Chris Haslinger (second from right), director of training for the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters, received a proclamation from the county board of commissioners at the board’s Aug. 6 meeting. They were gathering for a photo to mark the event. From left: Conan Smith, Andy LaBarre, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Chris Haslinger, and Verna McDaniel, the county administrator. (Photos by the writer.)

The county has determined that it’s authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill for support of indigent veterans, without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008, and collects the tax in December. The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

The county’s position is that Act 88 can also be levied without voter approval to fund economic development and agricultural activities. This year, the proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014 – the same rate that was levied in 2013. It’s expected to raise an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues.

Final action on these tax levies is expected at the board’s Sept. 3 meeting.

Also related to Act 88, the board approved allocations of $87,760 in Act 88 revenues that were collected in 2013, to support six projects. Four of the projects are administrated by Ypsilanti-based Growing Hope, with the remaining two projects initiated by the Michigan State University Product Center.

During the Aug. 6 meeting, commissioners approved amendments to both the Act 88 projects resolution and the resolution to levy the tax this year. The amendments directed the county’s corporation counsel to provide a written opinion about how Act 88 revenues can lawfully be used, and how the tax can be lawfully levied without a vote of the people. The amendments were brought forward by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

In other action, the board received a second-quarter budget update, with projections showing a general fund surplus of $211,920 for the year. The board also made mid-year budget adjustments, which included allocating a $3.9 million surplus from 2013 into unearmarked reserves.

Commissioners approved a new policy to guide decisions on tax increment finance (TIF) proposals, and supported revised rules and guidelines from the water resources commissioner. Those revisions relate to procedures and design criteria for stormwater management systems.

A proclamation made during the Aug. 6 meeting honored Herb Ellis Sr., the first black man to be elected to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Ellis was elected in 1968 and served until 1982, representing Ann Arbor. During that time he also was the first black chair of the county board. He passed away on July 10, 2014 at the age of 98.

Another resolution recognized the contributions of United Association (UA), a union of plumbers, pipefitters, sprinkler fitters, welders, and heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) technicians. They’re in this area from Aug. 9-15 for their 61st annual training program, and have announced a new 15-year agreement to continue the program at the Washtenaw Community College.

The Aug. 6 meeting was held one day after the Aug. 5 primary elections. At the start of the meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi congratulated all primary candidates, and said he looked forward to working with Ruth Ann Jamnick, the winner of the District 5 Democratic primary. He quickly added “pending the general election, but I think…” – a comment that drew laughs. District 5 – which covers August Township and parts of Ypsilanti Township – is heavily Democratic. Jamnick, who prevailed in the four-way Democratic primary, will face Republican Timothy King in the Nov. 4 general election. District 5 was the only race that was contested for the county board, with incumbent Rolland Sizemore Jr. not seeking re-election. Incumbents in all other districts of the nine-member board were unchallenged in the primary.

At the end of the meeting, the board voted to enter into a closed executive session for the purpose of reviewing attorney-client privileged communication. It is one of the exemptions allowed under the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

After about 30 minutes, three commissioners returned to the boardroom – Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). They indicated to The Chronicle that they thought the discussion in the closed session had strayed away from the limits imposed by the OMA, and they had left the session because of that. They did not state what the nature of the discussion had been, nor the topic of the session.

Soon after, the remainder of the board emerged from the closed session, and the meeting was adjourned.

Act 88 Grants, Levy

The Aug. 6 agenda included a resolution to approve allocations to six projects, using funds from an Act 88 millage that the county levies each year. Commissioners were also asked to give initial approval to levy that tax.

Tony VanDerworp, the county’s economic development officer.

The county’s position is that Act 88 of 1913 can be levied without voter approval to fund economic development and agricultural activities. This year, the proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014 – the same rate that was levied in 2013. It’s expected to raise an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues.

In previous years, the resolution setting this millage has outlined how the revenues would be allocated. The largest allocations have gone to the county’s office of community & economic development, and to the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK.

However, at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the board adopted a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9). [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy included creating an Act 88 advisory committee to make recommendations to the board and prepare an annual report that assesses how Act 88 expenditures have contributed toward progress of goals adopted by the board. The policy allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. The policy also allocates up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding.

This year, the 10% amounts to $91,753. Of that, $3,993 remains unallocated and will stay in the Act 88 fund balance to support future projects. Beyond that, a total of $87,760 in funding was recommended for six projects initiated by two organizations – the Michigan State University Product Center, and Ypsilanti-based Growing Hope [.pdf of staff memo]:

• $10,060 to the MSU Product Center to study the potential for enhanced food processing in Washtenaw County.
• $12,700 to the MSU Product Center to develop “MarketMaker,” a food industry business network and database.
• $20,000 to Growing Hope/Reconsider to run community education events on the Michigan Invests Locally Exemption Act and to study the potential and processes for investing locally in Washtenaw County.
• $13,000 to Growing Hope/Revalue to provide two full-day educational events to assist investors in incorporating local investment offerings into their financial plans.
• $13,000 to Growing Hope to create a study on increasing food assistance sales at farmers markets in Washtenaw County.
• $19,000 to Growing Hope to support the development of an Ypsilanti “MarketPlace,” a year-round farmer’s market, and “MarketHub,” a food distribution center serving underserved communities.

These recommendations were made to the county board by the Act 88 advisory committee. Members are: County commissioners Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9); Todd Clark, president of United Bank & Trust; and Art Serafinski, chair of the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau board. Staff support was provided by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED), including economic development officer Tony VanDerworp, who attended the Aug. 6 meeting along with OCED director Mary Jo Callan.

Act 88 Grants: Board Discussion

Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) began the discussion by noting that he’s had some long-standing concerns about the legality of how the county is using Act 88 funds. Rather than sorting those issues out that night, he said he’d rather work with the county’s corporation counsel and come to an understanding about it.

He then brought forward an amendment for the projects resolution, requesting that corporation counsel provide the board with a written opinion about the lawful use of the sums raised under Act 88. Smith’s original proposed amendment stated:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by December 31, 2014, detailing the lawful uses of sums raised under Act 88 of 1913 (MCLA 46.161), and that this opinion address in similar manner other possible interpretations.

Smith’s motion did not receive support from any other commissioners to bring it forward for discussion, so Alicia Ping (R-District 3) declared it dead due to the lack of support.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had been out of the room during this part of the meeting, and returned to their seats just after the motion had been declared dead. Conan Smith said he’d be willing to support Dan Smith’s motion. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – vice chair of the ways & means committee, who was chairing the meeting in the absence of Ways & Means chair Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) – allowed D. Smith to reintroduce the motion. It was then supported by C. Smith.

C. Smith said there’s been a lot of confusion about Act 88, “and we face it every year.” He and D. Smith had spent a lot of time on the phone talking about the meaning of the act, he said, so “it would be really helpful to have an interpretation that we can use as we go into our granting processes and the distribution of these funds.”

At the Act 88 committee meeting that was held earlier in the day, C. Smith said, they began talking about the grants process for next year, and about how to ensure that the allocations relate specifically to the purposes of the act – “just to make sure we’re on the straight and narrow.” One way to go about it is to leave it up to the committee to determine, though none of the committee members are lawyers, he noted. He thought it would be great to have a statement to rely on. Even if it’s not possible to be definitive – because the law itself is unclear – it would be useful to know what ways the law could be interpreted, he said. C. Smith concluded that he was comfortable with the amendment.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, about what legal effect Hedger’s legal opinion would have – “what would it get us on the hook for down the road, good or bad?”

