commissioners discussed a revised set of board rules and regulations that are intended to govern their actions, meetings and other governance issues. [.pdf of revised board rules & regulations, with changes tracked. The document does not reflect amendments made at the Jan. 2, 2013 meeting.]

Commissioners suggested revisions to board chair Yousef Rabhi prior to Jan. 2 meeting, and he reviewed those changes during the meeting. This report highlights some of the main changes.

Revised Board Rules & Regulations: Compensation

At the board’s Dec. 5, 2012 meeting, commissioners approved several changes to their compensation. Those changes included increasing their base salaries from $15,500 to $15,750 annually, paying all three chairs an extra $3,000, replacing per diem payments with stipend payments – which will result in at least several hundred dollars of additional compensation each year – and eliminating the $3,550 flex accounts from which commissioners previously drew their per diem, travel and other expenses.

The board rules and regulations were revised to reflect those changes.

The stipends are based on the number of boards, committees and commissions on which a commissioner serves, and the number of meetings that commissioners are expected to attend. Stipend payments range from $50 per year for groups that meet only 1-2 times annually, up to $1,000 for groups that meet more than 24 times. There are 45 boards, committees and commissions to which commissioners are appointed.

Dan Smith pointed out that the changes to the rules and regulations eliminate the previous $3,550 spending cap that had been associated with each commissioner’s flex account. Now, there is no cap. However, “given the entirety of the rules and the other changes, I’m satisfied with them as they are currently drafted and presented,” he said.

Revised Board Rules & Regulations: Abstaining

A year ago, Dan Smith (R-District 2) successfully convinced a majority of commissioners to add to the board rules the ability to abstain from certain types of votes. The rule, added in February 2012, stated: “Commissioners may abstain from voting on resolutions that express support or opposition and otherwise take no action.” The question of abstaining from votes has related primarily to resolutions on state or federal issues, over which the county board has no control.

Dan Smith’s proposal had occurred in the wake of the board’s final meeting in December 2011, when Yousef Rabhi – a Democrat from Ann Arbor – brought forward a resolution urging state lawmakers to reject HB 4770, HB 4771 and “any legislation that codifies discrimination.” That state legislation, which was later signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, removed the ability to extend benefits to same-sex partners. During deliberations on that resolution, Smith and Rob Turner, another Republican commissioner who is no longer on the board, had objected to bringing forward resolutions that were not focused on Washtenaw County issues. They wanted the ability to abstain from voting on such resolutions.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

At the Jan. 2, 2013 meeting, Conan Smith (D-District 9) proposed an amendment to delete the rule that allowed commissioners to abstain. After an extended silence, no other commissioner seconded the motion and Rabhi, the new board chair, declared the motion dead for lack of a second.

Rabhi then asked for any other comments on the rules and regulations. At this point, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) asked if the board had changed the rule regarding a commissioner’s obligation to vote. Rabhi noted that Conan Smith had just made a motion about that, but nobody had seconded it. He asked Sizemore whether Sizemore wanted to second the motion.

Sizemore asked Smith to restate his motion. Smith explained that he wanted to delete the section that “allows a commissioner not to vote.” His feeling was that when there’s an issue before the board, “the citizens expect you to say yes or no on something, and you should do that.” The board had an experiment with the abstention process, he said, and “I didn’t like the way it worked out. I think it would be better if we just had to vote.”

Rabhi then allowed Sizemore to second the motion.

Dan Smith spoke next, saying he had hoped this amendment “would go away.” He noted that he had done some research and could find only three times during the past year when he had abstained from voting. The first time was on April 4, 2012 regarding a resolution that asked state legislators to halt any bills that would eliminate the state’s personal property tax. “The resolution made some extremely broad statements in it,” he said. Rather than getting into a lengthy discussion and picking at the wording of the resolution, he said he simply abstained.

The second time was on May 2, 2012, on a resolution that expressed support for the U.S. Clean Air Act. Smith noted that it’s a complex piece of federal legislation that has many different ramifications and impacts. That’s why we send representatives and senators to Washington to sort out those issues, he said. The third time was on Sept. 5, 2012, regarding a resolution urging the city of Ann Arbor to use the proceeds from the sale of city-owned land to support affordable housing. He didn’t feel that it’s the county board’s place to direct another municipality on how to use its proceeds.

He noted that he’d spent more time now explaining his reasons for abstaining than the time he’d taken over the course of the year on these items. He felt the rule should remain unchanged.

Sizemore responded, saying that commissioners represent the residents of this county. They were elected to make a stand, “one way or the other,” he said, regardless of whether the issue was local, state or federal.

Conan Smith said that while he believed the commissioners shouldn’t be abstaining, he agreed with Dan Smith that some of the resolutions aren’t germane to county business and don’t affect the county’s budget or operations. It’s important to be hyper-vigilant about those kinds of things coming before the board, he said, because commissioners often don’t take the time to really understand the complexity of the issues. But when there are issues of direct import to county business, he said – if the state legislature or Congress are considering new laws and rules that could impact county operations – “it is important that commissioners make their stances on these things known.”

As an example, he cited the state’s 2011 legislation regarding domestic partner benefits. Washtenaw County was one of the first in the state to adopt benefits for domestic partners, he said, and it’s been a signature characteristic of the county. “Making sure that there’s an on-the-record stance about issues like that is relevant and important to our constituency.” He said if a resolution is not directly related to county business, he’d be one of the first people to ask the board to table it. But if it does affect the county, commissioners should vote on it, he concluded.

Outcome: The rule allowing a commissioner to abstain from a vote was amended out, on a 5-4 vote. Voting in favor of the deletion were Conan Smith (D-District 9), Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Revised Board Rules & Regulations: Committee Appointments

A new rule was proposed to be added to the section on board committees:

C. STATUTORY COMMITTEES AND BOARDS:

The Chair of the Board shall appoint and the Board shall confirm all individuals appointed to statutory committees and boards, except as otherwise directed by the laws of the State of Michigan.

Curt Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, explained that this codifies the practice of the board, although it had not previously been written into the board rules and regulations.

Ronnie Peterson pointed out that although he couldn’t recall a nomination that wasn’t confirmed by the board, he felt the language “shall confirm” was too strong. All commissioners are equally elected, he observed, but this language gives the rest of the board no flexibility. He said it had nothing to do with the current chair, but he did not want to give any board chair a rubber stamp on their nominations.

Hedger recommended altering the phrase to “shall confirm by majority vote,” which was agreeable to Peterson and met with no objections from the rest of the board. There was no vote on this change.

Revised Board Rules & Regulations: Oversight of Chair in Directing County Employees

The section on board procedures includes a rule noting that ”Individual members of the Board of Commissioners do not have the authority to direct the work of County employees; only the Board as a collective body speaks for the County and provides policy direction to the County Administrator and employees.”

Another rule in that section addressed how violations of this rule would be handled. The item was revised to include language that clarifies how a violation by the board chair would be handled [added language in italics]:

Concerns with violations of this rule shall be addressed by the Chair of the Board of Commissioners, unless the alleged violation involves the Chair, in which case the matter will be brought to the attention of the County Administrator who shall work with Board leadership to resolve the issue.

Revised Board Rules & Regulations: Overall Vote

Outcome: The vote on approval of the overall board rules and regulations, as amended, was unanimous.

Humane Society Contract Update

Conan Smith asked county administrator Verna McDaniel for an update on the county’s contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV).

From left: County administrator Verna McDaniel and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8). He has not yet ended his fundraiser, which will result in cutting off his long hair to raise money for charity. That’s likely to happen later this month.

McDaniel said she felt the county had reached an agreement with HSHV, which would provide animal control to the county for $550,000 annually over four years. Of that, $460,000 would come from the county’s general fund. The remaining amount would be paid through contracts with other municipalities that have animal control ordinances: the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Pittsfield, Superior and Ypsilanti. McDaniel said she’s already had discussions with those entities, as well as with the city of Saline. No formal contracts have yet been finalized, however.

McDaniel reported that she had been interviewed earlier in the day on this topic by Lucy Ann Lance on Lance’s radio talk show, which airs on WLBY AM-1290. [The interview is also available online.]

Curt Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel who has also been working on these negotiations, clarified that there has been no gap in service, even though HSHV’s previous contract with the county expired on Dec. 31. The two parties agreed to extend the current contract with a letter of intent, to serve as a stopgap until a new contract is finalized. That gave them more time to draft “a more meaty contract that will make sure we cover all the nuances,” he said.

Conan Smith thanked McDaniel and Hedger for handling the negotiations. He noted that last year, the board had discussed several options for raising revenues related to animal control. Saying he didn’t want to let up on pursuing those options, he asked Andy LaBarre, as the new chair of the working sessions, to consider adding those to future agendas. One option relates to civil infractions – setting up fines for residents who don’t buy licenses for their animals.

Felicia Brabec asked what would happen if other municipalities pay more, and the total amount is greater than $550,000 – would those extra revenues go to the county, or to HSHV? The Humane Society would get those extra revenues, McDaniel said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed some concern. He didn’t understand why additional money would be given to HSHV. Previously, he said, the board had been told that $500,000 was the amount that would be paid to HSHV – now it’s $550,000 over four years.

McDaniel noted that the county is obligated for no more than $500,000 – that’s all the county would pay, even if there were no other available revenues from other sources. That’s the amount that commissioners authorized the county to spend, in a vote taken at the board’s Nov. 7, 2012 meeting. McDaniel also said the county didn’t give up the revenues it might receive from a civil infractions ordinance.

The civil infractions ordinance was also approved by the board at the Nov. 7 meeting. It gives the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. [.pdf of ordinance] In the context of animal control, 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.

Sizemore said that his concern over a four-year contract is that the county will be negotiating a new contract with the unions that represent county employees. [Current union contracts end on Dec. 31, 2013.] His implication was that union negotiations would be more difficult if so much is being paid to HSHV.

McDaniel reported that the HSHV contract will include an out clause, allowing either the county or HSHV to get out of the contract after the first year.

Ronnie Peterson, whose district covers the Ypsilanti area, said he hoped that the contracts with other municipalities hadn’t been set in stone, and that the agreements would be brought to commissioners for review. Many of these communities are struggling financially, he noted, and now they would be faced with an additional burden. He hoped that the discussion about payments to HSHV would include all the communities in the county, not just those that had been mentioned.

The contentious debate about how to pay for mandated and non-mandated animal control services has been going on since 2011. For background in addition to the extended board discussion on Nov. 7, 2012, see Chronicle coverage: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society,” ”Next Steps on Animal Control Policy,” “Work Continues on Animal Control Policy,” and ”Revenue Options Eyed for Animal Control.” More information related to this process is also posted on the county’s website.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Special Working Session on “Right to Work” Law

As newly elected chair of the board’s working sessions, Andy LaBarre proposed holding a special working session on Thursday, Jan. 3 to discuss how “right to work” legislation will affect the county. The legislation was passed by the lame duck state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Rick Snyder in mid-December.

Peggy Rabhi, the mother of commissioner Yousef Rabhi, talks with commissioner Andy LaBarre, who is holding his son Declan prior to the start of the county board’s Jan. 2 meeting.

In an email sent to commissioners and commissioners-elect on Dec. 30, Yousef Rabhi – who was elected board chair earlier at the Jan. 2 meeting – announced the intent to call a special session: “Second, there is a group of Commissioners (myself included) that wish to call a Special Working Session on January 3rd at 6:00 p.m. Technically, this could have been done last year as there was more than 1/3 of the Board that desired to call the meeting. However, Curt [Hedger, the county's corporation counsel] advised that it would be best to call the meeting from the floor of the BOC meeting. The meeting would be for the purpose of discussing the implications of the ‘Right to Work’ legislation on the County.”

The state law – supported by the Republican-controlled House and Senate and the Republican governor – made it illegal to require employees to financially support unions as a condition of their employment. It’s viewed by Democrats as a way to undercut support for labor organizations that have historically backed the Democratic Party. The legislation, which will take effect in March of 2013, received national attention. It followed a failed ballot initiative by labor to protect collective bargaining rights in the state Constitution. That effort – Proposal 12-2 – was not supported by a majority of voters in the Nov. 6 election. [links to Public Act 348 of 2012 and Public Act 349 of 2012]

The majority of the county government’s 1,321 employees are represented by labor unions. All but two of the nine county commissioners are Democrats. The Republican commissioners are Dan Smith (District 2) and Alicia Ping (District 3). During the Jan. 2 meeting, both Smith and Ping told their fellow commissioners that they were interested in focusing on how the county might be affected, both in terms of the county government employees as well as the impact on the local economy. However, both also indicated that they did not want the board to advocate for the repeal of the legislation – Ping characterized such an effort as “a big waste of time.”

LaBarre, an Ann Arbor Democrat, said the session was intended to be broad based, but could include a discussion about how the board would like to voice the sentiment of the county on this legislation.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to hold a special working session on Jan. 3 to discuss the impact of right-to-work legislation.

The working session will be covered in a separate Chronicle report.

Resolutions of Appreciation

Alicia Ping, a former Saline city councilmember who represents District 3, brought forward two resolutions of appreciation for Saline officials: (1) Gretchen Driskell, who had served as Saline mayor for 14 years, and (2) Allan Grossman, who recently retired as Saline’s city attorney after 52 years of service. [.pdf of Driskell resolution] [.pdf of Grossman resolution]

Driskell, a Democrat, was elected on Nov. 6 to the state House of Representatives in District 52, defeating incumbent Republican Mark Ouimet, a former Washtenaw County commissioner. Ping is also a Republican.

Neither Driskell nor Grossman attended the Jan. 2 meeting.

Outcome: Without discussion, both resolutions of appreciation were passed unanimously.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Washtenaw County commissioners Barbara Bergman and Yousef Rabhi at the Nov. 7 county board meeting. Rabhi usually wears his hair tied back, but he let it down at the beginning of the meeting to announce a plan to raise money for local shelters – he’s collecting pledges for each inch he cuts off. (Photos by the writer.)

Taking another step toward addressing a year-long controversy over how much to pay for animal control services, the board authorized contracting with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 annually. The action enables the administration to negotiate a contract with HSHV for up to four years, with the option of adjusting the amount based on changes to the taxable value of property in the county. Voting against the resolution were Dan Smith, Wes Prater and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

The county would not likely pay that entire amount. There are preliminary commitments from five municipalities with their own animal control ordinances, to help the offset the cost of the HSHV contract. Those entities are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township.

Several commissioners expressed concern that the county is essentially in the same position as it was when this process began. Wes Prater objected to the fact that the county’s procurement policy wasn’t being followed, because a request for proposals (RFP) wasn’t issued.  Ultimately, a sufficient number of commissioners agreed to back the resolution, giving it final approval. The contract itself will not require authorization by the board.

In another move related to animal control services, the board gave final approval to a civil infractions ordinance, giving the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. [.pdf of proposed ordinance] In the context of animal control, 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.

Commissioners also debated options for changing their own compensation, ultimately giving initial approval to boost their base salaries from $15,500 to $15,750 annually and replacing per diem payments with stipends, effective Jan. 1, 2013. An amendment by Yousef Rabhi also increased the pay for chairs of the ways & means committee and the working session – bringing them to the same level as the board chair, at $3,000 more annually than the base salary of other commissioners. Voting against the changes as amended were Dan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. A final vote is expected at the board’s Dec. 5 meeting, when a final vote on the overall 2013 budget will also occur.

In non-budget items, Dan Smith brought forward a resolution to rescind the board’s previous support for a regional transit authority (RTA) that’s being proposed in Lansing. The RTA would include the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. Conan Smith has been an advocate for that effort, both as chair of the county board and in his role as executive director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance. During deliberations on the item, some commissioners criticized Conan Smith for acting on behalf of the board and not keeping them fully informed. Wes Prater felt Conan Smith’s actions reflected disrespect for other commissioners – but Smith said he meant no disrespect.

A sense of disrespect was also felt by a resident who attended the Nov. 7 meeting to advocate for the county’s help in establishing a daytime warming center for the homeless. Alexandra Hoffman chastised the board because no commissioner responded to commentary about a warming center, and instead the remarks by advocates for the center had been followed by “disturbingly lighthearted talk about haircuts.”

Hoffman was referring to an announcement earlier in the meeting by Yousef Rabhi, whose hair is longer than any other commissioner, male or female. He hopes to get donations of $500 for every inch he cuts, to raise money for three local nonprofits: Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, Interfaith Hospitality Network, and SafeHouse Center. Rabhi told Hoffman that he was simply trying to raise awareness and money for the same issues that the warming center advocates supported.

The meeting fell the day after the Nov. 6 general election, which had resulted in the defeat of two of the nine commissioners who were running for re-election: Republican Rob Turner and Democrat Wes Prater. In District 1, Turner was outpolled by Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz, decreasing the number of Republicans on the future nine-member board from three to two. Republican Alicia Ping won the District 3 seat over Prater – as the two incumbents faced each other due to redistricting that took effect with this election cycle. The last meeting for Turner and Prater – as well as for Democrats Leah Gunn and Barbara Bergman, who did not seek re-election – will be on Dec. 5.

It’s likely that the new board, which takes office in January, will eventually deal with a controversial topic that was raised during an appointments caucus on Nov. 7: Possible consolidation of the Washtenaw County road commission with county operations. During the caucus, held immediately prior to the regular meeting, Conan Smith suggested not yet reappointing the one road commissioner, Doug Fuller, whose term is expiring – though Fuller will continue to serve. Smith wanted to give the new county board some flexibility in discussing the future of the road commission. Some of the other issues emerging during the appointments caucus related to the role of the county’s historic district commission, economic development corporation, and the criminal justice community collaborative.

Commissioner Compensation

For Washtenaw County commissioners, changes to compensation for an upcoming term must be set by the board before that term starts. So for the two-year term beginning in January 2013, any changes in compensation must be made before the end of 2012. After the Nov. 6 election, the board had only two meetings to act regarding compensation: on Nov. 7 and Dec. 5.

At an Oct. 18 working session, board chair Conan Smith had indicated his intent to bring forward a proposal on commissioner compensation. Then on Nov. 5, two days before their meeting, Smith had emailed commissioners a draft proposal that he described as “a straw-man policy to poke at.” [.pdf of proposal emailed from Smith to the board]

At the Nov. 7 meeting, he introduced the resolution by noting that there had been many conversations among commissioners about compensation, and that his proposal was based on input from those conversations.

Most commissioners currently are paid a salary of $15,500. Smith said that in discussing the issue with county administrator Verna McDaniel, she had initially suggested setting the salary at half the median salary for county employees. But several commissioners had indicated to him that this calculation resulted in a salary that was higher than they could agree to, he said.

Washtenaw County commissioners Felicia Brabec and Conan Smith.

So the proposed amount of $15,750 was calculated by indexing it to one-half the median “step” of the lowest grade salary among county employees. According to a memo accompanying the resolution, Step 4 of Grade 12 (AFSCME Local 2733) is $31,507.75 – half of that amount is $15,753.88.  Smith’s resolution directed future boards to adjust commissioner salaries based on this same calculation.

Officers of the board currently earn more than other commissioners. The board chair, Conan Smith, is currently paid $18,500. The board vice chair, Alicia Ping, earns $16,000, while chairs of the board’s ways & means committee (Rolland Sizemore Jr.) and working session (Yousef Rabhi) are each paid $16,500.

Smith’s proposal recommended eliminating pay for vice chairs. He noted that only nine commissioners will serve on the next board, due to redistricting, compared to the current 11 members. Giving extra pay to chairs and vice chairs would mean that six of the nine commissioners – a supermajority – would be receiving extra compensation. So Smith proposed that vice chairs receive the same base salary as other commissioners, unlike the current compensation arrangement.

For chairs, Smith proposed keeping the same “bump up” – an extra $3,000 for the board chair, and an extra $1,000 each for the chairs of the ways & means committee and the working session.

Currently, commissioners also have a $3,550 flex account to use for per diem and mileage reimbursements, training or other authorized expenses. For example, a per diem of $25 per authorized meeting is allowed, as is mileage driven to those meetings – at a rate of $0.555 per mile. Some commissioners don’t use their flex accounts, however, and most don’t use the entire amount. The payments are administered through the county clerk’s office.

Smith proposed replacing the current per diem system – which requires that commissioners submit a request for payment – and instead paying commissioners an automatic stipend as part of their compensation. The total stipend amounts would be capped at the flex account level of $3,550 per commissioner.

The stipends would be calculated based on the number of committees or boards to which a commissioner is appointed, as well as the number of meetings that each of those groups is expected to hold. 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. At the high end, more than 24 meetings would pay $1,000. Appointments of commissioners to boards and committees will be made at the beginning of 2013.

On Smith’s proposal, commissioners would be able to waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk. According to a two-page document provided by Smith, stipends would be pro-rated, aggregated and paid out biweekly as part of a commissioner’s paycheck. [.pdf of draft stipend guidelines]

In explaining his rationale for the change to stipend payments, Smith said it’s important to make sure that serving on the board is accessible to everyone. People who are paid hourly shouldn’t have to choose between their job and their passion for serving the county, he said. The change also takes away the paperwork involved, he said, and attempts to be fair without adding complexity to the system.

Per diems came under fire during the 2010 election season, and resulted in repayment – by most commissioners who were on the board at that time – of a portion of their per diem requests that were determined to be ineligible under board rules. Smith was one of the last commissioners to make a repayment, doing so only in early 2012 and agreeing to repay only some of the money he had been deemed ineligible to claim, in an arrangement that appears to have taken place outside the independent review process. [See Chronicle coverage: "Compensation Change for County Board?"]

The proposed changes do not affect mileage payments – commissioners can continue to request reimbursement for mileage to authorized meetings. Nor does it affect fringe benefits. Fringe benefits include $1,163 that the county pays into a retirement account for each commissioner, as well as payment of 50% of health care insurance if the commissioner chooses to obtain health care through the county as a part-time employee.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate

Wes Prater asked whether these changes in per diem would apply to payments for members of the general public who serve on county committees and commissions. Conan Smith said the policy for those positions would be set by the next board at the beginning of 2013 – so there would be no changes to those per diem payments at this time.

Prater objected to the fact that there was no accountability built into the system for attendance. He also noted that depending on how many appointments a commissioner had, the stipend approach could account for a significant increase in overall compensation.

Smith replied that only one appointment – to the county road commission – would require more than 20 meetings per year. His thinking, Smith said, was that the road commission work is more intense than other appointments and that the other people at those meetings – the three road commissioners, who are appointed by the county board – each receive $10,000 in annual compensation.

Dan Smith thanked Conan Smith for his work in putting together this proposal. D. Smith said he’d given it a lot of thought, and had talked with a few other commissioners about the issue. The approach of using stipends recognizes that there’s work involved on these appointments that doesn’t entail just going to meetings, he said. He supported that approach, but not the salary increase.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate – Proposed Amendment (Salary Unchanged)

Saying that he felt it was the wrong time for a salary increase, Dan Smith proposed an amendment that would keep base salaries at the current level of $15,500. He liked the idea of pegging the salary to a specific level tied to other county employees’ compensation – he felt that was appropriate. But that should be left to future boards to implement. Regarding the argument that salaries hadn’t increased with inflation (a rationale for the increase that had been noted by Conan Smith in his cover memo for the resolution), Dan Smith said that previous boards could have addressed it, but didn’t. When the current commissioners took office, they were aware of the compensation level. As for the rationale that commissioners will be shouldering more work because the board will be smaller due to redistricting, Smith noted that other county employees also are being asked to do more work for about the same amount they’ve previously been paid.

In two years, the economic situation might be different and the next board could reconsider an increase, Dan Smith said. He moved to amend the resolution to keep salary levels unchanged.

Outcome: There was no second to this amendment, so it did not move forward for a vote.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate – Proposed Amendment (Stipends at $200)

Dan Smith then argued that the proposed schedule of stipend payments – with different pay based on the number of meetings that each board, committee or commission was expected to meet – was simply “putting per diems in stipends’ clothing.”

Here’s the stipend schedule:

Proposed stipend schedule of payments for Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Rather than use this approach, Smith proposed making a flat $200 stipend per appointment.

Conan Smith said he’d been grappling with how to deal with the different workloads of certain appointments. The stipend schedule was an attempt to reflect those differing workloads. He suggested that they try this approach for one term, to see if it ameliorates the discrepancy between appointments with only one meeting per year, and those that require 24.

Outcome: The proposed amendment failed, with support only from Dan Smith.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate – Proposed Amendment (No Stipends for Quorum)

Dan Smith cited a section of the proposed general policies that referred to meetings that are attended by a quorum of the board:

a. The Board of Commissioners shall identify the boards, committees and commissions eligible for compensatory service in its Rules and Regulations.
i. The Board of Commissioners may include on the list of eligible bodies any committee, subcommittee meeting or Working Session of the Board, provided that its meetings have been noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Act, Public Act 267 of 1976.

He moved to strike (i), noting that these meetings should be part of the board’s regular work that’s covered by salaries, and should not be eligible for extra compensation.

Outcome: The amendment passed, with dissent from Alicia Ping. This means that regular board meetings, ways & means committee meetings, and working sessions will not be included in calculations for board stipends.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate – Proposed Amendment (Extra for Chairs)

The original proposal called for the chair of the board to earn $3,000 more than the base salary, and for the chairs of the ways & means committee and working session to earn $1,000 more. [A friendly amendment offered by Dan Smith changed the description of those latter two positions to "chairs of permanent standing committees."]

Alicia Ping objected to having different levels of increased pay for the chairs, saying that all chairs should get equal increases. The chair of the board is just a ceremonial figurehead, she said, and not more important than other commissioners. Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he’s served as chair for all three groups, and reported that it’s far easier to be chair of the working session. If you’re a good board chair, he said, “you’re working all the time.”

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Conan Smith reported that when he was previously chair of ways & means, he attended budget planning meetings every other week, as well as meetings to plan for those budget sessions. None of those were eligible for per diems, he said. Now, as board chair, there are many “ministerial” duties – such as signing contracts – that eat up time, he said.

Yousef Rabhi proposed an amendment giving all chairs a $3,000 increase.

His amendment was supported by Conan Smith, who said the board will “work our chairs to death next year.” Smith cited a range of issues that the board will be dealing with: planning and policy decisions for the 2014-2015 budget, implementation of the new animal control arrangement, and the possibility of incorporating the road commission into the county operations. He also noted that a smaller nine-member board will mean a greater workload for everyone.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. objected to the change, noted that they’d been talking about the need to save money, but are now increasing expenses.

Rabhi said his intent was to reflect the leadership roles of the different chairs. He believed they should work as a team, and that their pay should be equal because of that. [There was no proposal or discussion about equalizing the pay by decreasing the chair's extra compensation to $1,000.]

The initial vote on this amendment was taken as a voice vote, but the outcome was unclear. A roll call vote was taken instead.

Outcome: The amendment passed on a 7-3 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Rob Turner. Ronnie Peterson was absent. This means that all officers of the board will be paid $3,000 above the base salary.

Commissioner Compensation: Board Debate – Vote on Main Resolution

There was little additional discussion on the main resolution.

Outcome: Changes to compensation, as amended, were given initial approval on an 8-2 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Ronnie Peterson was absent. The final vote will come on Dec. 5.

Humane Society Contract

A Nov. 7 agenda item called for the county board to authorize contracting with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 annually. It would enable the administration to contract with HSHV for up to four years, with the option of adjusting the contract.

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, county administrator Verna McDaniel has received preliminary commitments from five municipalities that have their own animal control ordinances, and that have agreed to help the offset the cost of the HSHV contract. Those entities are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township. The memo states that those local governments have agreed to execute contracts with the county to provide funding for animal control services. The Nov. 7 resolution also authorized McDaniel to finalize contracts with each of these local entities. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”]

Conan Smith, the board’s chair, introduced the resolution by praising Rob Turner for his leadership on this issue, helping “with what could have been really treacherous waters.” Turner served on both the board’s policy task force and a separate group led by sheriff Jerry Clayton that helped determine the cost of HSHV services.

Humane Society Contract: Board Debate

Leah Gunn led off the discussion by calling it a “gnarly” problem, adding that she’d reluctantly support this resolution. She said she was “vexed,” contending that HSHV had never presented the county with a cost-per-dog amount, and never told the county how many dogs the county is responsible for. The county is not responsible for animals brought to HSHV that have owners. “We should not be responsible for people’s pets,” she said. Gunn concluded by saying she’d support the resolution out of respect for commissioner Rob Turner and county administrator Verna McDaniel, who had worked hard on it. But she also hoped to get more specific information from HSHV in the future.

Washtenaw County commissioner Rob Turner (District 1).

Turner replied, saying he apologized if the cost breakdown wasn’t adequately shared, but he said that HSHV had provided the information. It works out to about $38 per day for stray dogs, he said, with an average 10-day hold. Just for stray dogs, HSHV calculated its annual cost for county services at about $542,000. In addition, the cost for handling animal cruelty cases is about $350,000, Turner said. So the total cost of county services provided by HSHV is about $890,000. He said the resolution is intended to get the county as close as possible to covering HSHV’s actual costs.

Responding to a question from Barbara Bergman, Turner reported that the costs don’t include a calculation of HSHV’s in-kind volunteer services. If that amount were included, it would increase the cost to $50-$60 per day, he said.

Bergman said she’d support the resolution reluctantly, but “I’m not happy about it.” Basic needs like food and shelter come first for her, she said, so she’d be diverting her charitable contributions to organizations that provide food for those in need.

Humane Society Contract: Board Debate – Procurement Policy

Wes Prater argued that the county’s procurement policy requires the county to issue a request for proposals (RFP). That policy isn’t being followed, he said, so the board is doing business in a way that violates county policy. Is this the kind of organization they’re going to run in a lame-duck session? he asked.

Prater observed that the county has been “diddling around” with this issue for two years. When commissioners adopted the general fund budget in 2011, they allocated $250,000 for animal control services in 2012 and 2013. Yet here they are, back at the previous $500,000 annual level, he said. Prater maintained that they were violating county policy and they shouldn’t be handling the situation in this way.

Prater noted that the resolution being considered by the board didn’t include a scope of services for the HSHV contract, or even a list of state-mandated services that the county is required to provide, to indicate whether the county is in compliance. Commissioners took an oath of office to uphold the law, he said, “and we’re absolutely not doing it.”

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger responded to Prater’s concerns. HSHV is the only qualified, licensed entity within Washtenaw County that can provide these services, he said. The procurement policy has a provision for awarding sole-source contracts, at the discretion of the administrator. The board could still require a competitive bid, he said, but it’s important to take into account the cost of going outside the county for those services.

Prater replied that the county has contracts frequently with out-of-county vendors. Hedger noted that in this case, using such an entity would mean that Washtenaw County residents would be required to travel farther in order to pick up their pets. Prater indicated that if people wanted their pets, they could go and get them – regardless of the location.

Humane Society Contract: Board Debate – Amendment (Contract Adjustments)

Dan Smith was concerned about the first resolved clause – specifically, the phrase “with the potential to adjust for inflation.”

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the County Administrator to work with the Office of Corporation Counsel to finalize and execute a contract for up to four years with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 per year, with the potential to adjust for inflation.

Smith noted that the state’s Proposition A puts a cap on increases of taxable value at no more than 5% per year. [The state ballot initiative, passed by voters in 1994, put in place a cap of 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.] If inflation increases at a higher rate than 5%, then HSHV would be paid a higher increase than the county was getting in property tax revenues. He suggested amending the clause to substitute the phrase “with the potential to adjust based on property tax revenue changes.”

There was some confusion about the meaning and intent of Smith’s suggested amendment. Alicia Ping wondered how it would work, and how it would relate to inflation changes as measured by the CPI (consumer price index).

County administrator Verna McDaniel suggested changing the language of the resolution to put a 3% cap in place for potential contract increases.

Conan Smith observed that inflation affects the HSHV’s cost of providing services, while Dan Smith’s amendment ties any contract changes to the county’s ability to pay – a wiser approach, Conan Smith said. It recognizes the opportunity for increases, but limits it to an amount that’s within the county’s ability to pay.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, pointed out that the word “potential” in the original clause was intended to provide the county with flexibility in negotiations. There was no requirement to adjust the contract amount.

Ping at one point indicated she’d like to amend Dan Smith’s amendment to include a 3% cap on any potential increases, as McDaniel had suggested. Conan Smith said he’d oppose that move because it would put an additional constraint on potential increases – a limit lower than the state’s 5% cap. He liked pegging any change to the county’s revenues in a straightforward way.

Barbara Bergman expressed concern about the potential of handing HSHV several million dollars, describing it as a “windfall” that none of the commissioners would want to consider. Conan Smith said that although the board wouldn’t need to approve the contract that McDaniel negotiates, commissioners would still be able to see it. The resolution they were voting on that night sets a framework for negotiations, he said. It doesn’t guarantee that the contract amount will be higher or lower in the future.

Saying that the discussion had become ridiculous, Ping withdrew her proposed 3% cap amendment. The vote then centered on a slightly revised version of Dan Smith’s original amendment (new language in italics):

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the County Administrator to work with the Office of Corporation Counsel to finalize and execute a contract for up to four years with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 per year, with the potential to adjust for inflation on the basis of the rate of taxable value change.

Outcome: The amendment passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent from Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Humane Society Contract: Board Debate – Amendment (New Revenue)

Several commissioners expressed concern about the final resolved clause. It stated:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners declares that new animal control related revenue or increased contractual revenue from those local governmental entities, which maintain their own animal control ordinances which may be identified during the four-year contract period between the County and Humane Society of Huron Valley, shall be directed to the Humane Society for Huron Valley.

Yousef Rabhi felt that this opened the door too much, and that it was not proper to direct all new revenue to HSHV. If there is additional revenue, the board should decide how it’s allocated, he said. Rabhi noted that he had asked for this clause to be removed from the draft, and wondered why it had been left in.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said there was keen interest on the part of HSHV to defray more of their costs, which she said they estimate to be closer to $800,000 annually for services provided to the county. This clause about new revenue was seen as a way to make the new contract more appealing to the HSHV board, she said.

Rabhi proposed adding an additional sentence: “Any other animal control-related revenue will be used to provide animal control services as directed by the board of commissioners.”

Conan Smith said the board had discussed how the county would likely incur costs related to enforcement of the animal control ordinance, so it would be appropriate to offset those costs with additional revenue.

Wes Prater objected again to the way the process was being handled, saying it didn’t make any sense to him – the county was giving HSHV absolute control of the purse strings. “I just can’t believe this is happening!”

Outcome: The amendment passed on a 9-1 vote, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Humane Society Contract: Board Debate – Concluding Remarks

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he wouldn’t support this resolution. He felt that the administrator should bring back the contract with HSHV for approval – saying items like this should be approved by the board. He also had a “real problem” with HSHV, saying they hadn’t offered to help or provide any suggestions to address new ways of handling animal control services. The county will be negotiating with its unions and asking for cuts, he said, yet commissioners are prepared to give HSHV whatever it wants “without any questions.”

Commissioners Yousef Rabhi and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Sizemore also objected to the county “picking up the slack” of other communities that had their own animal control ordinances.

Rob Turner responded, noting that at the meetings held over the past few months by the policy task force and the sheriff’s working group, HSHV members had brought up many suggestions and ideas. HSHV has been very pro-active, he said. Although many of the other communities with animal control ordinances already have their budgets in place for 2013, Turner said, if the county can work out a longer-term contract with HSHV, it’s possible that negotiations can occur with those communities and that they’ll provide more revenues in the future.

Sizemore noted that if those communities don’t pay the county, there’s no recourse. Turner believed the county could withhold providing animal control services for those communities, if they didn’t pay. That’s a big incentive, Turner said. Sizemore countered by saying that the county would have to take responsibility for some of those services anyway, because of its state mandate.

Dan Smith said he was deeply bothered by this whole process. He characterized it as returning to “square one” – that is, the $500,000 level that the county had paid in 2011. There have been meetings on top of meetings, he said, with apparently no progress and insufficient information provided. He described the $38-per-day amount as “obscenely high,” equating it to payments for a $225,000 mortgage. For two dogs at $76 a day, it could provide them a pretty nice hotel room, he joked.