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

Hedger replied that like any opinion, it would simply be his advice to the board. As policymakers, ultimately it’s the county commissioners who decide what to do, he noted. If the amendment were approved, he’d give them his best interpretation of how the Act 88 revenues can be spent. Hedger said that asking him to come up with alternative interpretations, as directed by D. Smith’s draft amendment, was a little “touchy-feely.” He added: “That would just be me speculating.”

As far as putting the county on the hook one way or another, Hedger said he didn’t think that was an issue, because it would just be an opinion.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked what D. Smith meant by the word “exhaustive.” D. Smith replied that Hedger has already provided the board with opinions on other topics that explain how phrases could be construed in different ways. That’s what D. Smith intended by “exhaustive.” The language in MCLA 46.161 is extremely convoluted, he added, so Hedger could explain how parsing the grammar in different ways would yield different interpretations. Then it’s up to the board to decide which interpretation to use, he said.

Rabhi said he thought an opinion was simply an opinion – not a description of other opinions. He wasn’t sure it was an appropriate approach to ask for alternative interpretations. Rabhi would support asking Hedger to give the board his interpretation of the law, but it wasn’t Hedger’s job to do more than that.

C. Smith said he’d asked D. Smith to include that language in the amendment. He noted that the very first sentence of Act 88 has a semicolon in it. That sentence states:

The boards of supervisors of the several counties may levy a special tax on the taxable property within their respective counties for the purpose of creating a fund; or appropriate out of the general fund an amount to be used for advertising agricultural or industrial advantages of the state or county or any part of the state, or for collecting, preparing or maintaining an exhibition of the products and industries of the county at any domestic or foreign exposition, for the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing the trade in the products of Michigan, or advertising the state and any portion thereof for tourists and resorters.

As an English major, C. Smith said, his interpretation of a semicolon is to stop one thought, and append another thought to it – interrelated but separate. So for the Act 88 language, he said, there might be two legitimate interpretations of the function of that semicolon. It’s important for the board, which will be allocating the Act 88 dollars, “to have some degree of comfort that we’re doing it within the parameters of legality, even if those aren’t 100% clear,” he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The courts ultimately are responsible for interpreting the law, C. Smith said. If the board asked for a legal opinion and someone then sued the county over Act 88, the board would have a document that showed the legal underpinnings for their decision – and “I would feel more comfortable with the decisions that we are making.”

Act 88 is a mess, C. Smith continued – it’s “ancient” legislation that’s been amended over the decades, making it even more convoluted. “Just knowing that we’re walking down a path that is legal – even if we’re not sure that that is the absolute right path – I think would be helpful for us on the committee to make an allocation of the funds,” he said. “What I definitely don’t want to do is to walk down a path that’s not legal.”

D. Smith said he wants to make sure there’s a very full discussion of the law’s various nuances. At the end of the day, Hedger will provide his best interpretation of the law, he added. But as part of that guidance, it’s prudent to explore other ways that it could be interpreted. It should answer as many questions as can be answered, he said, “so that this issue is put to rest once and for all.”

Rabhi said it seemed like D. Smith was trying to do Hedger’s job. He thought they should ask the person that they hired to be the county’s attorney for his opinion. If the board wants a white paper on Act 88, they should ask for that – but maybe not from Hedger, he said. Rabhi asked Hedger what he thought.

Hedger replied that after this discussion, he had a better feel for what the amendment is asking for. He said D. Smith was right – when Hedger writes legal opinions for the board, he often describes other interpretations that he doesn’t necessarily agree with. He didn’t have a problem with this approach.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) didn’t think the amendment accurately reflected what the board wanted from Hedger. C. Smith said he’d be comfortable striking the last clause: “…and that this opinion address in similar manner other possible interpretations.” D. Smith agreed to that change.

Rabhi thanked the Smiths, saying that striking the clause would allow him to support the amendment.

The revised amendment was as follows: [strike-through reflects a clause that was struck during deliberations]:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by December 31, 2014, detailing the lawful uses of sums raised under Act 88 of 1913 (MCLA 46.161), and that this opinion address in similar manner other possible interpretations.

Outcome on the amendment, as revised: It passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Outcome on main resolution, as amended: The board unanimously passed the resolution allocating Act 88 funds, without additional discussion.

After the vote, Conan Smith commented that this was the first round of competitive Act 88 grants, and the projects are really interesting. “I think they’ll be very impactful on the community,” he said. He was especially excited about the grant to Growing Hope to study how to increase the use of food stamps at the Ypsilanti farmers market, so that people who use food stamps can get better access to fresh fruit and vegetables. He encouraged everyone in the community to take a close look at these projects.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed some frustration about the amount of money in general that’s being spent on studies, rather than directly on projects. He thought that the Ypsilanti farmers market project should be expanded to other parts of the county.

Act 88 Levy: Board Discussion

Later in the meeting, the board was asked to consider a separate resolution that would authorize the county to levy the Act 88 tax this year.

Dan Smith brought forward a similar amendment, aimed at getting a firm understanding of the Act 88 millage:

FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs Corporation Counsel to provide an exhaustive written opinion, by October 1, 2014, detailing the exact mechanism under which Act 88 of 1913 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

There was no discussion on the amendment.

Outcome on the amendment: It passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Outcome on the main resolution, as amended: It passed unanimously.

2nd Quarter Budget Update

The administration gave an update on the county’s second-quarter financial status, for the period from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2014. County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the update by calling it “good news.” [.pdf of presentation]

Finance analyst Tina Gavalier.

Tina Gavalier of the county’s finance staff told commissioners that property tax revenue is showing a projected surplus of $720,000 compared to what was budgeted for 2014. In addition, the sheriff’s office is projecting a roughly $200,000 surplus due to federal, state and local reimbursements for prisoner boardings. In the category of general intergovernmental revenues, there’s now a projected surplus of $370,000 due to state liquor tax funds and local reimbursements for animal control.

Several other areas are showing a revenue shortfall, however, compared to the amount budgeted. Those units include the clerk/register of deeds ($350,000 shortfall), district court ($209,000 shortfall), trial court ($73,000 shortfall) and interest income ($71,000 shortfall).

Gavalier noted that the trial court is still determining the impact of a Michigan Supreme Court decision prohibiting the assessment of court costs on criminal cases. The court can collect on anything that was assessed prior to the court ruling, she explained, but if no legislative action is taken, courts could see a substantial decrease in future revenues.

Overall, the net projected revenues for the general fund show a revenue surplus of $656,991.

On the expenditure side, the sheriff’s office has a projected over-expenditure of $673,000 related to overtime costs, inmate food and medical services, and law enforcement operating supplies. Gavalier said the sheriff and his staff are actively working to reduce that over-expenditure by year’s end. All other departments are reporting a combined operating surplus of $135,000.

In other expenditure categories, the line item for tax appeals and refunds is projected to have a surplus of about $239,000. The line item of central charges has a projected surplus of $93,000 due to tax refund overpayments being less than budgeted – partially offset by projected over-expenditures from the homelessness initiative that the board approved earlier this year. Appropriations are assumed to be on budget at $16.2 million. The expenditure projections also took into account structural and non-structural budget adjustments that have been made so far in 2014, totaling $560,000.