The proposal doesn’t seem like a solution, Smith said. It seems like the board is just putting the problem away for four years. Animal control services are one of the few mandated services for which the county uses a third-party contractor, and it creates a whole host of questions about who interprets the mandate, he said. Saying that he wished they had made more progress, Smith said he’d be voting no on the resolution.

Alicia Ping disagreed with Smith. The intent was never to get services at a lower level, she said. Rather, the process was intended to arrive at a determination about the cost of providing those services. Whether Smith agreed with the amount was irrelevant, she said. “The cost is what the cost is.” Ping didn’t feel the process had been a waste of anyone’s time, and she felt that the board had all the information they needed.

Ping then called the question, a procedural move intended to end debate and force a vote. The vote on calling the question was unanimous.

Outcome: The main resolution as amended passed on a 7-3 vote. Voting against the resolution were Dan Smith, Wes Prater and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

Civil Infractions Ordinance

An agenda item later in the meeting – also related to animal control services – asked commissioners to give final approval to a civil infractions ordinance. The ordinance would give the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. [.pdf of proposed ordinance] The board had taken an initial vote on the resolution at its Oct. 17, 2012 meeting.

In the context of animal control, 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 proposed 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 dog licenses would provide additional revenue to be used for animal control services.

Civil Infractions Ordinance – Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge was the only person to speak during a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. He objected to “unnamed civil infractions and unnamed enforcers” that he believed would target people who are unable to protect themselves or unable to keep up their homes like country clubs with manicured lawns. He advocated that the board vote down the entire ordinance.

Outcome: There was no discussion on this item and it was approved unanimously as part of the board’s consent agenda.

2013 Budget Reaffirmation

At their Nov. 7 meeting, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a 2013 general fund budget of $102.84 million, with a net increase of one full-time position. [.pdf of proposed 2013 budget]

The county works on a two-year budget planning cycle. In late 2011, commissioners set the budget for 2012 and 2013. However, state law mandates that the board must approve the budget annually. So this year, the vote on a budget is an “reaffirmation” for 2013, including several proposed adjustments. The original 2013 budget proposed a year ago was for general fund revenues and expenses of $97.066 million – $5.774 million less than the current proposal.

Property taxes typically account for about 63% of revenues, and the general fund budget is based on an operating millage rate of 4.5493 mills. Because property values have not decreased as much as originally anticipated, the county expects about $2.4 million more in property tax revenues for 2013 than it had previously accounted for in the 2013 budget. The budget assumes that property tax revenues will be 2% lower than in 2012. The 2013 budget includes a planned use of $3.287 million from the fund balance. Of that, about $2 million is estimated to be carried over from a budget surplus in 2012.

The largest expenditures relate to personnel, which accounts for 66% of general fund expenses. The proposed 2013 budget shows a $4.7 million increase in that category, compared to the original 2013 budget that commissioners approved in 2011. According to a staff memo, those additional costs relate to increases in fringe benefits, medical costs, and a higher number retirees than expected. There were 118 retirements in 2011, which added to pension costs.

2013 Budget Affirmation: Board Discussion – Borrowing from Fund Balances

Commissioners asked several questions for clarification. Dan Smith also raised concerns over one of the new policies that accompanied the budget resolution. It allows the county to replenish the general fund balance by “borrowing” from other county fund balances:

37. Due to the change in the timing of the collection of property tax revenue, which is now seven months into operations of a fiscal year, there is the likelihood that the General Fund (1010) cash balance may be depleted to a negative balance prior to the collection of the July tax levy. In the event the General Fund (1010) does experience a negative cash balance funds held within the Capital Reserve Fund (4060), Capital Equipment Fund (4010), and the 1/8 Mill Capital Improvement Fund (4010) may be utilized to be borrowed from as these funds are supported by allocated general revenues. In the event these funds have insufficient cash balances to address the negative balance within the General Fund other funds within the pooled cash account may be borrowed from. All funds borrowed will be repaid immediately upon collection of the July property tax levy.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, explained that the policy makes transparent the process of providing a financial buffer, as the county awaits receipt of tax revenues that aren’t available until July. From May until July, the general fund cash balance gets “really lean,” she said. This policy allows the county to borrow from its other fund balances to replenish the general fund until those July tax revenues are available. Then, the money is returned to the other fund balances.

Administrative analyst Elaine Holleran gives a handout to county commissioner Dan Smith during the Nov. 7 meeting.

Dan Smith noted that by using these other fund balances, there was no need to pay interest when borrowing occurred. But he wondered why this policy was needed now, though it apparently hadn’t been needed in the past?

Belknap replied that the county’s reserve of state-shared revenues, which previously had been as high as $26 million, had helped provide the kind of buffer that was needed. But as those funds have been spent – the reserves will be depleted in 2013 – that buffer is gone.

Smith thought the situation provided an argument for building up the general fund balance. That way, there wouldn’t be the need for borrowing. He said the proposed policy set an extremely dangerous precedent, creating a habit that the county shouldn’t start. Smith noted that when the county received higher-than-expected property tax revenues in 2012, those revenues were spent, not saved. He also wasn’t happy about the $5.7 million increase in the 2013 general fund budget. The county is still in dire financial straits, he said. “We need to bank that money, not spend it.”

Alicia Ping wondered whether there were any regulations over this kind of internal borrowing. She was especially concerned about the timing, and didn’t want the county to start dipping into those borrowed funds any sooner than was absolutely necessary. Belknap said the board could set any parameters it wanted – it was all county money. The goal is to not borrow until as close to July as possible, she said. Belknap also noted that the county hasn’t needed to draw as much from the fund balance as it has budgeted for in 2012, and she hoped that trend would continue in 2013.

Both Belknap and county administrator Verna McDaniel acknowledged the need to build the fund balance. McDaniel said it was about $4-5 million away from being stable – a level that could secure a better bond rating for the county.

At the end of 2012, the general fund balance is expected to be $16.544 million. The 2013 budget calls for using $3.287 million from the fund balance, with a projected balance of $13.257 million at the end of 2013. A year ago, the county had anticipated needing to draw more than that from the fund balance in 2013 – $3.805 million.

2013 Budget Affirmation: Board Discussion – Long-Term Liabilities

Wes Prater was concerned about the county’s long-term liabilities, which he pegged at $430 million. In 2007, he noted, that amount had been about $379 million – it had grown nearly $50 million in five years. Kelly Belknap pointed out that the amount Prater referred to included not just retirement obligations but all long-term liabilities, including debt from bonds for public works and other capital projects.

Prater said the county needed to take these liabilities seriously, and that they couldn’t afford to accumulate those amounts at the same rate each year.

Outcome: Initial approval for the 2013 budget was given on a 9-1 7-3 vote, with dissent from Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Ronnie Peterson was absent. A final vote and public hearing will occur at the board’s Dec. 5 meeting.

Public Transportation

At the county board’s Oct. 17, 2012 meeting, commissioner Wes Prater had asked for an update about proposed state legislation regarding creation of a regional transit authority (RTA) for southeast Michigan – the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. Conan Smith has been an advocate for that effort, both as chair of the county board and in his role as executive director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance.

About a year ago, at its Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, the board unanimously passed a resolution of support for the RTA. From then until the Oct. 17 meeting, little discussion of the RTA has taken place at commission meetings, and several commissioners seemed unaware of the county’s level of involvement in that effort.

At the county board’s Nov. 7 meeting, Dan Smith brought forward a resolution to rescind the board’s previous support. [.pdf of resolution to rescind support of the RTA]

The resolution also stated that the board opposes any other legislation that would involve Washtenaw County in an RTA:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners opposes legislation which would include Washtenaw County in a Regional Transportation Authority, which does not protect:

• The ability of county entities to manage designated transportation funding.
• The right of county entities to independently mange a transit system.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners supports the concept of a Regional Transportation Authority to enhance interconnectivity among the communities of the southeast Michigan region, but feels that Washtenaw County and the voters thereof should determine when to join the Authority.

Smith’s original draft – which was distributed to commissioners – had included references to specific pending state legislation. After a sidebar discussion with Conan Smith, Dan Smith revised the language to eliminate the citations to HB 5309 and SB 909.

Public Transportation: Board Debate

During deliberations, Conan Smith and Yousef Rabhi both thanked Dan Smith for “softening” the resolution, though both said they couldn’t support it, despite that change.

Rabhi said he was very supportive of the RTA legislation, and he knew that everyone in Lansing believed more amendments were needed. That process is underway, he said. Rabhi noted that when he and Barbara Bergman had been appointed to an advocacy group called R-PATH (Regional Partners Advocating Transit Here), they attended meetings at which a range of concerns had been aired. Yet the overwhelming sense was support for the general concept of the RTA, he said. Regional transit has been tried many times but has failed in the past because everyone wanted to hold on to their turf, he said.

Conan Smith spoke at length about the challenges and need for the RTA. It’s been a complicated process that they’ve been working on for more than a year, he said. The interests of Washtenaw County have been difficult to elevate because of the relative size in population and the weight that it carries. But as home to major universities, the county has an extraordinary role to play, he said. The vision of the future – of Detroit as a vibrant urban area – is compromised by the current reality. It’s a mighty mountain to climb, he said, and there’s a long way to go.

Commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

Conan Smith also summarized several issues and concerns that had been raised by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority in regards to a possible RTA, including the impact of federal pass-through funds to the AATA, the ability to set fares and schedules, and the issue of providing sufficient funding for local transit services.

Saying he felt he’d be compromising his past conversations with the governor and others if he didn’t support the RTA, Conan Smith said he’d reluctantly oppose Dan Smith’s resolution, though he agreed with its values.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he wasn’t happy that Conan Smith had gone to Lansing and the Mackinac Policy Conference without informing the board. Yet noting that he serves on the board of the Detroit Region Aerotropolis, Sizemore wondered if the county board would be shooting itself in the foot by not supporting an RTA. He wasn’t sure how he would vote, but he did want the board to be updated regularly about these efforts. County residents should be informed, too, he said.

Wes Prater supported the RTA, but said it should be the county board that’s involved, not just the chair. It bothers him when someone speaks on behalf of the board “when they really don’t have the authority to do so.” Other commissioners don’t know what kind of commitments Conan Smith made, he said. “I think you disrespect us – I really do.”

Prater said the situation is becoming like the contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which was discussed earlier in the meeting. It seems like the RTA would provide very little service in Washtenaw County, he said – just a stop in Ypsilanti and at Ann Arbor’s Blake Transit Center. He didn’t see that as being beneficial, and he wondered how much it would cost and how it would be paid for. “We should have learned from what happened with AATA,” Prater said, alluding to the effort to expand transit under an Act 196 authority.

[The following evening, at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council voted to opt out of the Act 196 authority. The action effectively ends that particular approach to expanded public transit, although the council's resolution did call for continued discussion of regional transportation options. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "End of Road for County Transit Effort?"]

Conan Smith apologized to Prater, saying he did not lack respect for his colleagues. At times, all commissioners are called on to speak on behalf of the county, he said. There was never any intent on his part to sneak anything past the board.

Rob Turner called the question, to end debate and force a vote on Dan Smith’s resolution. The vote to call the question passed over dissent by Conan Smith and Felicia Brabec.

Outcome: The resolution rescinding support of the RTA passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent from Conan Smith, Yousef Rabhi, Felicia Brabec and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

The board had originally scheduled an update on the RTA for its Nov. 8 working session – from Gary Owen with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., the Lansing-based firm that serves as the county’s lobbyist on state issues. However, following the board’s action on Nov. 7, that update was cancelled.

Appointments

The board made a raft of appointments to various boards, committees and commissions at its Nov. 7 meeting. Although there was no discussion other than a reading of the appointees’ names during that meeting, commissioners had discussed the choices for about an hour during an appointments caucus held immediately prior to the evening’s regular meeting. [.pdf of appointments application grid]

Appointments – Public Commentary

Benjamin Muth addressed the board during public commentary, saying he was there to advocate for his application to the Huron River Watershed Council. He wanted commissioners to see him and understand his intent. He’s a graduate of the Vermont Law School, which he described as the nation’s top environmental law school. He said he was born and raised in Michigan, and wanted to return to practice law here – specifically, a focus on water law to protect the Great Lakes. According to the cover letter and resumé provided to the board, Muth was born in Ann Arbor and attended Pioneer High School.

He told commissioners that he understood that the decision about appointments might already have been made. If so, he hoped they would consider him for future appointments. In addition to HRWC, he listed several other areas of interest, including the natural areas technical advisory committee, the agricultural lands preservation advisory committee, and the brownfield redevelopment authority.

Muth concluded his remarks by stating, “If you give me the opportunity, I’d like to go to work for you.”

Commissioner Alicia Ping told Muth that the appointments had been determined, but that they were excited he had attended the meeting. She said she was sure that when there’s an opening, he’d be getting a call.

Appointments – Pre-Meeting Caucus

All but one of the 11 commissioners attended an hour-long appointments caucus that began at 5:30 p.m. on Nov. 7, prior to the start of the 6:30 p.m. ways & means committee meeting. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

Commissioners were given a packet of materials that included cover letters and resumés for most applicants, as well as a grid that provided: (1) brief summaries of each board, committee or commission; (2) an indication of the number and types of appointments that were needed (some appointments require certain qualifications); and (3) a list of people who had applied.

Yousef Rabhi suggested that there are too many of these groups, and that a review is needed to see if some of them can be eliminated. If necessary, the responsibility for some groups could be shifted to others, he said.

Here are some highlights from that caucus discussion:

• Community Action Board: There were two open positions and two current members seeking reappointment: Mike DuRussell and Shoshana DeMaria. Conan Smith noted that in the past, the CAB had developed an “entitlement mentality” – that is, board members expected that in exchange for serving on the board, their groups would be awarded funding. That culture is changing, he said, but it’s been difficult. Other commissioners noted that the CAB members had also been accustomed to being paid for travel and meals at nice restaurants with their spouses. Leah Gunn described DuRussell, the current CAB chair, as not being “part of the problem” – she suggested that he be reappointed, and he was. However, DeMaria was not reappointed, and that position remains unfilled.
• Criminal Justice Community Collaborative: There were six vacancies but only three applicants, including two – Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran and Ann Arbor resident Mike Fried – who applied for reappointment. Barbara Bergman described CJCC as “basically pretty useless,” with nothing to do. Conan Smith reported that sheriff Jerry Clayton felt it should be dissolved. Smith noted that judges don’t attend the meetings: “It’s hard to collaborate with justice when justice isn’t there.” Wes Prater suggested looking at the resolution that created CJCC to see if its original purpose might be served by another group.
• Economic Development Corporation: There was one opening for a member of the general public. The current representative, Pam Horiszny, did not seek reappointment. She is CFO at the Ann Arbor YMCA, and a trustee of the Washtenaw Community College. There were five new applicants. However, Conan Smith said he’s interested in restructuring the EDC so that it could be a convening forum for members of other entities, like local downtown development authorities (DDAs), local development finance authorities (LDFAs) and other groups doing economic development work. The idea would be to help coordinate those activities countywide. In light of that, no appointments were recommended. [In March of 2012, The Chronicle covered on of the EDC's rare meetings: "County EDC: Money to Loan, But No Deals."]
• Historic District Commission: Conan Smith said he hoped to shift the HDC’s focus to be a driver of economic development. In the past, this group hasn’t leveraged its capacity in that regard, he said – by exploring tax credits for historic preservation, for example. Leah Gunn noted that the group tends to get bogged down in “minutia.” Smith wanted to appoint people who would see the value of their role in economic development. Though there were some concerns expressed about reappointing local attorney Jean King – as her health problems sometimes prevent participation. There were no other applicants to fill the required slot for an attorney, so she was reappointed. Other appointments were new to the HDC: Leslie Ledbetter, James Mann, Courtney Miller, and Tony Ramirez.
• Road Commission: Conan Smith suggested not making an appointment, but letting the current road commissioner whose term is expiring continue to serve. That road commissioner is Doug Fuller.  [The two other road commissioners are Fred Veigel and Ken Schwartz, a former county commissioner.] Smith wanted to wait until the board of commissioners could have a conversation next year about possible consolidation of the road commission with overall county operations. Currently, the road commission operates independently, although its governing board of three road commissioners is appointed by the county board. [Past attempts by the board to make changes at the road commission – to expand the number of commissioners, for example – have been contentious.]

Appointments – Board Vote

Outcome: Appointments were approved unanimously, without discussion.

Finance Policy

Two items were introduced during the meeting that related to finance policy.

The board was asked to authorize a policy on the use of lines of credit issued by vendors. According to a staff memo, using lines of credit reduces the need to issue employee credit cards, but there is not a current policy in place to ensure effective internal controls. [.pdf of resolution and policy]

During the Nov. 7 meeting, Kelly Belknap – the county’s finance director – told commissioners that the proposed policy simply formalizes what’s already in practice.

The board was also asked to approve an update to the county’s procurement policy. [.pdf of updated procurement policy, with changes highlighted] According to a staff memo, the changes do the following: (1) remove the procurement card process from the policy; (2) reflect the processes/internal controls regarding the use of a county credit card; and (3) direct departments to use environmentally appropriate products when appropriate. The memo notes that because banks offer the same limits and software for procurement cards and credit cards, there is no need for the county to use both types of cards.

Outcome: The two resolutions to the county’s finance policy were approved unanimously as part of the board’s consent agenda. Both initial and final approvals were given at the Nov. 7 meeting.

Coordinated Funding

A one-year extension for a pilot program using a “coordinated funding” model to support local human services was on the Nov. 7 agenda for final consideration. An initial vote had been taken on Oct. 17, 2012.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are the city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The Ann Arbor city council approved the one-year extension at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting.

The 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.

The total process puts $4.935 million into local human services nonprofits. The extension of the coordinated funding approach for a third year means that nonprofits receiving funding currently would not need to reapply for support. The extension by one year would allow for the evaluation process for the pilot period to finish, likely by early 2013. It would also allow a better opportunity to provide the outcome data on the program so far.