The net projected over-expenditures for the general fund are $445,070. So the projected general fund surplus for 2014 is $211,920.

Washtenaw County general fund projections for 2014.

If that $211,920 is added to the fund balance at year’s end, Gavalier said, then the fund balance would be 20.3% of the general fund expenditures.

Most departments that aren’t part of the general fund are on budget or are projecting a surplus, Gavalier reported. Two areas – veterans relief and risk management – are using their fund balances as planned, she said.

Some revenue issues to monitor include: (1) state legislation that might repeal or reform Act 88, (2) revenues for the clerk/register of deeds office, (3) court revenues, (4) personal property tax reform, and (5) payments from state revenue-sharing. Expenditure items to monitor include rising costs in the child care fund due to increased caseloads and placements, the sheriff’s office costs, and union contract negotiations.

Gavalier noted that the board will receive a third-quarter update in November, with a budget reaffirmation process taking place this fall for the 2015-2017 budget.

2nd Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Responding to a query from Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Tina Gavalier explained that the projected revenue shortfall of $350,000 in the clerk/register of deeds office was from lower-than-projected fees from document-processing – such as real estate transfers and marriage licenses. It’s lower than it’s been in the past several years. Rabhi quipped: “Buy houses and get married, everybody!”

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Regarding the courts, Rabhi asked if there’s legislation pending to address the impact of the recent state Supreme Court ruling. He wondered if the county’s lobbyist needed to work on something in Lansing. [Washtenaw County and several other local municipalities pay Governmental Consultant Services Inc. to act as a lobbyist for their interests at the state level.]

County administrator Verna McDaniel said she hadn’t taken any action on this issue, but would be talking with the court administrators about it. She pointed out that the courts operate under a lump sum budget.

Rabhi said it might be worthwhile to see what other counties are facing, and to see if there’s potential to work across county lines. McDaniel said she’d get more information about that.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) wondered when the new GASB regulations take effect. He was concerned when the administration talks about a “surplus,” knowing that the county actually has about a huge amount of unfunded liability.

By way of background, Smith was referring to more than $200 million in unfunded liabilities from the retiree health care and pension funds. The new accounting changes – required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) – take effect in phases. In 2014, the main change will be more disclosures in notes to the financial statements, required by GASB 67. But in 2015, when GASB 68 is implemented, the county’s unfunded actuarial accrued pension liability will be booked as a liability in the county’s statement of net position, which will be a significant change, according to the county’s finance staff. New standards for health care liabilities will be addressed in the future by GASB, and the county’s accounting staff is working on that.

McDaniel replied that it’s an issue that staff will “continue to dialogue with this board about,” to get direction in terms of priorities and any additional actuarial payments that might be required.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about the shortfall for the courts, saying she was concerned about it. She wondered how that will impact the memorandum of understanding with the county, regarding the lump sum budget under which the courts operate. McDaniel noted that in the past, the courts have been able to work within their lump sum budget. But this year, the impact of the Supreme Court ruling will be substantial, she said. So the courts will have to come up with a plan about how they’ll handle it. The impact could be as much as a half million dollars, McDaniel said. “We’ll work with them, and we’ll have more information as this develops.”

Ping also asked for a breakdown in line-item costs that are contributing to the over-expenditures in the sheriff’s office budget. McDaniel said that the sheriff, Jerry Clayton, felt confident that expenses will even out over the remainder of 2014, based on actions that his office is taking.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

2014 Budget Adjustments

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to mid-year budget adjustments, including allocating this year’s higher-than-expected property tax revenues and a $3.9 million surplus from 2013. Initial approval had been given at the board’s July 9 meeting.

The adjustments increased the general fund budget’s expenses and revenues by $720,486 for 2014, $733,233 for 2015, $745,980 for 2016 and $758,727 for 2017. The county operates on a four-year budget, with the fiscal year matching the calendar year.

The adjustments were recommended by county administrator Verna McDaniel, who requested setting aside the $3,920,818 surplus from 2013 in unearmarked reserves, rather than spending it. The projected year-end 2014 fund balance is $20,638,675. The county board had previously approved a goal of holding a fund balance equal to 20% of its general fund budget. For 2014, the general fund budget is $103,127,202. [.pdf of staff memo and mid-year budget resolution]

In addition, the following mid-year budget adjustments were made to the general fund:

• Structural adjustments resulting in a $494,677 increase in expenditures for: (1) providing employee health care coverage for autism; (2) a consultant to help with the board’s budget priority work, (3) a “local government initiatives” intern; (4) reinstatement of two full-time equivalent positions in the sheriff’s office; and (5) salary adjustments for non-union employees.
• Non-structural, one-time, adjustments that increased expenditures by $65,000 for homelessness initiatives.

The administration recommended that the remaining $160,809 be held as an undesignated allocation until budget projections improve as new information becomes available. Finance staff gave a second-quarter budget update on Aug. 6, projecting that the county will have a $211,920 general fund surplus at the end of 2014. [.pdf of budget presentation]

From left: County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

When an initial vote was taken on July 9, commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) had voted against it. On Aug. 6, both raised the same concerns they’ve voiced earlier.

Conan Smith said he hoped that when the county achieves its goal of a fund balance equal to 20% of the general fund budget, then any extra surplus would be “put to work in the community.” With its vote that night, the board will have achieved fiscal stability, he said, and he looked forward to achieving community stability as well.

Dan Smith stressed the importance of setting a budget and sticking to it, with adjustments coming only during the annual budget affirmation process – rather than throughout the year. There are other things to focus on, he said, including policy issues.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he agreed with C. Smith. The board has done a lot to make sure the county’s financial security is in place. Looking forward, there are some investments that the county can make in the community. He thanked C. Smith for advocating on that issue.

Outcome: The budget adjustments passed unanimously.

Veterans Relief Tax

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to levy a tax to support services for indigent veterans.

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

Since 2008, the county board has slightly increased the rate that it levies each year. In 2012, the rate was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It was raised to a rate of 1/30th of a mill in December 2013, to fund services in 2014.

The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

There was no discussion of this item at the board’s Aug. 6 meeting.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave initial approval to levy this millage. A final vote is expected at the board’s Sept. 3 meeting.

New TIF Policy

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval a policy to guide the county’s participation in tax increment financing (TIF) authorities.

Commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

At its Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, the board had passed a resolution directing county administrator Verna McDaniel to develop a policy for evaluating future TIF proposals. The resolution stated that the policy would be developed with input from staff of the office of community and economic development, the equalization department, and the brownfield redevelopment authority. The Oct. 16 resolution was passed over dissent by the board’s two Republican commissioners, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Subsequently, an advisory committee was formed to help develop the policy. Members were: county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7); county treasurer Catherine McClary; corporation counsel Curtis Hedger; and finance director Kelly Belknap.

The two-page policy brought forward by McDaniel lays out a process by which the board would consider any proposed or amended Corridor Improvement Authority (CIA) or Downtown Development Authority (DDA) where the capture of county tax revenues is requested. [.pdf of TIF policy]

New TIF Policy: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) referred to this section of the policy:

III. Tax Increment Financing Participation Process

Any local unit of government proposing a new or amended Corridor Improvement Authority or Downtown Development Authority, or other statutory entity empowered to capture, incremental County tax revenues are requested, shall adhere to the following review process, in addition to those specified by the appropriate state enabling legislation:

…

D. Any County participation in these Tax Increment Financing Districts shall be through the execution of a participation agreement. A participation agreement shall include, at a minimum, extent of County participation including estimated amount (consideration of dollar for dollar and percentage estimates), duration, and methods, if any, of termination and reporting requirements.