Coordinated Funding – Public Commentary

As she has on several occasions at meetings of the county board and other local governing bodies, Lily Au spoke against the coordinated funding approach.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board gave final approval to a one-year extension for the coordinated funding program.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Haircut for Charity

At the start of the meeting, Yousef Rabhi signaled that something was different by letting his nearly-waist-length hair down – he typically wears it tied back.

Rabhi announced that he hadn’t cut his hair in a long time, and he thought he’d get a haircut and turn it into a fundraiser, too. He hopes to raise $500 for every inch he cuts, to raise money for three local nonprofits: Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, Interfaith Hospitality Network, and SafeHouse Center. Supporting these shelters is especially important as winter approaches, he said.

Rabhi said he plans to give his hair to Locks of Love or a similar organization. The highest donors might also be able to vote on his new hairstyle. His goal is to make it a fun activity and engage the community while raising as much money as possible for these groups. He hopes to post a website for the effort by Thanksgiving, and run the fundraiser through year’s end.

Several commissioners pledged support. Conan Smith said he’d give $500 for the first inch, plus $50 for each quarter-inch of facial hair that Rabhi removed.

Dan Smith wondered if Rabhi intended to match the hairstyles of sheriff Jerry Clayton, corporate counsel Curtis Hedger or Greg Dill, infrastructure management director – all three men have shaved heads. Rabhi indicated he wasn’t sure he’d go that far. Wes Prater said he’d pledge $500 for the inch of hair that’s closest to Rabhi’s scalp.

Communications & Commentary: Warming Center

Four people addressed the board during public commentary about the need for a daytime warming center for the area’s homeless. Orian Zakai told commissioners that now, there are only two places for people to go during the day: (1) the Ann Arbor District Library, where you have to be careful not to fall asleep or you’ll get kicked out; and (2) a limited number of chairs at the Delonis Center, where you can stay during the day if you’re fortunate enough to be housed there, she said. Zakai described the Imagine Warming Centers effort, and said the group is now holding activities once a week at the Delonis Center. That’s successful, she said, but they need a permanent space.

Several supporters in the audience applauded after remarks by Zakai and two others who spoke in support of a warming center.

During the second opportunity for public commentary later in the meeting, Alexandra Hoffman said she hadn’t planned to speak. But there had been no commissioner response to the previous commentary about a warming center, she said, and instead their remarks had been followed by “disturbingly lighthearted talk about haircuts.” It’s important to talk about the successes in dealing with homelessness, she said, but it’s equally important to talk about failures. It’s atrocious that there’s no longer a daytime drop-in center at Delonis. The temperatures are already falling below freezing. The supporters of the Imagine Warming Centers are doing the best they can, but they need support, Hoffman said. She urged commissioners to please open the door, and not to be afraid of their own failings. Things can get better, she concluded, and commissioners can play a major role in that.

Yousef Rabhi – the commissioner who had introduced the “lighthearted talk about haircuts” – thanked those who had spoken and said it wasn’t his intent to make light of that situation. He had hoped to raise awareness and money for the issue that the speakers had addressed. Washtenaw County is great, but they can always do more, he said. Rabhi appreciated that the group was challenging the board on that. He noted that even though the county was under financial constraints because of the economy, they did not cut funding for nonprofits that provide human services. He said the county needs more citizen advocates, like those who had spoken to the board, to help understand the needs of the community.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. promised to try to find space that might be available in commercial buildings that aren’t currently occupied.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

In addition to the remarks reported previously in this article, Thomas Partridge spoke during one of the two general public commentary slots of the evening. He advocated for the county’s most vulnerable residents, urging the board to take action on addressing homelessness, affordable housing, public transit and other issues.

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

Absent: Ronnie Peterson.

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

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

The county would not likely pay that entire amount, however. According to a staff memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution, county administrator Verna McDaniel has received preliminary commitments from five municipalities that have their own animal control ordinances, and that have agreed to help the offset the cost of the HSHV contract. Those entities are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township. The memo states that those local governments have agreed to execute contracts with the county to provide funding for animal control services. The Nov. 7 resolution authorized McDaniel to finalize contracts with each of these local entities. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”]

Several commissioners expressed concern that the county is essentially at the same position as it was when this process began. Wes Prater objected to the fact that the county’s procurement policy wasn’t being followed, because a request for proposals (RFP) wasn’t issued. Leah Gunn and Barbara Bergman indicated that although they weren’t happy with the agreement, they would support the resolution in deference to the hard work of McDaniel fellow commissioner Rob Turner, who took the lead on this issue along with board chair Conan Smith. Ultimately, a sufficient number of commissioners agreed to back the resolution, giving it final approval.

In another move later in the meeting that’s related to animal control services, the board gave initial approval on Oct. 17 to a civil infractions ordinance, giving the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. [.pdf of proposed ordinance]

In the context of animal control, 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 proposed 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 dog licenses would provide additional revenue to be used for animal control services.

Commissioners gave final approval to the civil infractions ordinance at their Nov. 7 meeting, following a public hearing on the item. Only one person – Thomas Partridge – spoke during the hearing. He objected to it.

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

The meetings of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners are held at the county administration building at the corner of Main and Catherine in Ann Arbor.

County administrator Verna McDaniel is bringing forward a resolution for a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 annually – the same amount that HSHV was paid in 2011, before a controversial decision to cut funding for animal control services. HSHV’s current contract with the county, which expires on Dec. 31, is for $415,000. Originally, the county had planned to cut funding for mandated animal control services to $250,000 annually for 2012 and 2013.

If approved, the resolution would authorize a contract with HSHV for up to four years, and would direct McDaniel to seek separate contracts with other local governments to offset the county’s costs. According to a staff memo, five municipalities with their own animal control ordinances – the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township – have made preliminary commitments to help fund those services.

The new contract with HSHV would require a revision to the budget – one of several budget adjustments that are proposed for 2013. The county works on a two-year planning cycle, but must approve its budget annually. In late 2011, commissioners approved budgets for 2012 and 2013. On Nov. 7, the board will be asked to “reaffirm” the 2013 general fund budget, with revisions that bring revenues and expenditures to $102.84 million.  Commissioners will also receive a third-quarter budget update for 2012.

It’s possible that commissioners will make additional amendments to the 2013 budget at the meeting. For example, the agenda includes a placeholder item related to commissioner compensation. [See Chronicle coverage: "Compensation Change for County Board?"]

A public hearing on the 2013 budget is set for the board’s final meeting of the year, on Dec. 5. Commissioners are expected to take a final vote on the budget at that meeting.

Commissioners are also planning a caucus immediately prior to their Nov. 7 meeting, starting at 5:30 p.m., to discuss nominations to various county boards, commissions and committees. Those appointments are expected to be voted on at the board meeting later that evening.

Animal Control Services

In action related to how the county handles mandated and non-mandated animal control services, the board will consider a resolution authorizing a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for $500,000 annually. If approved, it would allow the administration to contract with HSHV for up to four years, with the option of adjusting the contract for inflation.

The county would not likely pay that entire amount, however. According to a staff memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution, county administrator Verna McDaniel has received preliminary commitments from five municipalities that have their own animal control ordinances, and that have agreed to help the offset the cost of the HSHV contract. Those entities are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township. The memo states that those local governments have agreed to execute contracts with the county to provide funding for animal control services. The Nov. 7 resolution would authorize McDaniel to finalize contracts with each of these local entities.

The $500,000 amount had been the level that the county paid HSHV in 2011. But late last year, the county proposed cutting that amount to $250,000 in both 2012 and 2013. Following protests by HSHV and its supporters, who argued that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover their costs, the county ultimately agreed to pay HSHV $415,000 in 2012. As part of that agreement, an effort began to develop a new policy for animal control services. [.pdf of policy task force report] The board also formed a work group, led by Sheriff Jerry Clayton, to analyze costs for services that HSHV provides. As part of that process, commissioners contemplated issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit other entities that could provide animal control services. [For recent Chronicle coverage, see: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”]

On Sept. 19, 2012, the board passed a resolution directing county administrator Verna McDaniel to start negotiations with HSHV on a new contract. The resolution also stated that if McDaniel didn’t believe sufficient progress was being made by the end of October, then she was authorized to issue an RFP to seek bids from other organizations.

At their Oct. 3 meeting, commissioners approved a set of recommendations to guide McDaniel in her negotiations. The service recommendations described in the Oct. 3 resolution include: (1) licensing all dogs at the point of adoption or recovery; (2) holding all stray animals for only the minimum number of days required by state law; (3) providing animal cruelty investigations; (4) holding animals for bite quarantine or other court-mandated reasons for the minimum time required by state law; (5) specifying by contract the required holding period, medical attention and basic humane care for animals; (6) posting information on the county website regarding animals that are available for adoption or recovery; (7) supporting county policies for registration and licensing of animals; and (8) establishing a monthly report for the county board of commissioners regarding animal control operating metrics.

And in a move that’s also related to animal control services, the board gave initial approval on Oct. 17 to a civil infractions ordinance, giving the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. [.pdf of proposed ordinance]

In the context of animal control, 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 proposed 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 dog licenses would provide additional revenue to be used for animal control services.

The civil infractions ordinance is on the Nov. 7 agenda for final approval. A public hearing on the item is scheduled for the same meeting.

2013 Revised Budget

The county works on a two-year budget planning cycle. In late 2011, commissioners set the budget for 2012 and 2013. However, state law mandates that the board must approve the budget annually. So on Nov. 7, a resolution is on the agenda to give initial approval to the budget “reaffirmation” for 2013, including several proposed adjustments. It’s also possible that commissioners will make additional amendments from the floor on Nov. 7. A final vote and public hearing on the 2013 budget will be held on Dec. 5 – the board’s last meeting of 2012. [.pdf of proposed 2013 budget]

A year ago, the 2013 budget was set at $97.066 million. Now, the 2013 budget proposed by the administration is $102.84 million – $5.774 million higher in both revenues and expenditures. Property taxes typically account for about 63% of revenues, and the general fund budget is based on an operating millage rate of 4.5493 mills. Because property values have not decreased as much as originally anticipated, the county expects about $2.4 million more in property tax revenues for 2013 than it had previously accounted for in the 2013 budget. The budget assumes that property tax revenues will be 2% lower than in 2012.

Among the other revenue sources expected in 2013 are the state revenue sharing/county incentive program ($2.7 million), and state convention facility/liquor tax funding.

Also on the revenue side, the 2013 budget includes a planned use of $3.287 million from the fund balance. Of that, about $2 million is estimated to be carried over from a budget surplus in 2012. Previously, the county had expected to use $1.8 million more than that from the fund balance in 2013 –  for a total $3.8 million. The fund balance is expected to be $16.54 million at the end of 2012, and would drop to $13.257 million in 2013.

The 2013 budget proposes a net increase of one full-time-equivalent (FTE) position – eight jobs are being created, and seven will be eliminated, including two county commissioner positions. [The commissioners are considered part-time positions for purposes of providing health insurance coverage and other benefits, but are included in this count as full-time positions.] Two additional jobs will be placed on “hold vacant” status.

The largest expenditures relate to personnel, which accounts for 66% of general fund expenses. The proposed 2013 budget shows a $4.7 million increase in that category, compared to the original 2013 budget that commissioners approved in 2011. According to a staff memo, those additional costs relate to increases in fringe benefits, medical costs, and a higher number retirees than expected. There were 118 retirements in 2011, which added to pension costs.

As part of information provided in the Nov. 7 board packet, a 52-page document is included that gives details about the expenditures and FTEs associated with mandated and discretionary county services, including the number of employees used to provide those services. [.pdf of mandated/discretionary services document]

2012 Third-Quarter Budget Update

Another budget-related item on the Nov. 7 agenda is a financial update on the third quarter of 2012 – the period from July 1 through Sept. 30. The most recent previous update – for the first six months of the year – was delivered at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting.

Washtenaw County general fund budget update for the first nine months of 2012.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The approval of recommendations works in concert with a directive already passed by the board at its Sept. 19 meeting. At that meeting, commissioners approved a resolution brought forward by Barbara Bergman that directed county administrator Verna McDaniel to begin negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley toward a new contract for animal control services. The resolution also stated that if McDaniel doesn’t believe sufficient progress is being made by Oct. 30, then she’s authorized to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to seek bids from other organizations.

The issue of how to handle animal control services – including state-mandated services as well as non-mandated services – dates back to budget cuts proposed in 2011. The county now has a contract with HSHV through the end of 2012. Early this year, the board formed a policy task force and a separate work group, led by Sheriff Jerry Clayton, to analyze costs for services that HSHV now provides. For the most recent Chronicle coverage of this effort, see: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”

At that Sept. 19 meeting, much of the debate centered on the fact that formal recommendations from the tasks force hadn’t yet been presented to the board. Those recommendations are intended to guide negotiations with HSHV, and to serve as the foundation for a possible RFP. There were also questions over how much flexibility McDaniel would have in her negotiations. The current 2013 budget has allocated $250,000 for animal control services. This year, the county is paying $415,000 to HSHV, down from $500,000 in 2011. Commissioners expect that the final amount negotiated for 2013 will be higher than the budgeted $250,000 – and if that’s the case, the board will need to amend the budget.

At the Sept. 19 meeting, Alicia Ping had objected to the process, saying that it could undercut HSHV’s position if the board eventually decides to issue an RFP, because other bidders would know how much HSHV is willing to bid. She had also objected to taking action without knowing the task force recommendations.

The service recommendations described in the Oct. 3 resolution include: (1) licensing all dogs at the point of adoption or recovery; (2) holding all stray animals for only the minimum number of days required by state law; (3) providing animal cruelty investigations; (4) holding animals for bite quarantine or other court-mandated reasons for the minimum time required by state law; (5) specifying by contract the required holding period, medical attention and basic humane care for animals; (6) posting information on the county website regarding animals that are available for adoption or recovery; (7) supporting county policies for registration and licensing of animals; and (8) establishing a monthly report for the county board of commissioners regarding animal control operating metrics.

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

Veterans attending the Sept. 19, 2012 Washtenaw County board meeting saluted the American flag during the Pledge of Allegiance.

The indigent veterans tax was uncontroversial. Several Vietnam veterans attended the meeting and spoke passionately about the need to support soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The tax was increased to 0.0286 mills, to be levied in December 2012. The current 0.025 mills brought in $344,486 in 2012. The increased millage is expected to raise $390,340 in revenues for use during 2013.

But a proposal by Conan Smith to increase the Act 88 millage generated debate, primarily related to procedural issues. On Sept. 5, commissioners had given initial approval to a tax of 0.05 mills, unchanged from the current rate. At the time, Smith raised the possibility of an increase to 0.06 mills and a change in the way the millage revenues are administered, but he made no formal amendment. The board set a Sept. 19 public hearing for the 0.05 mills, and several representatives from groups that receive revenue proceeds spoke in favor of the tax.

Later in the meeting – after the public hearing – Smith made a formal motion to amend the resolution, raising the tax rate to 0.06 mills, a 20% increase that would bring in $838,578. Ronnie Peterson objected to the process, saying that although it might be legal, but was not moral. Wes Prater said the move lacked integrity. Smith argued that the law didn’t require any public hearing at all, and that the board was going above and beyond its obligations. He pointed out that he had notified commissioners of his intent on Sept. 5, and had passed out a memo about his proposal at the Sept. 6 working session. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Tax Hike for Economic Development?"]

Ultimately, a majority of commissioners voted to postpone action on Smith’s amendment until Oct. 3, when they also voted to set a second public hearing on the 0.06 mills proposal.

Also generating considerable debate was a resolution related to animal control services. The resolution, brought forward by Barbara Bergman, directs county administrator Verna McDaniel to begin negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley toward a new contract for services. It further states that if McDaniel doesn’t believe sufficient progress is being made by Oct. 30, then she’s authorized to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to seek bids from other organizations. It passed on a 10-to-1 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping.

Much of the debate over the second resolution centered on the fact that formal recommendations from the tasks force haven’t yet been presented to the board. There were also questions over how much flexibility McDaniel will have in her negotiations. The current 2013 budget has allocated $250,000 for animal control services. This year, the county is paying $415,000 to HSHV, down from $500,000 in 2011. Commissioners expect that the final amount negotiated for 2013 will be higher than the budgeted $250,000 – and if that’s the case, the board will need to amend the budget.

Ping objected to the process, saying that it could undercut HSHV’s position if the board eventually decides to issue an RFP, because other bidders would know how much HSHV is willing to bid. She also objected to taking action without knowing the task force recommendations. “This whole process is flawed on its face,” she said.

The board took a range of other actions, including changes to an ordinance for the county’s natural areas preservation program. Commissioners eliminated a previous restriction that only 7% of millage funds could be used for management or stewardship. In addition, they approved an amendment by Conan Smith eliminating a separate requirement for allocating 75% of the millage to the acquisition and maintenance of natural areas and 25% for agricultural land. Now, allocations can be made at the discretion of the county parks and recreation commission.

Commissioners approved a variety of state grant applications and reimbursements, as well as the 2012-2013 budget for its community support & treatment services (CSTS) department. Three resolutions of appreciation were also presented during the meeting – to Rodney Stokes, former director of the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources; Susan Sweet Scott, a long-time county employee; and the Ann Arbor alumnae chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority for 50 years of service in Washtenaw County.

Agriculture/Economic Development Tax

Renewal of a tax for economic/agricultural development had been initially approved at the board’s Sept. 5 meeting. The millage is authorized under the state’s Act 88, and has been levied by the board since 2009. That year, it was levied at 0.04 mills. It was raised to 0.043 in 2010 and 0.05 in 2011. Because the Michigan statute that authorizes this millage predates the state’s Headlee Amendment, the board can levy it without a voter referendum.

The 0.05 mills would cost homeowners $5 for each $100,000 of their home’s taxable value. It was expected to raise about $693,095. The millage proceeds were to be allocated to the following local entities in 2013, with generally the same amounts that the groups received this year: Ann Arbor SPARK ($200,000), SPARK East ($50,000), the county’s dept. of community & economic development ($140, 331), Eastern Leaders Group ($100,000), promotion of heritage tourism ($65,264), Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP – $15,000), Washtenaw 4-H ($82,500), Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show ($15,000), and MSU Extension, to support economic development in the local food system ($15,000).