IV. County Opt Out Authorization

In the event a requesting entity fails to adhere to this process, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorize the County Administrator to take the appropriate steps to opt out of participation in the proposed tax increment financing plan.

It appeared to D. Smith that no additional board approval would be required, in order for the county administrator to begin opt-out proceedings if the requesting entity doesn’t follow the agreed-upon process. He didn’t object to that approach, but wanted to make certain that it’s what is intended.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) responded, saying that D. Smith’s interpretation was correct. Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said the committee gave that authorization because of a potential timing issue. There are times when deadlines related to the TIF process would occur before the next board meeting, “so it gives the administrator some flexibility,” he said.

LaBarre said the policy is an attempt to give the board as broad a framework as possible. This is a tool the board could use, he said, but he also urged the board to look at each individual proposal in its set-up and its context. There are so many different types of tax-capture mechanisms for many different purposes, so he wanted to give that caveat. LaBarre praised the county staff for their work in developing this policy, saying “I simply went along for the ride.

Outcome: The TIF policy passed unanimously on an initial vote. A final vote is expected at the board’s next meeting, on Sept. 3.

Appointments

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), the board’s chair, made several nominations for appointments.

• Food Policy Council: Khadije Wallace to the slot for a citizen representative, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.
• River Raisin Watershed Council: Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, as the Washtenaw County representative; and Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the water resources commissioner’s office, as the county alternate. Those terms both end on Dec. 31, 2014.
• 2014 Remonumentation and Land Survey Peer Review Group: Thomas Sutherland, John Jekabson, Kevin Gingras, Patrick Hastings and Kenneth Coleman.

Outcome: All appointments were confirmed.

Water Resources: Revised Rules & Guidelines

The board’s Aug. 6 agenda included an item to support new rules and guidelines proposed by the county’s water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. The changes relate to procedures and design criteria for stormwater management systems. [.pdf of revised rules and guidelines]

The previous rules and guidelines had been adopted in 2000. According to a staff memo, the new changes reflect updated requirements of the county’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater discharge permit, which is administered by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Pratt attended the Aug. 6 meeting, but there were no questions from commissioners and no discussion on this item.

Outcome: The resolution supporting the revised rules and guidelines was approved.

Communications & Commentary

During the Aug. 6 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – UA

At its July 9, 2014 meeting, the board had passed a proclamation welcoming the United Association (UA), a union of plumbers, pipefitters, sprinkler fitters, welders, and heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) technicians. They’ll be in this area from Aug. 9-15 for their 61st annual training program. For the past 25 years, that program has been held in Washtenaw County on the Washtenaw Community College campus, bringing about 2,400 participants to the county with an estimated economic impact of $5 million. [.pdf of UA proclamation]

Chris Haslinger, director of training for the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters.

At the Aug. 6 meeting, Chris Haslinger, director of training for the UA, was on hand to receive the proclamation. He thanked the board. He described the growth of the training program over the years, pointing out that this year there will be 450 first-time attendees. He noted that the community here welcomes the UA members, and that the union receives a great deal of assistance from the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus. Both presidents of those bureaus – Mary Kerr and Debbie Locke Daniel – also attended the county board’s Aug. 6 meeting.

Halsinger reported that the UA had reached an agreement with WCC to extend the program here through 2028. There are eight people based in the Ann Arbor area who work year-round on UA training programs, he said. Eight people might not seem like a lot, he added, but it’s important that they live here and contribute to the community.

He described some other initiatives undertaken with WCC, and concluded by thanking the county, the city of Ann Arbor, Local 190 and Local 704. “We look forward to a future in the Ann Arbor community,” he said.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded by thanking Halsinger and sharing an anecdote. He said he was on a conference call with U.S. vice president Joe Biden, discussing the future of the country’s talent and job resources. Rabhi said he asked Biden a question and mentioned the partnership between WCC, the county, the UA and other communities as an example of the direction that the country should be heading. He thanked Haslinger for UA’s investment in this community.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Herb Ellis Sr.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) read a proclamation honoring Herb Ellis Sr., the first black man to be elected to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Ellis was elected in 1968 and served until 1982, representing Ann Arbor. During that time he also was the first black chair of the county board. [.pdf of proclamation]

Jeff Ellis.

Ellis had passed away on July 10, 2014 at the age of 98.

Jeff Ellis, one of Ellis’ sons, was on hand to accept the proclamation. His father’s life was dedicated to serving others, either through education, civic organizations or as an elected official, he said. In particular, Ellis had been interested in public health issues, promoting educational opportunities for young people, and improving the lives of senior citizens.

Herb Ellis was a pioneer in the community, as one of the first black teachers in the Ann Arbor public school system, and the first person of color to be elected to the county board of commissioners. He was recognized as a consensus-builder, Jeff Ellis said. “He believed in leading by example, and did his best to be a positive role model in all aspects of his life. By most accounts, he was successful in that effort.”

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Donald Shelton

The board had a third proclamation – for 22nd circuit court judge Donald Shelton, who is retiring this year. [.pdf of proclamation for Shelton] Shelton was out of town and did not attend the Aug. 6 meeting. Yousef Rabhi reported that the proclamation would be given to Shelton at a retirement party later this year.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for political office in the state legislature and Ann Arbor city council. He called on the county to redouble its efforts after the Aug. 5 primary election to give priority to eliminating homelessness, generating adequate affordable housing, true countywide affordable and accessible public transportation, affordable health care and education. He supported Act 88 funding but didn’t think the grants reflected these priorities. Partridge advocated for support of Democrat Mark Schauer in his bid for governor, and for a progressive Democratic platform to address the needs of the most vulnerable residents. The state needs a balanced budget, but not one that’s balanced on the backs of those who are least able to fend for themselves in this economy.

Executive Session

At the end of the meeting, the board voted unanimously to go into executive session for the purpose of reviewing attorney-client privileged communication. It is one of the exemptions allowed under the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Commissioners retreated to a room in the administration’s offices, along with several staff members and others who had been invited into the closed session.

After about 30 minutes, three commissioners returned to the boardroom – Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). They indicated to The Chronicle that they thought the discussion in the closed session had strayed away from the limits imposed by the OMA, and they had left the session because of that. They did not state what the nature of the discussion had been, nor the topic of the session.

Soon after, the remainder of the board emerged from the closed session, and the meeting was adjourned.

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

Absent: Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Since 2008, the county board has slightly increased the rate that it levies each year. In 2012, the rate was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It was raised to a rate of 1/30th of a mill in December 2013, to fund services in 2014.

The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

There was no discussion of this item at the board’s Aug. 6 meeting.

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

From left: Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1); Bob Tetens, director of parks & recreation; county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie; and county treasurer Catherine McClary. (Photos by the writer.)

The board, comprised of elected officials representing nine districts, is responsible for budget decisions. The five positions that are elected by voters countywide – the sheriff, prosecuting attorney, treasurer, clerk/register of deeds and water resources commissioner – head up county departments but must have their budgets approved by the board.

The board is developing a process that will guide budget decisions regarding how to manage budget surpluses or shortfalls, including $3.9 million surplus from 2013 and about $600,000 in higher-than-budgeted property tax revenues in 2014. The county administrator, Verna McDaniel, is recommending that the $3.9 million be kept as general fund reserves. Some county commissioners would rather spend at least a portion of the surplus.

The recommendation from the electeds is to allocate a to-be-determined percentage of any surplus to these five areas: (1) unfunded liabilities for the pension fund; (2) unfunded liabilities for the retiree health care fund; (3) the county’s housing fund, which was eliminated in 2012; (4) the delinquent tax fund reserves, specifically for internal advances on county projects to save bonding costs; and (5) the capital reserve fund or unearmarked reserve fund.

Commissioners made no decision on these recommendations, other than to thank the electeds for their input.

In other budget-related action, the board gave final approval to put a 10-year parks & recreation millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot. Commissioners also set public hearings for two millages that are levied annually in December without voter approval – for support of indigent veterans and their families; and to fund economic development and agricultural activities. Those hearings, to solicit public input, will be held at the board’s July 9 meeting.

The board also gave final approval to set the county’s general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. This is an annual process that includes a public hearing, which was also held on June 4. One person spoke.

A final vote was also taken to create a new committee that will explore funding options for road repair. This follows the board’s rejection – at its meeting on May 21, 2014 – of a proposal to levy a countywide tax for this purpose. No committee members have been appointed yet.

The board was also briefed on work by the community corrections unit, which is part of the sheriff’s department. It provides services that include jail diversion and alternative sentencing options to the Washtenaw County Trial Court, pre-trial services, drug testing, and electronic monitoring. The use of electronic monitoring has increased dramatically, from an average number of cases between 25-30 at any given time in FY 2012-2013, to between 85-115 cases in FY 2013-14.

During public commentary, commissioners heard from David Schonberger, an Ann Arbor resident who thanked the board for passing a resolution last month to oppose oil exploration and drilling in the county. He urged them to use it as a starting point for more action. Specifically, he advocated that the board fund a robust public education campaign and establish an advisory committee to work with Scio Township and the city of Ann Arbor on this issue.

Budget Process

At its Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners approved a four-year general fund budget for 2014-2017. As part of that process, the board adopted a set of budget policies, which were revised at that meeting to address a process for allocating any revenue surpluses – beyond the amounts that are contributed to the county’s fund balance.

Here are the relevant policy sections:

11. The Board of Commissioners commits to long-term budget flexibility and sustainability, and an adequate level of cash flow with its attention to fund balance. A healthy fund balance is an essential ingredient and the following was considered to determine an appropriate level as a target: an appropriate level to fund at least 60 days of operations, to help offset negative cash flow (primarily from the seven month delay in property tax collections after incurred expenses), and to assist buffering any unexpected downturns. Therefore, the Board shall plan future budgets to meet the goal of a Reserve for Subsequent Years representing at least 20.0% of General Fund expenditures, net of indirect costs.

12. Any annual surplus or deficit will have options for use recommended by the County Administrator in alignment with the community outcomes and processes as outlined by the adopted Community Impact Resolution 13-TBD, presented to the Board of Commissioner for consideration and confirmed by Board action and authorization in July of each calendar year.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) has been leading the budget process for the board, as chair of its ways & means committee. On May 21, 2014, she presented a timeline for budget work in 2014. [.pdf of budget calendar resolution] Highlights are:

• July 24, 2013: Board approved budget priorities. (That document was subsequently amended on Aug. 7, 2013.)
• May 7, 2014: Board authorized county administrator to seek consultant for work on budget priorities. The review and selection process for that consultant is underway.
• June 5, 2014: Budget discussion on the board’s working session agenda, to discuss the status of any general fund surplus or shortfall.
• July 9, 2014: County administrator presents recommendation for using surplus or addressing shortfall, based on board priorities. Board to take initial vote on recommendation.
• Aug. 6, 2014: Final vote set for surplus/shortfall recommendation.

The county had a 2013 general fund surplus of $3.9 million. County administrator Verna McDaniel has recommended to keep that amount in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves, to meet the county’s goal of having reserves that total 20% of the general fund budget.

On May 21, Conan Smith (D-District 9) had expressed frustration at the approach, because the county administrator has already recommended to keep that amount in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves. He thought the process was “turning out to be little more than a rubber stamp of a decision that’s already been proposed by the administration.” Brabec stressed that commissioners will be discussing and making the final decision – which might differ from the administration’s recommendation.

Budget Process: Advice from “The Electeds”

On June 4, board vice chair Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was leading the board meeting in the absence of chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8). She noted that there were “special guests” at the meeting who would be making a presentation to the board – three of the five countywide elected officials: Sheriff Jerry Clayton, treasurer Catherine McClary, and prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie. Clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum and water resources commissioner Evan Pratt did not attend, but supported the written recommendation that was presented to the board. [.pdf of recommendation] These five positions are informally known as “the electeds.”

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) is vice chair of the county board.

Clayton referred to Ping’s introduction, joking that if they are viewed as guests then they should come to more meetings. He said the recommendation speaks for itself, but they wanted to frame it for the board. They understood that the board has the final authority and decision-making for the county budget, and for how revenues are spent. “We respect that,” Clayton said. But the five countywide-elected officials are part of the county leadership too, he added, and are responsible to all 340,000 residents that elected them into office. So they thought it was important to lend their perspective as the board undertakes its new budget process.

The countywide electeds are asking the board to factor in some set-asides for items that will continue to be a challenge, Clayton said. There are no recommendations regarding amounts or percentages, he noted – that determination is up to the board. “We plan on staying available and engaged in the process as you think about the budget,” he said. “We want to be seen as partners, as part of an overall collaborative effort – not as obstacles or as a group that’s trying to get in the way of the process, but quite frankly trying to enhance the process.”

McClary stressed that the recommendation is supported by all five countywide elected officials, and is presented in the spirit of partnership. She noted that several years ago, she had served on the county board, and for part of that time she served with Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). One of the most important things for the board to assert was its ability to set policy through its budget. “That is your primary responsibility and authority as a board of commissioners,” she said.

The board had taken a momentous step last year when they adopted a four-year budget, McClary continued, “and we want to commend you for that.” But a four-year budget requires being very conservative about revenue estimates. For example, the budget had projected a 1% increase in revenues this year, but the actually increase is about 2% – or about $600,000 more in property tax revenues than budgeted.

In addition, the county recently refinanced some bonds, saving more than $2 million, McClary noted. That amount had previously been budgeted for debt service. [.pdf of press release about bond re-funding] [.pdf of May 28, 2014 bond prospectus]

So knowing that there will likely be unanticipated increases in tax revenues over the next four years, the five electeds are asking that the board consider developing and adopting a formula by which to allocate that money. For example, McClary said the county has “severe” unfunded liabilities for its pension fund – a defined benefit plan called the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) – and for its Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) retiree health care fund. The county is working on a 27-year amortization to achieve 100% funding, but any money that’s put into the funds today will be compounded over that 27-year period, she noted.

In addition to allocating a percentage of any surplus to unfunded WCERS and VEBA liabilities, other recommendations for allocating surplus revenues are:

• Adding to the county’s delinquent tax fund reserves, specifically for internal advances on county projects to save bonding costs.
• Restoring the county’s housing fund. (The fund had received about $110,000 annually, but was eliminated in 2012 as the county made cuts to prevent a budget deficit.)
• Increasing the budgeted amount for the capital reserve fund or unearmarked reserve fund.