On Sept. 5, it had been given initial approval by commissioners on a 7-to-3 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, and Dan Smith. Ronnie Peterson was absent. The board also set a public hearing on the tax for Sept. 19. At the Sept. 5 meeting, board chair Conan Smith had floated the possibility of increasing the Act 88 levy to 0.06 mills. He also suggested giving the office of community and economic development (OCED) the authority for distributing the millage funds. However, he did not make a formal resolution at that point, and the board gave initial approval for the 0.05 mills.

The agenda for the Sept. 19 meeting indicated that the public hearing would be on the proposed 0.05 mills.

Agriculture/Economic Development Tax: Public Hearing/Commentary

Several people spoke about the tax during public commentary and at a special public hearing on that item. Most of the speakers represented groups that receive funding from the millage proceeds. None of the speakers mentioned specifically the amount to be levied. Here are some highlights.

From left: Tom Harrison, CEO of Michigan Ladder Co., and Paul Krutko, CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK.

Paul Krutko, CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK – the local economic development agency – told commissioners that he’d just had back surgery and it was difficult to stand. He urged the board to reauthorize Act 88, and thanked them for their previous support. He described how SPARK had leveraged the $200,000 in annual county funding, supporting $1.2 billion worth of projects over the past six years. That has generated about 11,000 jobs – so every county dollar has leveraged 109 jobs, he contended. “We think we’re a good investment,” he said, adding that his main message was to thank them.

Tom Harrison, Michigan Ladder Co.’s president and CEO, said he was a long-time member of the Eastern Leaders Group, and has used its gap financing program. [The ELG receives $100,000 in Act 88 revenues.] The Ypsilanti company is one of the oldest wooden ladder manufacturers in the nation, he said, but only recently retooled its factory to produce fiberglass ladders that are typically imported. The company was able to make that change because of the gap financing, he said. Now they’re adding jobs, and offering opportunities to people that typically encounter barriers in the workplace – people with physical or mental disabilities, or former felons. He urged the board to support the Act 88 millage.

Lynn Rich, manager of the Washtenaw Farm Council Grounds in Saline, told the board that this year marked the 57th year of the 4-H Youth Show. [The show gets $15,000 from the Act 88 millage.] It’s a week-long event that’s open to the public – about 15,000 people come through to see the animals and the things that this county’s youth can do, he said. About 625 youth participate each year, with nearly 6,000 projects. It’s a great way to get kids involved, Rich concluded, and he thanked commissioners for their support.

Todd Van Appledorn of the Center For Empowerment & Economic Development said that Act 88 support over the past three years has been instrumental to CEED’s microloan program, via the Eastern Leaders Group. They’ve made 13 new microloans – that’s $255,000 money on the street, he said, translating to 217 new jobs, though he noted that most of those were through a temporary agency. The microloans also allowed companies to retain 183 jobs, he said, adding that the program was a good thing for the county.

Tim Colbeck, executive director for the Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority, told commissioners that the DDA board had recently passed a resolution of support for the Act 88 millage. Over the past three years, the DDA has partnered with the Eastern Leaders Group to create a building renovation fund for downtown Ypsilanti. The program has created jobs and increased property values, he said.

Ginny Trocchio, chair of the Food System Economic Partnership board, described a range of FSEP programs that are supported in part by the Act 88 revenues. [FSEP gets $15,000 from the millage.] The farm-to-school program, Tilian Farm Development Center, and other business development efforts for the local food system are all part of FSEP’s work that’s helped by the county funding. Trocchio also read a letter of support from Sharon Sheldon, an FSEP board member who also works for the county’s public health department. Sheldon highlighted the importance of work that helps bring healthier food to children, which in turn fights health problems like diabetes and obesity. Later in the meeting, Jane Bush – FSEP’s business development specialist, also spoke in support of county funding for the nonprofit.

Agriculture/Economic Development Tax: Board Discussion

When the item came up for discussion, Conan Smith proposed an amendment to replace the original resolution with a new version that increased the tax to 0.06 mills. (Some copies of the resolution that were circulated actually had 0.07 mills as the proposed amount.)

Conan Smith at the Sept. 19 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting.

Under Smith’s amended resolution, the rate of 0.06 mills would raise about $838,578 and cost $6 for each $100,000 of a home’s taxable value. He proposed the same funding allocations as cited above, with the additional millage proceeds to be allocated this way: (1) $50,000 to the Detroit Region Aerotropolis; and (2) any remaining balance to the office of community & economic development, for activities related to those authorized by Act 88.

Ronnie Peterson immediately raised the issue that the public hearing had been held based on 0.05 mills. It was misleading to publicize one level for the millage, he said, then raise the rate after the hearing. He objected to the process, calling it a gray area that might be legal, but was not moral. He urged the board to restrain themselves from moving forward with this amendment.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, confirmed that it was legal to make an amendment at this point. He noted that the Act 88 law didn’t even require a public hearing to be held. He noted that the law allows the county board to levy up to a half mill, and they were not near that amount.

Conan Smith said he understood Peterson’s concern, but that the board had gone above and beyond its obligations by holding a public hearing. He noted that he had mentioned this possible increase on Sept. 5, and pointed to an Ann Arbor Chronicle article about it. ["County Tax Hike for Economic Development?"] He reminded commissioners that he had provided the board with a written proposal on Sept. 6 at their working session. There’s been no lack of transparency, he said – he’s not sneaking through the proposal.

Leah Gunn agreed that it’s been a very open process. She pointed out that no one from the public who spoke in support of the millage had mentioned its rate. They only spoke about the benefits, she said. One thing that pleases her the most is that an increase would provide funding for the Detroit Region Aerotropolis, which in turn would free up general fund dollars that could be allocated for Barrier Busters. Barrier Busters is one of the county’s most important programs, she said, because it provides resources for people in need, who are facing eviction or can’t pay their utility bills, for example.

Wes Prater called it a matter of integrity. He understood that the board could levy this millage without a voter referendum. But they publicized the rate at one level for the public hearing, and now were proposing to increase the rate.

Dan Smith pointed out that the increase amounted to a 20% hike, and he’d be opposing it. Alicia Ping also voiced opposition, because of the increase and the way that it was being handled.

County commissioners Dan Smith and Alicia Ping.

Felicia Brabec said she’d given the increase a lot of thought, and supported it because it provided extra funds for economic development.

Responding to a query from Brabec, Hedger said the board could amend the resolution or table it, and hold a second public hearing on the proposed increase. He noted that they were pushing the Nov. 7 deadline to put the millage on the December tax bills.

Yousef Rabhi supported the amendment, saying it funded important work and made the county one of the most successful in Michigan.

Dan Smith then made a motion to postpone the item until Oct. 3 and hold another public hearing at that meeting. Hedger advised separating out the two proposals, so that commissioners could vote on them individually.

Outcome on postponement: The board voted 8-3 to postpone action on the item until its Oct. 3 meeting. Voting against postponement were Conan Smith, Leah Gunn and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Conan Smith said he opposed a second public hearing. He felt they had already gone above and beyond the law, and that the people who supported a second hearing were already opposed to the increase. He called it a ”fabulous delaying tactic.”

Barbara Bergman cautioned Smith not to assume he knew how she would vote, or ”you’ll be in for big surprise.”

Outcome on public hearing: The board voted 7-4 to hold another public hearing on Oct. 3 about the possible increase to 0.06 mills. Voting against a hearing were Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner and Leah Gunn.

Tax Increase for Indigent Veterans

A small tax increase for services to support indigent veterans was on the Sept. 19 agenda for final approval. The Michigan statute that authorizes this millage predates the state’s Headlee Amendment, so it can be approved by the board without a voter referendum.

The tax to support services for indigent veterans was increased to 0.0286 mills, to be levied in December 2012. The current 0.025 mills brought in $344,486 in 2012. The increased millage is expected to raise $390,340 in revenues for use during 2013.

According to a staff memo, the increase is needed because of rising claims and services from veterans due to a struggling economy, an anticipated increase in the number of returning soldiers, and a drop in property values. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Tax Increase for Indigent Veterans: Public Hearing/Commentary

Several veterans addressed the board, all of them supportive of the tax increase and many making emotional pleas to help returning soldiers. Here are some highlights.

John Kinzinger, a Vietnam veteran, described himself as a survivor and said he’s spent about 25 years working with local veterans in Washtenaw County in various capacities. It’s veterans whose service has allowed everyone to assemble at this meeting, he said, to speak freely in public. Now, there’s a special group of veterans who’ve done very hard work in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, and who are coming home with problems like post-traumatic stress disorder and other issues. “We’ll need to be ready for them,” he said.

The board’s resolution to increase funding for indigent veterans is very important, he said. The Washtenaw chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America has twice been named national chapter of the year, Kinzinger noted, so they understand what’s going on with veterans. They’ve been sending out care packages to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years, he said. When the soldiers come home, they’ll need the community’s support. We need to take care of these young people, he said, “not like after Vietnam.”

Several veterans attended the Sept. 19 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, and spoke during public commentary and a public hearing, all of them supporting a tax for indigent veteran services.

Bob Kwiecinski, a U.S. Air Force veteran, has been active in several veterans organizations and he urged commissioners to support the tax increase.  The funds provide support not only for veterans in need, but also for their widows and dependents. He gave an example of a widow who couldn’t afford the base for her husband’s memorial marker, but got funding for it from the county. There are also times when the wives and children of Michigan National Guardsmen need help while their spouses are serving overseas, he said.

Pete Belaire of Saline, another Vietnam veteran, also advocated for the millage, even though he noted jokingly that he’d be paying it himself. He keeps thinking of the people who are no longer here. All of the veterans know people who are in desperate need, he said. Belaire told commissioners that he’s been blessed – he was able to find and keep a job. “I’m standing here before you just grateful as hell to be here.” It hurts him to see young people and what they’ve gone through – they could be his kids or commissioners’ kids. A young man in Saline who used to be a sheriff’s deputy was hit by an IED – he lost his eye and seriously injured his leg. Belaire is very disappointed in how our nation has treated this man. He told the board that if this man ever needs help, “I hope to God we have the money to do it.”

Marv Rivers of Chelsea said he’s traveled around the country and is amazed at the layers of patriotism, especially in small towns. There are American flags, parades – patriotism that’s been handed down generation after generation, that you don’t see as much in larger cities. Now, “our time is passed,” said Rivers, a Vietnam veteran. It’s time to support young kids coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Many times they return and feel disconnected and alone, he said. Other veterans try to reach out. These young people are the nation’s best and brightest, he said. “They are our top layer of patriots.”

Tax Increase for Indigent Veterans: Board Discussion

Commissioners had asked questions at their Sept. 5 meeting, when they gave initial approval to the tax increase.  Michael Smith, the department’s director, had been on hand at that meeting to respond to queries and to elaborate on the funding request.

On Sept. 19, there was no discussion on this item, though several commissioners thanked the veterans for attending the meeting. The board also moved its vote on the item to the front of the agenda, so that the veterans who attended wouldn’t have to wait through the rest of the board’s proceedings.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to increase the millage for indigent veterans services.

Animal Control Services

There was no resolution regarding animal control services on the published agenda for Sept. 19. One person spoke during public commentary, identifying herself as a 23-year volunteer with the Humane Society of Huron Valley and praising HSHV’s programs.

Toward the end of the board meeting, Barbara Bergman brought forward two resolutions on the topic.

The issue of how to handle animal control services for the county has been a contentious one, dating back to budget cuts proposed in 2011. The county currently contracts with HSHV through the end of 2012. Early this year, the board formed a policy task force and a separate work group, led by Sheriff Jerry Clayton, to analyze costs for services that HSHV now provides. For the most recent Chronicle coverage of this effort, see: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”

County commissioners Yousef Rabhi and Barbara Bergman.

Bergman’s first resolution included a list of recommendations from the policy task force. The full board had not been presented with formal recommendations, and board chair Conan Smith – who led the task force meetings – described the resolution as Bergman’s “interpretation” of those recommendations.

Bergman objected, saying she didn’t make the resolutions “out of whole cloth.” She pointed to others who had attended the most recent policy task force meeting – including Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, and administrative analyst Elaine Holleran – as well as Chronicle coverage of the meeting.

The board took a recess so that commissioners could read the resolutions. There were several discussions among commissioners during that recess, and when they reconvened, Bergman withdrew the first resolution that included the list of recommendations.

The board then considered Bergman’s second resolution:

WHEREAS, upon acceptance of the Task Force on Animal Control’s recommendations by a vote of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, the County Administrator is authorized to negotiate with Huron Valley Humane Society (HVHS) to provide the services stated in the policy; and

WHEREAS, if the opinion of the Washtenaw County Administrator is that negotiations with HVHS are not moving toward the successful cost containment of up to the allocated amount specified within the 2013 County Budget by October 30, 2012, the Washtenaw County Administrator is instructed to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Animal Control Services within Washtenaw County.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, if in the opinion of the Administrator by October 30, 2012, negotiations with HVHS are not moving toward the successful cost containment up to the allocated amount specified within the 2013 County Budget, excluding the cost of the Sheriff Deputies dedicated to animal control, the County Administrator is instructed to put forth a RFP to seek the services as approved by resolution of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners to accept the recommendations of the Task Force on Animal Control.

Leah Gunn asked for technical changes – the correct name of the organization is the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV).

Alicia Ping said she felt left out. Because of her work, she hadn’t been able to attend the policy task force meetings. The board hadn’t received the recommendations of the task force, and she didn’t know how anyone could vote on this resolution without the recommendations.

Conan Smith replied that Bergman had “extracted” a promise from him to send the board a copy of draft recommendations by Sept. 26, to be considered at their Oct. 3 meeting. In that case, Ping said, why not wait until Oct. 3 to consider this resolution?

Because time is fleeting, Bergman said, and county administrator Verna McDaniel should be able to enter into negotiations sooner rather than later. Bergman noted that HSHV representatives attended the latest task force meeting, when the recommendations had been affirmed. [HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf and Jenny Paillon, director of operations, had attended that meeting.] HSHV knows what the county is looking for, Bergman contended.

Ping said it might be that HSHV knows the intent of the task force, but the board hasn’t voted on those recommendations. How can McDaniel negotiate, if the board’s recommendations aren’t finalized? ”It’s like voting on the budget without the numbers,” Ping said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. clarified with McDaniel that the amount in the 2013 budget for animal control services is $250,000. He felt that the board shouldn’t set that amount – if they do, what’s to negotiate? Sizemore was in favor of allocating $325,000 and telling HSHV to seek additional funding for the three other communities that collect fees for dog licenses: Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. He also wanted to put a commissioner on the HSHV board.

County commissioner Wes Prater.

Wes Prater didn’t know how commissioners could make an informed decision based on the information they had. He referred back to the resolution that the board passed at its February 2012 meeting, which called for issuing an RFP. [.pdf of Feb. 15 resolution] If they don’t do that, they’ll be violating the county’s procurement policy, he said. ”Where’s the integrity of this process? There is none,” he said. The county needs to issue an RFP based on mandated services that were outlined earlier this year in a memo from Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, he said. [.pdf of Hedger's memo]

Dan Smith supported Bergman’s resolution, because it kept the process moving forward and provided some direction. It seems to be a contentious issue and the board is divided, he said. No final decisions are made and no budget has been determined. The resolution simply gives notice that the board wants to work with the HSHV and have an agreement by Oct. 30. A budget amendment would be brought forward with any agreement that’s proposed. If that doesn’t happen, the resolution lays out a parallel process for issuing an RFP, he said.

Dan Smith noted that all along he’s said that HSHV is his preferred provider of these services. He would like to keep these services within Washtenaw County. [Some commissioners have privately expressed the belief that the Michigan Humane Society, an organization based in Westland that is unaffiliated with HSHV, could provide services to Washtenaw County. Westland is located in Wayne County.] Smith added that he doesn’t want the county to find itself in the same position it was at the end of 2011. “This resolution helps prevent that.”

There was some discussion and disagreement about whether Bergman’s resolution limited McDaniel in her negotiations to the $250,000 set in the 2013 budget. Yousef Rabhi said it was probably confusing because in some previous language that Bergman had circulated, she had explicitly mentioned the $250,000 figure. However, the resolution she presented to the board only stated “up to the allocated amount specified within the 2013 County Budget, excluding the cost of the Sheriff Deputies dedicated to animal control…” The allocated amount that’s set in the 2013 budget is $250,000.

Ronnie Peterson asked what the board’s course of action would be if Bergman’s resolution weren’t in play. Conan Smith replied that the county would simply issue an RFP without first negotiating with HSHV.

Hedger clarified for Peterson that any amount above $250,000 would require the board to vote on an amendment to the 2013 budget. Peterson, Felicia Brabec and Rob Turner indicated that they’d be comfortable with directing McDaniel to negotiate as long as she wasn’t constrained to $250,000.

Dan Smith argued that the resolution simply gave “teeth to the timeline” for negotiations. The amount isn’t set in stone, but provides a trigger for the RFP. If McDaniel brings a proposed agreement back to the board by the Oct. 30 deadline, then the RFP isn’t issued. [The board has two meetings scheduled in October – on Oct. 3 and Oct. 17.]

Sizemore said the board knows that HSHV won’t accept $250,000. The county paid the organization $500,000 in 2012, and is paying $415,000 this year. He again asked why the three other communities that license dogs – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – weren’t being asked to contribute.

Rabhi noted that the board was very divided, and he called Bergman’s resolution a “beautiful compromise.” It gives general direction and a timeline. He then called the question.

This parliamentary move is an action to end discussion and force a vote on the item on the table. Calling the question requires a two-thirds majority – eight votes on the 11-member board – to pass. Normally, this is not an issue and calling the question is approved on a voice vote. However, in this case the outcome of a voice vote was unclear, and the clerk proceeded with a roll-call vote.

Outcome on calling the question: The motion failed on a 7-4 vote, not meeting the 8-vote majority it needed. Voting against it were Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Rob Turner.