By having a plan and assigning percentages to different priorities, McClary noted, the board can strategically allocate surplus funds. She pointed out that the Ann Arbor city council had done something similar at its June 2 meeting – by voting to set aside 50% of the net proceeds from the possible sale of development rights on the Library Lane lot, and put those proceeds into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

McClary said she’d also been surprised by Ping’s description of the electeds as “guests,” calling it exceedingly polite. She again stressed that the five electeds hoped to be partners with the board, giving “on-the-ground information about what it’s like to run a department and to provide services to citizens in this county.”

Budget Process: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) responded to the presentation by quipping, “Thanks, roommates!” He asked McClary to explain the recommendation about adding to the delinquent tax fund reserves for internal advances.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

McClary replied that it’s a topic somewhat separate from any decision to allocate surplus revenues to it. She said the issue can be explored in more detail at a July 10 working session, when she and Evan Pratt – the county’s water resources commissioner – will be making a presentation.

McClary then described the proposal, which she had also mentioned in a presentation to the board at its March 19, 2014 meeting. The idea is for the county to internally fund some of its projects – for drains, roads, public works, parks – instead of bonding. The amount for internal advances would be small – in the $400,000 range or less. She noted that when the county issues bonds, it has to pay a bond attorney and financial advisor, in addition to other costs associated with a bond issue. About half of the money goes toward fees and interest payments, not for the project itself. “We believe we can save the taxpayers quite a bit of money,” she said, by taking care of these financing needs internally, which she called “self-funding.”

When she first became treasurer, McClary noted, there was about $20 million in the delinquent tax revolving fund, and delinquent taxes were about $15 million. So it would have been possible to self-fund some projects then, but the county administration at that time didn’t take that approach. Rather, any excess money above $4 million was moved to the capital projects fund – that’s how the county has been paying debt service for various projects over the last 20 years, she said.

In the past, the county board had authorized keeping up to $4 million in the delinquent tax revolving fund as reserves. Now, McClary is recommending to increase that amount incrementally so that there will be more money for self-funding. She said she already self-funds a small amount of projects, including drain projects from the office of the water resources commissioner.

As another example, McClary said she has discussed using the fund to help the road commission purchase trucks – as the commission typically need about $1 million for five trucks each year. Right now, the road commission is financing those purchases at an interest rate over 3%. McClary said her investment portfolio is earning half a percent. If the road commission agreed to a 2% interest rate in a self-funding arrangement, they’d save money and the general fund would earn more. “That’s the type of thing we want to talk with you about,” she said.

McClary noted that the four-year budget included very conservative estimates on property tax revenues, so there will likely be excess revenues. She told the board that this particular group of commissioners has been very policy-oriented, and meticulous about planning. “We’re thinking this would be a great partnership,” she said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Conan Smith agreed, saying the anticipated excess revenues provide a great opportunity to make strategic, systemic investments. It’s an opportunity that the county hasn’t had in many years, he said, and the advice from electeds is appreciated.

Other commissioners also thanked the group for these recommendations. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked about the recommendation to put a percentage of excess revenues toward unfunded liabilities in the WCERS pension fund. The recommendation includes a statement that WCERS is “now less than 60% funded, a level defined as below acceptable norms.” He asked McClary to elaborate, saying that it drew a bit of a red flag for him.

McClary said she thought the recent bond rating prospectus had mentioned that the pension funding was low. But it had also mentioned the management of the county and the strategic role that the board of commissioners is playing, she said. Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had gone with the administration to meet with the Standard & Poor’s staff prior to the bond issue, McClary said. She noted that she had participated in that meeting via conference call, and reported that Rabhi had conveyed in a very emphatic way the strategic approach that the board is taking. She pointed out that the county was successful in securing a triple-A rating.

The Government Finance Officers Association is the premier organization for assessing standards, McClary noted. LaBarre’s question would be a good one to ask of the county’s actuaries when they present to the board in July, she added. “They have indicated that anything under 60% is getting into territory that becomes problematic,” she said.

LaBarre clarified with McClary that the term “below acceptable norms” didn’t come from an audit or official statement from the actuaries.

Budget Process: Working Session

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) gave an update on the hiring of a consultant for helping the board on budget-related work. By way of background, at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, commissioners authorized county administrator Verna McDaniel to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. As county administrator, McDaniel has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts.

Two candidates were selected for interviews, but one of them subsequently withdrew, Brabec said. The remaining candidate will be interviewed on June 5, she added.

Also on June 5, the board would be holding a budget discussion at its working session, including how to use the 2013 budget surplus. Responding to a query from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Brabec said that no decisions would be made at the working session, “but we wanted to start to have that conversation.” At some point, the board will develop a document with guidelines that will direct their decisions about allocating any surplus.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Public Hearings for Millages

The board was asked to set public hearings for its July 9 meeting to get input on two millages that Washtenaw county levies without voter approval: (1) for support of indigent veterans and their families; and (2) to fund economic development and agricultural activities.

From left: Commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), standing, talk with Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management.

No increase is proposed for the economic development millage, levied under Act 88. The proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014, raising an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues. In previous years, the resolution setting this millage has outlined how the revenues would be allocated. The largest allocations have gone to the county’s office of community & economic development, and to the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK.

However, at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the board adopted a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9). [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy included creating an Act 88 advisory committee to make recommendations to the board and prepare an annual report that assesses how Act 88 expenditures have contributed toward progress of goals adopted by the board. The policy allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. The policy also allocates up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding.

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

Since 2008, the county board has slightly increased the rate that it levies each year. In 2012, the rate was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It was raised to a rate of 1/30th of a mill in December 2013, to fund services in 2014.

The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

In previous years, the board has taken action in the fall to levy these millages. When queried by The Chronicle about the earlier timeline this year, finance director Kelly Belknap said the required documentation for these millages must be submitted by Sept. 30. “Prior to submitting the required documentation the Commissioners must first approve the levy. So it is just about timing and getting the documents submitted within the required timeframe,” she said.

Outcome: Without discussion, the public hearings for these millages were set for July 9.

Parks & Recreation Millage

The agenda included a resolution giving final approval to put a 10-year parks & recreation operations millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

From left: Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). Sizemore also serves on the county parks & recreation commission.

The parks & recreation operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2353 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.2 million annually. That’s about half of the parks & recreation annual operating expenses of $6.7 million. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations. [.pdf of staff memo]

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board gave final approval to put the parks & recreation operations millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

General Operating Millage

The June 4 meeting included a final vote to set the county’s 2014 general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. This is an annual process that includes a public hearing, which was also held on June 4. One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke, advocating for more resources to provide services for the county’s most vulnerable residents.

Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (for operations at 0.2353 mills and capital improvements at 0.2367 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate levied in July to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2013. [.pdf of staff memo]

This is a mandatory procedural action, not a vote to levy new taxes. With a few minor exceptions, the county board does not have authority to levy taxes independently. Millage increases, new millages or an action to reset a millage at its original rate (known as a Headlee override) would require voter approval.

The rates will be included on the July tax bills for property owners in Washtenaw County.

Outcome: The millage rate was set by a unanimous vote, without discussion.

Community Corrections

A request to approve the application for a $421,900 state community corrections grant appeared on the June 4 agenda.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton talks with Judy Foy, left, and Renee Wilson, director of community corrections. Foy serves on the community corrections advisory board.

The grant from the Michigan Dept. of Corrections is for the period from Oct. 1, 2014 through Sept. 30, 2015. This is part of a regular, annual grant process to fund services that include diversion and alternative sentencing options to the Washtenaw County Trial Court, pre-trial services, drug testing, electronic monitoring and “social education,” according to a staff memo. The total program of $1.18 million also includes $240,983 in county matching funds, $280,584 in estimated program revenue, and $239,554 in the use of fund balance. The community corrections program is part of the county sheriff’s office. [.pdf of staff memo] [.pdf of grant application]

This year’s program includes a new position – with a salary range between $31,912 and $43,674 – to help supervise a substantial increase in use of electronic monitoring by all Washtenaw County courts, for pretrial and sentenced offenders as an alternative to jail. According to the staff memo, the use of electronic monitoring increased 256% over the previous fiscal year. Average electronic monitoring cases for FY 2012-13 were between 25-30 at any given time, and increased to between 85-115 cases in FY 2013-14. Increased revenue from the electronic monitoring program and use of fund balance will be used to fund the increase in staffing.

The grant was submitted to the state in May.

Community Corrections: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) described community corrections as a “gem” that most residents aren’t aware of. She asked for more information about the increase in the number of people who are served through this program.

Renee Wilson, community corrections director, replied that there’s been a constant increase over the past two or three years, for a variety of reasons. Community corrections has established itself as a service for the courts and county prosecutor’s office that they have confidence in, she said, in terms of pre-trial supervision. Systemically, she added, the county is approaching the management of jail overcrowding better than in the past, diverting people who don’t need to be in jail during the pre-trial period by using community corrections.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton and commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

There’s also been an increase in drug testing. “We’ve pretty much become the sole provider of drug-testing services to all of Washtenaw County,” Wilson said. In past years, there were some private entities that provided those services, but the courts have moved to looking at community corrections for that service, she said.

The case load for electronic monitoring is another area that’s increased, Wilson noted. One factor is the increase in specialty courts throughout the county, which each have different requirements for services, including electronic monitoring. Also, the 14-A District Court no longer runs its own tether program, she noted, so that’s coming to community corrections as well.

Courts are doing risk assessment for pre-trial offenders, Wilson explained. Court magistrates, prior to every arraignment, identify people who would be appropriate to release on bond, and determine what type of supervision would be appropriate for them. Some of those people are being referred to the electronic monitoring program, she said.

Brabec asked Wilson to talk about the number of jail beds saved by this approach. According to Wilson, from 2010 to 2013, the diversion efforts resulted in 91,375 jail bed days that weren’t used, saving the county $11,513,250. Wilson noted that these figures only included “successful completions” for all pre-trial and sentenced supervision programs. That is, the figures don’t include savings from people who were initially part of a program but who were then sent back to jail for whatever reason, she said.

Between 2012 and 2013 there was an increase in the estimated per-day cost of a jail bed per inmate. Prior to 2012, the cost was estimated at $85 per day, based on a study that the county had done in 2003. That figure was updated for 2013, based on internal cost studies done by the sheriff’s office. The current estimated per-day cost of a jail bed is $126.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the grant application.

Road Funding

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to create a new committee that will explore funding options for countywide road repair.

Lew Kidder of Scio Township has been active in road funding issues.

Commissioners had given initial approval to the idea at their May 21, 2014 meeting, after rejecting a proposal to levy a 0.4-mill countywide road tax in December. The tax would have been levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval.

In arguing against levying the tax at this time, some commissioners cited the need to study funding options – including a possible Act 283 levy – before making a decision. The committee will consist of seven members: (1) a road commissioner or designee; (2) the road commission managing director or designee; (3) the county board’s road commission liaison; (4) one additional county commissioner; (5) a position representing townships; (6) a position representing incorporated municipalities; and (7) a member of the general public. Members will be appointed at a later date.

The county administrator will help provide administrative support to the committee. The resolution also states that the county road commission could present a road funding plan at the board’s annual meeting in the fall “as Act 283 of 1909 provides.”

For additional Chronicle coverage on road-related issues, see: “County Board Continues Weighing Road Tax,” “County Board Debates Expanded Road Commission,” “County Board Sets Hearing on Road Tax,” “County Considers Road Funding Options,” “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

On June 4, there was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9). Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) were absent.

Board of Health

The June 4 board agenda included a resolution to create a board of health, an entity that would prove advice on public health issues for the county. Commissioners had given initial approval to the item at their May 21, 2014 meeting.

A description of the board’s duties is outlined in a staff memo that accompanied the resolution:

The purpose and role of a Washtenaw County Board of Health will be to identify public health problems and concerns in the community, establish health priorities, and advise the Board of Commissioners and the Health Department on issues and possible solutions. The Board of Health will serve as advocates and educators for public health services and policies. The Board of Health will provide oversight and guidance to the Health Department, and will recommend a program of basic health services to the Board of Commissioners.

The new Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals and requests for variances from the local public health and environmental regulations established under the Public Health Code. The Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals regarding the suspension or revocation of food service licenses.

The resolution creating the health board also dissolves an existing environmental health code appeals board and the hearing board for the Health Department Food Service Regulation. The duties of those boards would be absorbed by the new health board. [.pdf of staff memo]

The recommended size is 10 members, including one ex-officio representative from the county board of commissioners. According to the staff memo, appointments could represent “health service delivery (physicians, dentists, mental health practitioners, administrators); environmental health and conservation, land use planning, food service and nutrition, academia, K-12 education, philanthropy, social service delivery, legal services, and consumers of public health services.”

Members would be compensated for attending each meeting. The total cost for the health board, including in-kind staff support, is estimated at $19,000 annually. The board of health would be expected to convene for the first time in October 2014.

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s public health officer, attended the June 4 meeting but left when she was told that the item would be postponed.

There was no discussion on this item, but Conan Smith (D-District 9) moved to postpone it until the board’s July 9 meeting. He did not give an explanation for the postponement.

Outcome: The item was postponed until the July 9 meeting.

Bonding for Malletts Creek Drain Project

The board was asked to authorize bonding for up to $650,000 to fund the Malletts Creek Springwater sub-drain project in Ann Arbor. Bond payments would be made through special assessments against the city of Ann Arbor. The project will include stormwater management improvements in the city’s Springwater subdivision. According to a staff memo, the financing will be made through the state revolving loan fund at 2.5% over 20 years. [.pdf of staff memo]

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners granted initial approval for the bonding. A final vote is expected on July 9.

Proclamations

There were two resolutions of appreciation on the June 4 agenda.

Gloria Brooks, CEO of the nonprofit Arbor Hospice.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) presented a resolution honoring Arbor Hospice on its 30th anniversary. It was founded in 1984 by Mary Lindquist, a registered nurse, to provide care for the terminally ill and their families.

The nonprofit’s CEO, Gloria Brooks, was on hand to accept a framed copy of the resolution. She thanked commissioners, saying it was “amazing to have a 30-year journey as we help families experience their end-of-life journey.” Arbor Hospice helps 50% of the residents of Washtenaw County, she said – it’s the largest provider in this county. She invited commissioners to a celebration on June 11.