Discussion continued.

Ping called the resolution a disservice to HSHV, saying that it could undercut HSHV’s position if the board eventually decides to issue an RFP, because other bidders would know how much HSHV is willing to bid. She also objected to taking action without knowing the task force recommendations. “This whole process is flawed on its face,” she said.

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Turner indicated that the resolution seemed to set a cap at $250,000. The sheriff’s work group had determined the costs for providing services are closer to $500,000. If a $250,000 cap is in place and the county can’t get other communities to kick in additional payments, then the county might as well issue the RFP right now, he said. Turner also pointed to higher costs that might be associated with an out-of-county provider, such as transportation costs.

Prater said he was bothered because the board hasn’t seen the task force recommendations. He also felt that the costs had been padded, and the services go way beyond what’s mandated by the state. Spending on animal control is excessive, he said. The county is spending money that could be used for other services, he said, pointing to the number of people in the county who don’t have health insurance as an example.

Brabec noted that at this point they can either issue the RFP or start negotiations with HSHV. It’s her expectation that McDaniel will return to the board with a budget amendment, because they know that $250,000 is insufficient. HSHV is absolutely her preferred provider, Brabec said, and this resolution simply lays out the process for proceeding.

Bergman said that the resolution doesn’t specify recommendations – the board will be able to amend the task force recommendations as it desires. Whatever the board approves is what McDaniel will use in her negotiations, Bergman said.

Peterson wondered how this resolution fit with the work of the policy task force. He noted that several commissioners had spent their summer working on this issue, as did representatives from the HSHV and the Dispute Resolution Center. He said he hoped that the Dispute Resolution Center had been compensated for its work. [Four members of the center, including executive director Belinda Dulin, facilitated the policy task force meetings. Responding to an email query from The Chronicle, McDaniel said the center would be paid an amount not to exceed $5,000. The funds would come from the county administration's professional development budget.]

Peterson said that good negotiations are difficult if there’s a cap – is there one? Conan Smith explained his understanding of Bergman’s resolution. It affirmed the budget target of $250,000, he said, but doesn’t limit McDaniel in her negotiations. The odds are that the amount will be higher than $250,000, he noted. The resolution directs McDaniel to report to the board about the direction of negotiations, Smith added, but he didn’t see any restrictions.

Peterson replied that the wording doesn’t indicate her ability to negotiate above the budgeted amount, so he just wanted to hear for the record that she did, in fact, have that flexibility. Smith stated that it’s the duty of the administrator to negotiate in good faith. If it exceeds the budgeted amount, McDaniel would need to bring that proposal to the board for approval.

At this point Prater called the question, which was unanimously approved in a voice vote.

Outcome: The resolution directing McDaniel to begin negotiations with HSHV passed on a 10-to-1 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping.

Natural Areas Preservation Program Ordinance

An amendment to the ordinance for the county’s natural areas preservation program was on the Sept. 19 agenda for final approval. It had been given an initial OK at the board’s Sept. 5 meeting.

From left: Rodney Stokes, former Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources director, and Bob Tetens, director of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation department. The board presented Stokes with a resolution of appreciation during the meeting.

The change removes the previous restriction that only 7% of millage funds could be used for management or stewardship. The Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission had been briefed on the proposal at its May 8, 2012 meeting. At that time, the proposal would have raised the limit from 7% to 25%. The ordinance amendment eventually proposed to the county board eliminated all percentage restrictions on set-asides for management and stewardship.

According to a staff memo, the goal would be to use $600,000 per year for management and stewardship. Of that, roughly $240,000 would be used for ongoing stewardship activities, and $360,000 would remain to be invested in a dedicated reserve for long-term land stewardship.

By 2020, when the current millage expires, that annual investment is expected to have built a dedicated reserve of $6 million. Though no percentages were identified in the proposed amendment, $600,000 would work out to about 25% of annual millage revenues.

Voters first approved NAPP funding in 2000 and renewed it in 2010, each time for 10 ten years. The current millage – at 0.2409 mills – will expire in 2020. It generates about $3 million annually.

NAPP Ordinance: Second Amendment

At the Sept. 5 meeting, Conan Smith had floated the idea of an additional NAPP ordinance amendment – eliminating a separate requirement for allocating 75% of the millage to the acquisition and maintenance of natural areas and 25% for agricultural land. On Sept. 19 he proposed a formal amendment to that effect.

Yousef Rabhi opposed this amendment. Noting that he serves on the agricultural lands preservation advisory committee (ALPAC), which makes recommendations about farmland preservation, he felt the change would hamper their ability to make allocations and plan for the future. He didn’t think it’s a productive amendment for preserving agricultural land.

Dan Smith supported the change. He said the board could promulgate additional rules if they wanted to direct the county parks and recreation commission about how to allocate funding. [Smith is one of three county commissioners who also serve on the parks and recreation commission. The other two are Barbara Bergman and Rolland Sizemore Jr.] But he felt it was a good move to take out the percentage from the ordinance, and use some other mechanism instead to guide allocation.

Leah Gunn said she had full trust and faith in the parks and recreation commission. That group works directly with ALPAC and the natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC), which makes recommendations about the preservation of natural areas. The three groups can all plan together, she said.

Wes Prater objected to the amendment. It’s not the current county board he’s worried about, but future boards. The 75/25 allocation allows for planning into the future, he said. It’s a reasonable approach.

Gunn countered that the parks and recreation commission already does excellent long-term planning, and that the ordinance change wouldn’t affect that. It doesn’t make sense to restrict the allocation of funding, she said. ”Let them do their job and we should stay out of it.”

Bergman asked Bob Tetens, director of the parks and recreation department, for his opinion. Tetens said he understood the arguments for and against the change. He didn’t feel that eliminating the percentages would change their approach – it would simply give them more flexibility. However, for all practical purposes, he said, the funding allocation would likely remain a roughly 75/25 split.

Prater reiterated that it’s good to give direction, and that it’s short-sighted not to plan in this way. Gunn followed by repeating her point that the parks and recreation commission and staff should be trusted to do their work.

Rabhi pointed out that the commission does a wonderful job operating under the current ordinance. Dan Smith argued that it’s not a matter of giving direction – it’s a decision about where that direction should come from. He didn’t feel the ordinance was the appropriate mechanism. Other elements of the NAPP ordinance provide ways to give additional direction, he said, if the board thinks that’s necessary.

Sizemore made an analogy: Sometimes you’ve got to let your kids make their own decisions. Sizemore said he won’t direct Tetens unless Tetens isn’t running things the way he should be, and at this point, Sizemore didn’t have any concerns about that.

Prater noted that the county board ultimately has fiduciary responsibility for parks and recreation, based on the state statute that allows counties to set up parks and recreation departments.

Conan Smith said he agreed with a lot of comments that had been made. He reminded his colleagues that they receive a copy of the parks and recreation budget each year, and if they notice something “running amok,” they can take action. He agreed with Dan Smith that the ordinance isn’t the appropriate place to provide this kind of direction, and that the parks staff needs to have the ability to be more fluid in responding to opportunities. If farmland becomes really cheap, for example, the current ordinance wouldn’t allow for more funds to be used to preserve it, he said.

Prater pointed out that the price of farmland is actually increasing.

At this point, Gunn called the question – a procedural move that forces a vote if approved by the board. Calling the question was approved on a voice vote.

Outcome on amendment eliminating 75%/25% allocation: It passed on a 9-2 vote, with dissent by Wes Prater and Yousef Rabhi.

There was no additional discussion on the amended resolution.

Outcome on ordinance change: Commissioners unanimously passed the ordinance revisions, as amended. 

Land Sale to MDOT

Washtenaw County plans to sell a small strip of land along Washtenaw Avenue to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, in a deal that was on the Sept. 19 agenda. MDOT has offered $16,500 for the land, plus an additional $2,500 for a sidewalk easement.

The land, near the county’s service center, is located at the intersection of Washtenaw and Hogback. MDOT plans to make improvements to the intersection, including the addition of right-turn lanes. The parcel contains 10,586 square feet, but 8,407 square feet of that is in the Washtenaw Avenue right of way and can’t be developed. A staff memo states that conversations with MDOT about this property have been “cordial,” but notes that the state holds the power of eminent domain and “could ultimately condemn these property interests, which would result in unnecessary attorney fees for both sides which would arise from such a legal action.”

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave initial approval to the land sale. A final board vote is expected on Oct. 3.

CSTS Budget

A net gain of 1.7 full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions is part of a proposed 2012-2013 budget for Washtenaw County’s community support & treatment services (CSTS) department. The CSTS budget runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30, in sync with the state’s fiscal year. The county operates on a calendar year cycle.

The proposed $29,607,596 budget – an increase from the $26,838,557 budget approved for the current fiscal year – calls for eliminating 1 FTE as a result of reclassifying the job, and creating 2.7 new FTE positions. (Last year’s budget had a net loss of five FTEs, and an additional 19 FTE positions were reclassified.)

Though CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, it receives 91.2% of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. The county provides another 1.2% of CSTS funding for services at the jail. The remaining revenue is generated by fee-for-service billing, according to a staff memo.

The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. At this point, WCHO “leases” its employees from the county, and contracts for services through CSTS.

CSTS Budget: Board Discussion

Commissioners asked a range of clarificational questions. Patrick Barrie, WCHO’s executive director, and other staff were on hand to answer questions.

Alicia Ping questioned the reclassification of a job – the staff child psychiatrist – which bumped an employee into a higher pay grade in the range of $150,032 to $198,288. County administrator Verna McDaniel explained that based on the employee’s qualifications, that person was being shifted into a new pay grade by reclassifying the job. It doesn’t happen often, she said. The county’s policy is to give a 4% salary increase to employees when their jobs are reclassified. For promotions, she added, the increase is 8%.

From left: Commissioners Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson and Rob Turner.

Ronnie Peterson said this policy could cause a morale problem, but it’s something the board could discuss at a later time.  However, he seemed more concerned that commissioners were being asked to give the CSTS budget both initial and final approval on the same night.

Typically, agenda items are first brought to the ways & means committee, consisting of the entire board, for an initial vote. They are then forwarded to the regular board meeting for a final vote. The meetings are held back-to-back, but items from ways & means typically aren’t considered on the same night – they are forwarded to the board meeting that’s held two weeks later. The intent is to allow more time for commissioners to reflect on the items between casting their initial and final votes.

Even for pass-through funding from the state and federal levels, Peterson said, the county board is responsible to monitor and adopt those budgets. It’s not a criticism of CSTS, he added, but more about how the board and administration conduct their business.

Barbara Bergman, who serves on the WCHO board, apologized to commissioners. Originally, the item had been on the Sept. 5 agenda, she noted, but she had pulled it during that meeting because the presentation of the budget had been too confusing and needed more work. Given the need to meet other deadlines, that’s why the board is being asked to run it through initial and final approval on the same night.

Rob Turner agreed with Peterson that items needed more time to consider, but he thanked Bergman for her apology and reassurance that it wouldn’t happen again. It’s important for the board to do their due diligence, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the CSTS budget on a 10-1 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith.

State Reimbursements & Grants

Several items related to state reimbursements for Washtenaw County units were on the Sept. 19 agenda for initial approval. The timing reflects the state’s fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. In contrast, the county works on a calendar-year budget cycle; but many of its units receive significant state funding.

The Washtenaw County Trial Court juvenile division anticipates $4,329,042 in reimbursements from the state child care fund budget. Programs supported by these revenues include family foster care, institutional care and in-home care, according to a staff memo. The trial court’s Friend of the Court program is also seeking reimbursements for “services to residents who are seeking to establish paternity and/or child support orders.” Over a three-year period through Sept. 30, 2015, the county expects to receive $11,902,808 in federal revenue, administered through the Michigan Dept. of Human Services. According to a staff memo, the county currently has 18,000 active child support cases, with at least one child per case.

Also related to child welfare, the county prosecuting attorney’s office is requesting $1,102,872 in federal revenue for prosecuting and/or nonpayment of child support cases, and establishing paternity. The funds are also administered by the state Dept. of Human Services, and include a $568,147 county match over the three-year period through Sept. 30, 2015.

Commissioners also were asked to approve the application of two state grants for operations in the sheriff’s office. A secondary road patrol grant of $184,464 would fund 1.5 deputy positions, if awarded. And a $196,000 grant from the state Dept. of Treasury would cover costs for the dispatch merger between Washtenaw County and the city of Ann Arbor. That grant is part of the state’s economic vitality incentive program, which encourages intergovernmental cooperation.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved all items related to applying for reimbursements and grants.

Communications and Commendations

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. At the Sept. 19 meeting, three commendations were also presented. Here are some highlights.

Communications and Commendations: Rodney Stokes

The board passed a resolution of appreciation and gave a framed copy of it to Rodney Stokes, former director of the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. In July, he was appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder to lead a new “placemaking” initiative for the state’s urban areas. Conan Smith noted that Stokes has an incredible relationship with Bob Tetens, the county’s director of parks and recreation. Through their collaboration as well as the work of Tetens’ predecessor, Washtenaw County has become the jewel of Michigan, Smith said.

Tetens showed slides of some of the county and city of Ann Arbor parks & rec facilities that have been supported with DNR funding, including Rolling Hills water park, Parker Mill, and Leslie Science & Nature Center. Most recently, the county received a $2.275 million DNR trust fund grant to buy land for the Arbor Vistas Preserve natural areas connector in Ann Arbor Township.

Stokes, who received a standing ovation from the board, thanked them for the honor and said he didn’t take such recognition for granted. He gave credit to other DNR staff and the county, noting that its park system improves the quality of life for residents. He described his philosophy as a public servant, saying that whenever he can do something for someone who can’t pay him back, ”then I feel I’ve had a very good day.”

Stokes also received another resolution from the county parks and recreation commission, presented by its president, Bob Marans. The commission had passed the resolution at its Sept. 11 meeting. [.pdf of Stokes' bio and WCPARC resolution] A member of U.S. Rep. John Dingell’s staff also ready a letter of appreciation to Stokes from the congressman.

Communications and Commendations: Susan Sweet Scott

Noting that they were both retiring at the same time, commissioner Barbara Bergman read a resolution of appreciation for Susan Sweet Scott for her 23 years of service to the county. [Bergman did not seek re-election, and her term ends at the end of 2012.] Scott is currently human services manager with the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development. The resolution cited Scott’s expertise, leadership and tireless commitment to the residents of Washtenaw County. She received a standing ovation from the board.

In her brief remarks, Scott thanked commissioners and said it’s been a privilege to be a county employee and public servant. She was proud to call them her bosses.

Communications and Commendations: Delta Sigma Theta

Board chair Conan Smith read a resolution recognizing the Ann Arbor alumnae chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority for 50 years of service in Washtenaw County. The sorority’s national website describes the organization as ”a sisterhood of more than 200,000 predominately Black college educated women …” The county resolution cited several programs sponsored by the local chapter, including the “Warm Fuzzies Blankets Project, Adopt-An-Apartment with SOS Community Services of Ypsilanti, Dr. Terri Lyn Johnson Delta Academy, Solid Gold for Education Scholarship Banquet, and the American Heart Association Walk ‘Go Red for Women.’” No one from the organization was on hand to receive the commendation.

Communications and Commendations: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke during one of the two opportunities for general public commentary, and at the public hearings for the Act 88 and indigent veterans millages – he supported both of those taxes, but called the amounts insufficient to meet the need for services. He also noted the importance of the Nov. 6 general election, and called on the clerks throughout the county to make an effort to expand the number of registered voters. He urged all citizens to make sure they’re registered, and to become volunteers in a countywide voter registration drive. He asked everyone to support the re-election of U.S. president Barack Obama.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The issue of how to handle animal control services for the county has been a contentious one, dating back to budget cuts proposed in 2011. The county currently contracts with HSHV through the end of 2012. Early this year, the board formed a policy task force and a separate work group, led by Sheriff Jerry Clayton, to analyze costs for services that HSHV now provides. For the most recent Chronicle coverage of this effort, see: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”

Bergman originally brought forward two resolutions. The first one – which she later withdrew – included a list of recommendations from the policy task force. The full board had not been presented with formal recommendations, and board chair Conan Smith – who led the task force meetings – described the resolution as Bergman’s “interpretation” of those recommendations. The board took a recess so that commissioners could read the resolutions, and when they reconvened, Bergman withdrew the one that included the recommendations.

Much of the debate over the second resolution centered on the fact that formal recommendations hadn’t been presented to the board. There were also questions over how much flexibility McDaniel will have in her negotiations. The current 2013 budget has allocated $250,000 for animal control services. This year, the county is paying $415,000 to HSHV, down from $500,000 in 2011. Commissioners expect that the final amount negotiated for 2013 will be higher than the budgeted $250,000 – and if that’s the case, the board will need to amend the budget.

Ping objected to the process, saying that it could undercut HSHV’s position if the board eventually decides to issue an RFP, because other bidders would know how much HSHV is willing to bid. She also objected to taking action without knowing the task force recommendations. “This whole process is flawed on its face,” she said.

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

From left: Jenny Paillon, director of operations for the Humane Society of Huron Valley, and HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf. They were attending a Sept. 13, 2012 meeting of the county’s animal control policy task force.

But at the end of the two-hour task force session, commissioners also opened the door to start direct negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, rather than pursuing a request for proposals (RFP) from other vendors. For many years HSHV has held the contract to provide services to the county, including those that are state-mandated. Its current contract expires on Dec. 31, 2012. Key points of contention have been the amount that the county is willing to pay for animal control services, both mandated and non-mandated, and how much those services actually cost.

In advocating for negotiations with HSHV, Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed concern that if the board pursues the RFP process, a service provider won’t be lined up by the end of this year. Then the county will be in the same position it was in the beginning of 2012 – scrambling to get a new contract. He also pointed out that if the county issues an RFP and no other organizations respond, then the HSHV will have more leverage over the county “because they’ll know we’re screwed.”

Tanya Hilgendorf, HSHV’s executive director, supported starting contract negotiations. She attended the Sept. 13 meeting and praised the work of the task force as well as a separate group led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, which has been analyzing costs for animal control services. People are more informed than they were when this process began in May, she said, adding that there was more trust between the county and HSHV, too.

At least one commissioner, Barbara Bergman, had explicitly stated earlier in the meeting that she didn’t trust HSHV yet. She said the last time that the county had trusted HSHV, commissioners didn’t get good data about the services that were being provided, and the cost of those services. Bergman – who had left the meeting by the time a suspension of the RFP process was discussed – has been a strong advocate for curbing costs related to animal control, in favor of funding programs for human services.

The task force reached consensus on eight recommendations for animal control services to include in an RFP, or for a contract with HSHV. Those include licensing all dogs at the point of adoption or recovery, holding all stray animals for the minimum number of days required by law, and providing animal cruelty investigations.

The group also reached agreement on broader policy recommendations, including several longer-term goals: creating a civil infractions ordinance and fee structure for unlicensed dogs, and working with local units of government to create a unified, countywide dog licensing program. Currently three other jurisdictions – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – have their own dog licensing programs, with varying fee levels.

Several other changes might be proposed in the future. Hilgendorf offered to draft language for an ordinance prohibiting ownership of certain types of exotic animals. She also hoped that commissioners eventually would consider an anti-chaining ordinance and spay/neuter ordinance – “even if it’s just for pit bulls,” which has worked well in Ypsilanti Township, she said. [The township has an ordinance requiring that pit bulls must be spayed or neutered.] Hilgendorf also suggested addressing the issue of feral cats, which are a problem in some parts of the county. HSHV already operates a “trap, neuter, return” program aimed at curbing the feral cat population.

When the task force was formed earlier this year, it were given a deadline of Oct. 15 to bring recommendations to the full board. It’s likely that will happen sooner, possibly at the board’s Sept. 19 meeting. As of Sept. 16, however, there was no agenda item for these recommendations on the board’s ways & means committee agenda or the regular board agenda.

The relationship between HSHV and the county has a long, complex history. For additional background, see ”Next Steps on Animal Control Policy,” “Work Continues on Animal Control Policy,” and ”Revenue Options Eyed for Animal Control.” More information related to this process is also posted on the county’s website.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations

A draft set of recommendations had been developed by board chair Conan Smith, based on discussions at previous task force meetings as well as feedback from commissioners at their Sept. 6 working session. [.pdf of slides from Smith's working session presentation]

Smith was one of five commissioners who attended the Sept. 13 meeting. Others included Barbara Bergman, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., and Rob Turner. Of those, Bergman, Rabhi and Smith represent three of the four districts in Ann Arbor. Turner’s district covers portions of the west and northwest part of the county, while Sizemore represents a district covering most of Ypsilanti Township, on the county’s east side.

During 90 minutes of discussion, the draft recommendations were modified in several ways. Two recommendations – related to monthly reporting requirements, and holding animals for bite quarantines or court mandates – were added during the meeting. A recommendation for marketing adoption services was eliminated.

Here’s the list of recommendations that is expected to be brought to the full board of commissioners, possibly on Sept. 19. The idea is that these services would form the basis for a request for proposals (RFP) to be issued by the county:

• License all dogs at point of adoption or recovery.
• Hold all stray animals for the minimum number of days required by law.
• Provide animal cruelty investigations.
• Post information on website about animals being held by the county to facilitate adoption or recovery.
• Provide medical attention and basic humane care – to be specified in a contract with the County – during the holding period.
• Support county policies for registration and licensing of animals.
• Make a monthly report to county board on operating metrics.
• Hold animals for bite quarantines and court-mandated holds for the minimum required by law.

Before reaching consensus on this list of recommendations, commissioners had a wide-ranging discussion on each item, and brought additional issues to the table. This report summarizes some of the highlights of those discussions.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations – Duration of Holding Strays

The original draft recommendation stated: “Hold all stray animals to a maximum of 10 business days or as otherwise required by law.” There was considerable discussion about this item, because there are several different scenarios under which an animal might be held, and different durations that are required by law for holding an animal. Some of these issues are in dispute regarding what the county mandate entails.

The state mandates that the county has a duty to hold: (1) unlicensed stray dogs for four business days; (2) licensed stray dogs for seven business days; and (3) dogs, cats, or ferrets for 10 business days if suspected of rabies. Weekends and state holidays can’t be counted in calculating these mandated hold periods, nor can the first 24 hours be counted.

The average number of holding days is about 10 days, according to HSHV. That average factors in the much longer holding periods that are court-mandated in animal cruelty cases.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wanted to know what happens after the holding period ends? Tanya Hilgendorf, HSHV’s executive director, explained that if a stray animal is not returned to its owner or adopted by then, the county is no longer obligated to pay for holding that animal. The costs then are incurred by HSHV.

Conan Smith advocated for keeping the maximum hold of 10 business days to make it easier for residents – people shouldn’t have to worry about figuring out how long their animal might be held, he said. Barbara Bergman said that’s not the county’s problem. She suggested that the requirement be for the minimum amount of time required by law.

Hilgendorf supported Bergman’s suggestion. Making it a requirement to hold an animal for longer than the minimum time required is actually a detriment, she said. The goal is to adopt out an animal as soon as possible – that’s best for the animal, and saves expenses too. The key to a good save rate is fast flow-through, she explained.

Commissioners consented to changing the recommendation for holding stray animals to a minimum time required by law.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations – Marketing of Adoption

One item in the original draft recommendations for contract services was eliminated, related to marketing of adoption services.

From left: Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, and Tom Brush of the Dispute Resolution Center, which is helping to facilitate the board’s animal control policy task force meetings.

Conan Smith had originally proposed this item: “Market adoption services throughout the county.” When Yousef Rabhi asked what those services would entail, Smith replied that it wasn’t their job to articulate how an organization might respond to the request for proposals. The goal is to develop items to include in the RFP, he said.

Barbara Bergman wanted to remove it. Rolland Sizemore Jr. said it’s HSHV’s business to promote adoption services, and the county shouldn’t tread on that. Rob Turner added that the county could certainly provide a link from its website to the HSHV adoption site. He liked the service, but agreed that it was beyond what the county should be doing.

HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf suggested that perhaps the intent was to identify an organization’s capacity to do this work, which affects the “save rate” of animals – the percentage of animals that are not euthanized. So she wondered how the county could communicate to potential vendors that adopting out is important.

It’s not important, Bergman replied – at least, not in her role as a county commissioner, she added. Turner stated that adopting out animals is important to him, but he wasn’t sure it needed to be among the services that the county contracts for.

Smith said he hoped to contract with HSHV. But his concern is that if the county’s RFP doesn’t include this item for marketing, then respondents won’t necessarily do it. Smith said if the county board is willing to forego the RFP process and negotiate directly with HSHV for a new contract, then he’d be willing to eliminate the marketing item.

Hilgendorf noted that outside of her role at HSHV, she has done assessments of other animal shelters. Some of them are “houses of horror,” she said, because the values that Smith is trying to communicate aren’t absorbed. Hilgendorf said she loved the idea of negotiating with the county – there’s more trust between the county and HSHV now, she said, and more people in government who understand animal control issues. But if the board doesn’t go that way, she’d advocate to include some kind of statement in a contract with any vendor that reflects the values that the community wants. She said that would go a long way in responding to the community that’s been watching this process unfold.

Bergman objected, saying that such a statement was too open to interpretation. The item for marketing adoption services was eliminated.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations – Educational Services

There was also debate about the item related to animal cruelty investigations. The original item stated this service would: “Provide animal cruelty investigations and educational services.” However, Bergman objected to the county paying for educational services. ”We should not be in that business,” she said. “It’s way beyond our mandate, and there are hungry children.” She resented the implication that some supporters of HSHV had made regarding the importance of empathy to animals in a child’s development. It felt like extortion, she said, adding that you can’t expect children to grow up with empathy if they also don’t have adequate food, shelter and clothing.

Conan Smith argued that providing education can be cost effective. Only 5% of animal cruelty calls end up being prosecuted, he said. The majority of calls don’t rise to the level of going to court, which is expensive. Educating people about their bad behavior regarding animals is a preemptive measure, he said.

Bergman wanted to know who is measuring that cost effectiveness. Smith replied that HSHV had provided a breakdown of expenses related to animal cruelty calls, including expenses related to calls that don’t become cases. [.pdf of HSHV cost analysis, including animal cruelty] It’s possible to make assumptions based on that data, he said. Bergman replied that she had trouble making decisions based on assumptions, and wanted a cost/benefit analysis instead. If such an analysis can’t be provided, she was against paying for educational costs.

Rob Turner noted that there are different types of animal cruelty calls, ranging from inadequate food and shelter to far more serious physical abuse. For many situations, a little bit of education can reduce recidivism, he said. Otherwise, you have to keep returning to the same place over and over, responding to the same issues. The suggestion is not to provide general education about animal cruelty prevention, he added. It’s simply to provide education as part of responding to animal cruelty calls. Education goes a long way towards preventing one call from becoming three or more.

Bergman contended that if there aren’t any metrics to measure the cost effectiveness of educational services, then the county was just being an irresponsible spendthrift. Smith joked that it wouldn’t be the first time someone had called him that.

Hilgendorf said HSHV employs a teacher who runs the organization’s educational program, which includes a variety of outreach efforts. The county shouldn’t pay for that, she said. Rather, this recommendation referred specifically to educational services connected to animal cruelty calls. It’s simply a matter of talking with pet owners as part of the call response, telling them things like why they need to take their pet to the vet, for example. It’s just part of the process, and doesn’t incur an additional cost.

Commissioners later reached consensus to eliminate the recommendations for educational services as related to animal cruelty investigations.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations – Block Grant vs. Fee-for-Service

Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed frustration at allocating line-by-line expenses in a contract. He proposed giving HSHV a certain amount of money and letting their staff allocate it as necessary. ”Like when my wife gives me an allowance,” he joked. “I can go to McDonald’s or Burger King.”

From left: County commissioner Barbara Bergman of Ann Arbor, and Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Dispute Resolution Center.

Barbara Bergman told him that “the days of block grants are over.” She supported paying for specific services. The county no longer provides block grant for other services, like mental health programs. She didn’t think they should give block grants for any reason.

Conan Smith described himself as “pro-block grant.” He noted that the board hadn’t raised this issue previously, but it’s a good question to discuss.

Bergman observed that in recent years, the county has paid HSHV $500,000 annually without getting detailed data about the services that were being provided. The data was terrible, she said, and going back to that approach would be frivolous.

Smith countered that a block grant allows services to be leveraged in a cost effective way. He said he believes that the county needs to be data-driven, and they’ve worked for months with HSHV to get that data. At this point, he wants to trust the professionals.

Bergman replied that she doesn’t yet trust the HSHV. The last time the county trusted that organization, she said, they didn’t get good data. Bergman then reported that her grandson Jonah had been the one to make HSHV’s 2,000th adoption this summer. Her son had chosen not to reveal their relationship with her, she said, because of accusations that people have made against her that she “doesn’t give a damn about animals.” Despite what people say, Bergman added, in fact she does care about dogs – but she also cares about providing support for children.

Contract Service Levels: Recommendations – Oversight

At a couple of points during the meeting, Rolland Sizemore Jr. raised the issue of oversight, and suggested that the county board should have a dedicated seat on the HSHV board of directors. Yousef Rabhi agreed that the recommendations should address the issue of oversight. He noted that contracts with HSHV state that the organization must make regular reports to the county about its activities. [.pdf of current HSHV contract] It’s worth putting in specific language about what kind of information the county board wants, and how often those reports should be made, he said.

Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director who was representing the county administration at the task force meeting, suggested keeping the recommendation fairly broad. That way, the board can later tailor its requests in the contract as it sees fit, he said.

Rabhi proposed the following recommendation: “Make a monthly report to County board on operating metrics.” His recommendation was added to the list. However, no recommendation was added to request that a county commissioner serve on the HSHV board.

Animal Control Policies, Practices

The final 30 minutes of the Sept. 13 meeting focused on refining a draft of proposed county policies and practices for animal control. At this point, only four commissioners were still present: Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith and Rob Turner.

The group reached consensus on these recommendations:

• Adopt a civil infractions ordinance and fee structure for unlicensed dogs.
• Adopt a voluntary pet registration program that is cost neutral and does not expand the county’s mandate.
• Develop an ordinance prohibiting ownership of certain types of exotic animals.
• Design and implement a veterinary partners program to support licensing.
• Work with the county prosecutor and courts to promote forfeiture in animal cruelty cases.
• Work with the courts to implement a collections-compliance program for infraction violations and cruelty cases.
• Work with local units of government to create a unified dog licensing program across that county and a common ordinance standard.
• Develop cost-sharing with local governments to offset increases driven by local ordinance requirements.

Animal Control Policies & Practices: Unified Licensing

Several of the items relate to generating revenues, and questions about who will pay for animal control services. One of those recommendations was for a unified countywide dog licensing program. The state mandates that the county is responsible for dog licensing, unless that task is picked up by another local jurisdiction. In Washtenaw County, five communities have animal control ordinances: the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Pittsfield, Superior and Ypsilanti. However, only three of those – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – also have licensing programs, which generate revenues for animal control. The licensing fees vary, depending on where you live.

Creating a unified system is something that Yousef Rabhi sees as a long-term vision. But in the short-term, the county needs to immediately work with other communities and “get money in the form of a check,” he said.

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, representing District 11 in Ann Arbor.

Rob Turner agreed. He noted that Ypsilanti Township has a very aggressive ordinance to combat dog fighting, but the county ends up picking up some of the costs for that. The township just needs to pay for some of the costs that the county incurs, he said.

Rabhi added that for the county’s next budget cycle, he felt that there needs to be a specific financial commitment from communities with animal control ordinances.

Greg Dill reported that earlier in the afternoon, he had met with sheriff Jerry Clayton and county administrator Verna McDaniel to discuss this issue of cost-sharing with other communities. He said they’ve come up with a formula that will significantly reduce the amount that the county currently pays for animal control services, and that there will be meetings in the coming weeks with the leaders of other communities to talk about a new approach. He did not give additional details about the proposed cost-sharing formula.

Conan Smith felt it would be much more lucrative and efficient to have a unified licensing program countywide. Turner and Rabhi agreed, but again emphasized that this should be a longer-term goal.

The discussion prompted Smith to propose the final policy recommendation that was added to the list: Develop cost-sharing with local governments to offset increases driven by local ordinance requirements.

Animal Control Policies & Practices: Animal Census

Another item that had been originally included in the draft recommendations was deleted: Work with the county treasurer to design and implement an annual pet census.

Rob Turner noted that a census would cost money, but it might be possible to hire student interns to do the work in the summer. It’s also likely that a census would generate more revenue than it would cost, as owners of unlicensed pets would end up paying for licenses.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. mentioned a point that Wes Prater had raised during the board’s Sept. 6 working session. Prater indicated that the state dog law of 1919 mandates each community to take a dog census, and that the responsibility for doing the census falls to the assessors in each jurisdiction. If that’s what the dog law states, Sizemore said, then that’s how a census should be handled.

Here’s the section of the dog law that Prater had pointed out – the “board of supervisors” mentioned in this law is the historical precursor to the current county board of commissioners:

Sec. 16. The supervisor of each township and the assessor of every city, annually, on taking his assessment of property as required by law, may make diligent inquiry as to the number of dogs owned, harbored or kept by all persons in his assessing district; and on or before June 1, make a complete report to the county treasurer, for his county, on a blank form furnished by the director of agriculture, setting forth the name of every owner, or keeper, of any dog, subject to license under this act, how many of each sex are owned by him, and if a kennel license is maintained such fact shall be also stated. Every supervisor or assessor shall receive for his services in listing such dogs at a rate determined by the board of supervisors for each dog so listed, which sums shall be paid out of the general fund of the county. [.pdf of Michigan's dog law]

Yousef Rabhi felt that a census should be a longer-term project. He first wanted to increase licensing compliance through other approaches. A census might be putting too much on their plate, he said.

Conan Smith recalled that county treasurer Catherine McClary had identified a three-step process to increase dog-licensing compliance: (1) adding the option of a three-year license, so that owners could renew licenses on the same cycle as the dogs’ rabies shots – and the county board approved that change in September 2010; (2) making the lack of a dog license a civil infraction, rather than a misdemeanor; and (3) doing an annual pet census.

Catherine Jones, a business analyst with the county who’s been working on the financial aspect of animal control issues, noted that McClary believes it’s not useful to do a census until a civil infractions ordinance is in place. Otherwise, there would be no feasible tool to force compliance.

Rabhi suggested removing the recommendation for the proposed policy list, and other commissioners agreed.

Animal Control Policies & Practices: Voluntary Pet Registration

There was a fair amount of discussion about the policy item related to pet registration. The original draft proposed by Conan Smith stated: “Adopt a voluntary pet registration program for cats and exotics.”

Yousef Rabhi and Rolland Sizemore Jr. both wondered why anyone would voluntarily want to register their cat or exotic animal. HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf said this type of registry isn’t done here, but it’s common in other areas. Catherine Jones, a business analyst for Washtenaw County, pointed out that if an animal is registered and later becomes lost, it would be easier to identify if someone finds it and brings it to the Humane Society.

In Washtenaw County, there’s a low return rate for cats, Hilgendorf said. But if cats are registered and can be returned to their owners quickly, that’s less cost for holding the strays at HSHV. A registry could also be seen as a possible way to raise revenues, she added.

Jenny Paillon, HSHV’s director of operations, thought this item might have morphed from an HSHV suggestion that the county create an ordinance to prohibit ownership of certain exotic animals. Right now it’s a gray area, she said. It’s legal to own certain exotics, so when they are brought to HSHV as strays, they must be handled like other stray animals.

Rob Turner proposed adding that as another recommendation: Develop an ordinance prohibiting ownership of certain types of exotic animals. The details about which exotics to include could be worked out later, he said. Hilgendorf offered to draft ordinance language for the board to consider.

Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director who was representing the county administration at the task force meeting, suggested eliminating reference to specific types of animals and simply call for a voluntary pet registration program, period.

Yousef Rabhi objected to a registration program – even a voluntary one. It would still become a county responsibility, he said, and he was reluctant to expand the county’s scope of services in this way.

Smith replied that there was a clear distinction between voluntary registration and licensing, which is mandatory. He said he had talked about the issue with Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

In that case, Rabhi said, he would support having a voluntary registration program, but wanted to state explicitly that the program should be cost neutral and not expand the county’s mandate. Other commissioners agreed with that revision.

Eliminating the RFP Process?

Toward the end of the task force meeting, Rolland Sizemore Jr. stated that he was getting tired of this process. Why not propose that the county will pay the Humane Society of Huron Valley $325,000 per year, then ask HSHV to negotiate with other communities that have animal control ordinances for the remaining amount? Whatever amount HSHV can get from these other communities, HSHV can keep, he suggested.

Sizemore was concerned that if the board pursues the RFP process,  a service provider won’t be lined up by the end of the year, and they’ll be in the same position they were at the beginning of 2012 – scrambling to get a new contract. He also pointed out that if the county issues an RFP and no other organizations respond, then the HSHV will have more leverage over the county “because they’ll know we’re screwed.”

He also said he wanted HSHV to know that while he preferred working with them, if it comes down to funding programs for kids or for animals, “I’ll go with kids.”

Related to the issue of possibly suspending the RFP, earlier in the meeting paper copies of an email sent from county administrator Verna McDaniel to commissioner Barbara Bergman – and cc’d to the full board – had been passed out. The email was responding to a query from Bergman about the RFP process, and addressed the issue of canceling the RFP. In relevant part, McDaniel’s email stated:

I wanted to provide some information on the process for Requests for Proposals. As with any RFP that the County submits, we reserve the right to cancel the request at any time during and after we have received proposals. I have verified this with Purchasing and Corp Counsel as we have a clause in our boilerplate stating our right to cancel at any time. As such, this will apply to the Animal Control Services RFP. After the bid opening, bids are subject to FOIA [Freedom of Information Act].

Responding to Sizemore, Conan Smith said he hadn’t written down a specific recommendation about it, but one way to handle the situation is to decide not to issue an RFP and start negotiations with HSHV now.

From left: County commissioners Rob Turner, Conan Smith, and Yousef Rabhi.

Rob Turner expressed support, but felt the county should commit to covering the cost of existing services with HSHV. The board should then direct county administrator Verna McDaniel to work with other communities that have animal control ordinances, and “get those local areas to chip in,” he said.

Turner also pointed out that sheriff Jerry Clayton had expressed caution about using another vendor, noting that transportation costs could increase depending on where an animal shelter is located.

Smith said he heard three of the four commissioners in the room leaning toward negotiations with HSHV. Yousef Rabhi said he was neutral, and felt that they should comply with the board’s resolution, which had called for an RFP. Sizemore observed that the board could simply change that at its Sept. 19 meeting by passing another resolution that called for negotiations instead of an RFP.

There was no formal vote taken on this suggestion, but the consensus appeared to be that the recommendation to suspend the RFP process might be brought to the board at its Sept. 19 meeting.

As the task force meeting concluded, HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf thanked everyone for their hard work, creativity and dedication. She said that despite what Barbara Bergman might think, Hilgendorf knew that Bergman had a huge heart and is very compassionate. [Bergman had left the meeting by this point.]

Hilgendorf said she understood that it’s a balancing act when it comes to available money for these services. She felt like a lot of people had dug through data in this process, and that there were now more experts at the government level on these issues. ”To me, it’s only going to get better from here,” she said.

In the future, she hoped that they could address some other issues as well, including an anti-chaining ordinance and spay/neuter ordinance – “even if it’s just for pit bulls,” which has worked well in Ypsilanti Township, she said. [The township has an ordinance requiring that pit bulls must be spayed or neutered.] Hilgendorf also suggested addressing the issue of feral cats, which are a problem in some parts of the county. HSHV already operates a “trap, neuter, return” program aimed at curbing the feral cat population.

All of these efforts would be preventative and save money down the line, she said, as well as creating a safer community for people as well as animals.

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

From left: Mike Walsh and Mark Heusel, board members of the Humane Society of Huron Valley, and Jenny Paillon, HSHV’s director of operations, at a July 25, 2012 Washtenaw County board of commissioners’ animal control policy task force meeting. The session was held outside at the Learning Resource Center on Washtenaw Avenue near the county jail – because at the time electricity was out in that area of town. (Photos by the writer.)

The idea is that if more revenue is available to cover costs, the county can contract out for a higher level of service – beyond what’s mandated by the state. The question of what the county is obligated to do regarding animal control services, and how much those services cost, has been a contentious issue since the last budget cycle. That’s when county commissioners cut the amount allocated to the contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which has provided animal control services to the county on a the  basis of that contract. A new contract was negotiated with HSHV at a lower rate; and that arrangement ends on Dec. 31, 2012.

The current contract with HSHV was approved at the county board’s Feb. 15, 2012 meeting. At that same meeting, the board created its policy task force and a separate work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, to develop a cost structure for those services. These two groups are laying the groundwork for soliciting proposals later this year for an entity to handle the county’s animal control services. HSHV is viewed by many commissioners as the preferred agency to continue handling this work. Representatives of the nonprofit have attended the policy task force meetings, and are members of the sheriff’s work group.

A discussion at the task force’s previous meeting on June 29 had indicated that representatives from other communities with their own animal control ordinances – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – would be invited to participate at the July 25 session. That didn’t happen, though it will likely occur at a future meeting. Commissioners also had planned to invite county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie –as his office has purview over prosecuting animal cruelty cases and other legal issues related to animal control, which have an impact on expenses. Board chair Conan Smith reported that it hadn’t been possible for Mackie to attend.

Several revenue options were discussed on July 25, but no clear consensus was reached about which of them to pursue. Ideas included (1) licensing cats and exotic animals, like snakes; (2) allowing veterinarians to issue licenses; (3) easing other roadblocks to licensing; (4) taking a summer census of animals, then following up to ensure that the animals are licensed; and (5) making the lack of a license a civil infraction, rather than a misdemeanor. This would allow the county to impose fines, rather than jail time.

The next session is set for Thursday, Aug. 9 at 2 p.m. at the county administration building, 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor. It’s expected to include both the policy task force and the sheriff’s work group, and set the stage for an Aug. 22 meeting that would include staff from the county prosecutor’s office and judiciary. A recommendation and RFP (request for proposals) are expected to be presented to the board in September.

For additional background on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “Work Continues on Animal Control Policy” and ”Next Steps on Animal Control Policy.” More information related to this process is also posted on the county’s website.

Status of Request for Proposals (RFP)

At the previous task force meeting, on June 29, Washtenaw County commissioner Barbara Bergman had advocated for the county to issue a preliminary RFP (request for proposals) to get responses about costs for a minimum level of service. On July 25, Conan Smith told the group that a draft RFP had been prepared, with a placeholder for inserting the level of service that the county board will determine. It could be “released on a dime,” Smith said, as soon as the board sets the level of service it wants to request. Responding to a query from Wes Prater, Smith confirmed that the RFP had been prepared by the county’s purchasing staff and conformed to procurement policies.

Ronnie Peterson wondered what would happen next regarding the RFP. Smith replied that when the task force determines a recommendation for the level of service to request, that recommendation will go to the full board. It will likely be on the agenda at one of the board meetings in September, he said.

Bergman wanted to know why a recommendation couldn’t be presented at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting. [The board is on a summer schedule, with only one meeting each month.] A recommendation wouldn’t be ready by then, Smith replied. The task force doesn’t have a completed cost analysis yet, for example.

Bergman was concerned about the tight timeline, noting that a recommendation in September only gives the county three months to issue the RFP, get responses and award a contract before year’s end, when the current deal with the Humane Society of Huron Valley expires. County administrator Verna McDaniel said it would be helpful if the board approves a recommendation at its Sept. 5 meeting, rather than waiting for final approval at its meeting on Sept. 19.

Peterson expressed concern about the task force meetings, and said he hoped they were not intended to circumvent the board. If the task force is making any kind of decision, he said, it wasn’t appropriate and he would leave. Smith responded, saying that the board had passed a resolution outlining this process. The task force is intended to develop a policy framework that will guide development of the RFP. [The policy task force and cost work group were created by the county board at its Feb. 15, 2012 meeting, when commissioners also approved a $415,000 contract with the HSHV to provide animal control services for the county through Dec. 31, 2012.]

County commissioner Rob Turner. In the background is commissioner Ronnie Peterson. Barely visible between the two commissioners is county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Rob Turner noted that only a few commissioners had consistently participated in the policy task force meetings. He hoped they could schedule a working session in early August on the topic, so that everyone could give input before the recommendation is formally brought to the board. The working session could include representatives from the sheriff’s work group, he said.

Bergman replied that all commissioners were invited to attend these task force meetings – it wasn’t an exclusive group. Turner noted that some commissioners have work obligations that prevent them from attending. [The meetings have been set for certain Wednesdays over the past three months, from 8-10 a.m.]

Smith said he had talked with sheriff Jerry Clayton about the need to merge the two groups – the policy task force, and cost work group – possibly in August. If they are smart and aggressive, he said, they can accommodate the RFP process while having a robust public discussion.

With that, Smith turned the meeting over to Belinda Dulin of the Dispute Resolution Center, who facilitated the remainder of the session.

Sources of Revenue

The focus of the July 25 meeting was on ways to generate more revenue for animal control services. The idea is that if more revenue is available to cover costs, the county can contract out for a higher level of service – beyond what’s mandated by the state.

In framing the task force’s work, Conan Smith explained that part of the job is to look at possible revenue options and decide whether the board needs to change its policies to accommodate those options. For example, if the county decides to implement the licensing of cats, what policies need to be in place to allow that to happen?

Barbara Bergman said they also need to consider the cost involved in implementing these options – what extra staffing would be needed, for example? Later in the meeting, Jenny Paillon, HSHV’s director of operations who has been attending these task force meetings, reminded commissioners that because HSHV must comply with the county’s living wage policy, that adds to the expense of operations. [The living wage applies to contracts with the county valued at more than $10,000 annually. It requires that the contractor pay employees $11.40 per hour if health care benefits are provided, or $13.37 per hour if no benefits are provided. The current amount is set through April 30, 2013.]

Wes Prater expressed concern. There are three communities with their own animal control policies – Ypsilanti Township, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – but that doesn’t relieve the county of its responsibilities, he said. Prater didn’t think the county should foist off its responsibilities onto these other municipalities, nor should the county craft policies that would conflict with these other units of government. He wondered how the county planned to extract funding from those communities. It’s a real issue, he said, and could result in litigation.

Paillon noted that almost every city or township in Washtenaw County has animal control ordinances, although only the three communities that Prater mentioned have their own licensing. [.pdf of local animal control ordinances] It’s a fragmented approach, she said, and at the sheriff’s work group, they had talked about setting up a more uniform system. She noted that she had given the work group an extensive presentation on this issue, and that she’d be happy to share it.

Yousef Rabhi told Prater that the county wouldn’t be compelling other communities to contribute revenues, but would be helping the communities understand that some local ordinances go above and beyond what the county is required to do, and that costs money. The county should ask other communities to contribute an amount that reflects those expanded services, Rabhi said. Prater wondered what made Rabhi think that approach would be successful.

County administrator Verna McDaniel indicated that she and sheriff Jerry Clayton had already talked about this with officials in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, and didn’t receive any pushback. Those officials seemed open to the idea of contributing revenues, she said.

Sources of Revenue: Specific Options

Conan Smith suggested two revenue options: partnering with other communities, and cat licensing. Wes Prater immediately responded that licensing cats is a bad idea. Barbara Bergman suggested licensing goldfish – but it appeared that she was joking. Sally Brush, a facilitator with the Dispute Resolution Center who was taking notes, translated that suggestion into licensing exotic animals.

Several other ideas were floated in the ensuing discussion, including (1) allowing veterinarians to license dogs; (2) easing other roadblocks to licensing; (3) taking a summer census of animals, then following up to ensure that the animals are licensed; and (4) making the lack of a license a civil infraction, rather than a misdemeanor. This would allow the county to impose fines, rather than jail time.

Crystal Collin of the Dispute Resolution Center talks with Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

After a fair amount of discussion – and offers by HSHV representatives, including board vice president Mark Heusel, to share their presentation on revenue-generation strategies – Felicia Brabec asked a process question. If these ideas had already been developed and shared with the sheriff’s work group, she didn’t understand why the policy task force was spending their time brainstorming on the same topic.

Smith acknowledged the tension, but noted that it’s not the role of the sheriff’s work group to develop policy. So the task force needs to discuss the same issue, even though there’s overlap, he said. Then when the two groups come together, everyone will understand the policies they want to explore, and can start to talk about the cost of implementing those policies before making a recommendation to the full board.

Bergman said she was starting to feel this meeting was fruitless. Without knowing the costs of different levels of service, there was no point to the discussion, she said.

Yousef Rabhi said he felt this was the most exciting discussion the task force has had so far. Even if the sheriff’s work group had gone over the same issue, Rabhi felt that the task force might come up with new ideas that hadn’t yet been considered.

Brabec said her point was that the discussion should be additive – it wasn’t a good use of time to brainstorm on ideas that had already been outlined.

At that point, Smith asked Jenny Paillon, HSHV’s director of operations, to share any ideas for revenues that hadn’t been discussed so far.

Paillon reviewed some additional options that had been part of her presentation to the sheriff’s work group, which included a range of suggestions for programs and ordinance changes. [.pdf of Paillon's full presentation] In addition to suggestions mentioned earlier in this report, other options for licensing include:

• Expand the licensing program to allow HSHV and veterinarians to sell licenses, in addition to the county treasurer’s office. That way, licenses could be bought at the same place and time when animals are adopted or vaccinated.
• Issue a free three-month license at the time of adoption to get people into the system, then follow up with that owner for regular licensing. Violations can result in a “fix-it” ticket that would cost the same as a license.
• Use part-time temporary workers for an annual summer census campaign, which would enable violations to be identified en masse.
• Offer graduated license fees, with significantly higher fees for unsterilized animals.
• Sell higher-cost “vanity” licenses, with funds supporting a spay/neuter program.
• Hold a licensing event and vaccine clinic, which can also be used to provide educational information. This approach is used in Ypsilanti Township.
• License cats as well as dogs – there are an estimated 99,000 cats in Washtenaw County, according to the HSHV.

Paillon’s report included an estimate of potential revenue. A $12 annual license for both dogs and cats would bring in an estimated $1.122 million if there is 50% compliance. If the license is increased to $32/year, annual revenues for 50% compliance would be an estimated $2.992 million.

County commissioners Wes Prater and Felicia Brabec.

Wes Prater argued that 25 of the 28 municipalities in Washtenaw County don’t have animal control ordinances, so none of these changes would affect them. [Paillion had earlier noted that several other municipalities do have animal control ordinances – just not licensing.] Yousef Rabhi replied that the county’s licensing program applied to everyone in the county, except for the three communities with their own licensing programs. He noted that these are just ideas, and that they were taking a big-picture approach.

Prater said everyone needs to think about the citizens that these changes will be imposed on. To that, Conan Smith joked that Rabhi isn’t opposed in the Aug. 7 primary. [Prater, a Democrat like Rabhi, is also unopposed in the primary. However, because of redistricting that takes effect with the upcoming election, Prater will be in the same district as incumbent Republican Alicia Ping, and faces a difficult race in the Nov. 6 general election.]

As a practical matter, Mark Heusel of the HSHV board noted that when the county issues its RFP, they’ll need to ensure that respondents have processes in place for managing records and payments, if the county wants its animal control contractor to handle licensing.

Bergman wondered whether it was possible under state law for veterinarians to give out licenses. When Conan Smith replied that the county treasurer can delegate that duty, Prater noted that the treasurer would have to consent to this approach. [Catherine McClary is the county treasurer.] Bergman wanted a legal opinion from the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger. Heusel indicated that he had talked with Hedger about this issue, and Hedger agreed that licensing could be privatized. Nevertheless, Bergman said, she wanted Hedger’s legal opinion.

Next Steps

Toward the end of the July 25 session, the group discussed what steps need to be taken to move this project forward. Mark Heusel suggested bringing in representatives from the county prosecutor’s office and the district courts, because enforcement is a big piece of this issue.

Rob Turner mentioned that a report about the cost structure for animal control services had been given to Conan Smith, who chairs the board of commissioners, and to county administrator Verna McDaniel. That’s where the rubber hits the road regarding policy, Turner said. The two groups – the policy task force and the sheriff’s work group – need to come together and develop a recommendation based on their respective work. Turner felt that needed to occur before bringing in the prosecutor and judicial staff.

Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Dispute Resolution Center.

Belinda Dulin of the Dispute Resolution Center noted that the next scheduled meeting for the task force is Aug. 22. Do they need a meeting earlier than that too? The consensus was yes – it was subsequently scheduled for Thursday, Aug. 9 at 2 p.m. in the basement conference room at 200 N. Main, the county administration building in downtown Ann Arbor.

Smith noted that there are two paths. One is related to the RFP, which needs to be issued so that a contract will be in place when the current HSHV contract expires on Dec. 31. He offered to draft a list of items that he feels are essential to be included in the RFP, based on the task force discussions. He said he’d distribute that document to the group to get their feedback.

There are some controversial items that can be deferred until a later date, he said, and that don’t need to be included in the RFP. Prater suggested cats should fall into that category, and Bergman added exotic animals. Prater also felt that conducting a summer animal census was controversial, though Turner noted that it’s done in other Michigan counties.

Smith said he’d work to get a list of items that would be acceptable to most commissioners for the RFP. They could address other possible options at a later date.

Prater felt there should be some discussion of sections 14-17 in the state’s Public Act 339 of 1919 – the dog law that mandates county responsibilities. Those sections address details about how licenses are issued, the role of the county treasurer, and the role of law enforcement officers. [.pdf of Michigan's dog law] The meeting conlcuded without that topic being addressed.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Rob Turner. Also from the county administration: Verna McDaniel.

Next meeting: Thursday, Aug. 9, at 2 p.m. in the lower level of the county administration building, 200 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date and location]

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