Brooks received a round of applause from the board and staff.

Another resolution of appreciation honored Roy Wilbanks for his service to Washtenaw County and Eastern Michigan University. Wilbanks, a former EMU regent, did not attend the June 4 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

During the June 4 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Oil Drilling

David Schonberger spoke during public commentary, introducing himself as a resident of Ann Arbor from the district represented by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7). He provided a handout to commissioners, in addition to his commentary. [.pdf of handout]

He thanked commissioners for passing a resolution at their May 21, 2014 meeting to oppose gas and oil drilling. He urged them to use it as a starting point for more action. Specifically, he advocated that the board fund a robust public education campaign and establish an advisory committee to work with Scio Township and the city of Ann Arbor on this issue. Schonberger noted that his research shows a gray area in relevant state laws, opening the door to “numerous creative ways to intervene and discourage that particular type of local economic development.”

From left: Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and commissioners Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Schonberger cited a 1990 summary judgment upheld by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit Court in the case of West Bay Exploration Co. v AIG et. al. [West Bay is seeking a permit for oil exploration in Scio Township.] “This citizen action is a statement about documented violations of state law, reckless irresponsibility, intentional corporate misconduct, and gross negligence at facilities located in Michigan,” he said. He added that NIMBY is particularly justified in this matter, and that the risks of such proposed activities in Washtenaw County vastly exceed any potential benefits.

Responding to his commentary, Conan Smith (D-District 9) agreed that the county could be doing more to help people restrain gas and oil exploration here. Educating residents is one of the key ways to do that, within the structure of the current state law, he added. The county “may or may not have regulatory authority that we can leverage, but we can certainly help people to organize, and to use their own property rights to protect their interests and the interests in the environment,” Smith said.

As an example, Smith stated that it takes a majority of property owners to agree to lease their land in order for the exploration to happen. There are also clauses regarding environmental protection that can be incorporated into lease agreements. He reported that the environmental health code board of appeals has been discussing these issues, “and I’ll make sure we continue the conversation at that level.”

Communications & Commentary: VEBA, WCERS Special Meeting

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that there will be a special joint meeting of the boards of the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) retiree health care fund. It will take place on Thursday, June 12 at 1 p.m. in the county administration building’s boardroom, 220 N. Main St. The actuarial reports will be presented for those two plans.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke during both opportunities for public commentary. He urged the board to keep focused on the priorities of ending homelessness, increasing affordable housing, expanding public transportation, and providing better access to health care and education. He also supported Democrat Mark Schauer for governor, so that these priorities can be addressed on a statewide level.

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

Absent: Dan Smith, Yousef Rabhi.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

No increase is proposed for the economic development millage, levied under Act 88. The proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014, raising an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues. In previous years, the resolution setting this millage has outlined how the revenues would be allocated. The largest allocations have gone to the county’s office of community & economic development, and to the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK.

However, at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the board adopted a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9). [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy included creating an Act 88 advisory committee to make recommendations to the board and prepare an annual report that assesses how Act 88 expenditures have contributed toward progress of goals adopted by the board. The policy allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. The policy also allocates up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding.

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

Since 2008, the county board has slightly increased the rate that it levies each year. In 2012, the rate was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It was raised to a rate of 1/30th of a mill in December 2013, to fund services in 2014.

The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

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

That original resolution stated that the millage would only be assessed against real property in Washtenaw County. In fact, the intent is to assess the millage against all property located in the county. The resolution approved on Nov. 6 clarifies that intent.

The county will levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services. The new rate of 1/30th of a mill will be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The previous rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 this year.

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

A supporter of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law brought his gun to the Oct. 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

About three dozen people spoke to the board about the Stand Your Ground resolution, which urged the state legislature to repeal that law. Although there were speakers on both sides of the issue, more than 20 voiced opposition to the resolution, including several who attended the meeting wearing sidearms.

It was after midnight when the board took a 5-to-4 vote to pass the resolution, over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). In support of the resolution were Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The following week, David Raaflaub of Ypsilanti – a former candidate for county commissioner – filed a complaint against the board in the 22nd Circuit Court. The complaint asks the court to determine two issues: (1) what authority the board has that enables it to “draw conclusions of law,” and (2) what authority the board has to represent the county in seeking changes to state law. Dan Smith has indicated that he would bring forward a resolution to rescind the board’s Oct. 16 action, if it’s determined that the county will incur additional costs – such as fees for outside legal counsel – to defend the lawsuit.

Another major debate on Oct. 16 related to an increase in the Act 88 tax levy, which funds economic development and agriculture – including activities of Ann Arbor SPARK. The board ultimately gave initial approval to increase the tax from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills, following a long discussion and a failed attempt by Conan Smith to increase the tax even more, to 0.09 mills. His proposal for a draft policy to guide the allocation of Act 88 funds did win support from the majority of commissioners, however.

The county’s position is that it’s authorized to collect the Act 88 millage – as well as a levy for veterans relief services – without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy these taxes predates Michigan’s Headlee Amendment. During deliberations, Dan Smith raised questions about whether levying this kind of tax is constitutional. He also questions whether the language of the Act 88 statute allows the kind of general interpretation the county is using to define eligible uses of funds generated by the levy.

Dan Smith also proposed amendments for both the Act 88 and veterans relief millages in the future exempt them from capture by tax increment financing (TIF) districts or authorities in the county. Those exemptions, which were approved by the board, would apply to tax capture from a proposed State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA) in Pittsfield Township. After about 90 minutes of debate, the board gave initial approval to participate in that project, with Dan Smith casting the only dissenting vote. He had unsuccessfully proposed postponement, then floated an opt-out resolution that did not secure enough votes to pass. The board is expected to take a final vote on participating in the CIA at its Nov. 6 meeting.

In other action, the board (1) gave initial approval to a proposed brownfield redevelopment plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix; (2) appointed Barb Fuller to the county road commission; (3) took an initial vote to extend the coordinated funding approach, which supports local nonprofits; and (4) authorized the annual apportionment report, with details of the 2013 taxable valuations for property in the county.

And in a vote taken after midnight, the board rejected a proposal that would have given notice to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. That vote was 3-6, with support from only Dan Smith (R-District 2), Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Stand Your Ground

The Oct. 16 agenda included a resolution asking state legislators to repeal Michigan’s version of the Stand Your Ground law. [.pdf of resolution]

This is the fourth meeting that has included public commentary on the Stand Your Ground law – Public Act 309, the Michigan Self Defense Act, which was passed in 2006. In early September, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had announced his intent to bring forward a resolution urging the state legislature to repeal the law, similar to resolutions passed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 8, 2013 and by the Ypsilanti city council on Aug. 20, 2013. The resolution had originally appeared on the county board’s Sept. 18 agenda, but was pulled from the agenda before the meeting when it became uncertain that it would win sufficient support to pass, given the anticipated absence of some commissioners.

Supporters of the law spoke at the Sept. 18 and Oct. 2 board meetings, and showed up again on Oct. 16. Some were affiliated with Michigan Open Carry Inc., an advocacy group based in Lansing that has been urging people to attend the Washtenaw County board meetings to protest the proposed resolution. The resolution also attracted the attention of the National Rifle Association. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action issued an alert on Oct. 11 calling the resolution “misguided” and providing contact information for the nine county commissioners.

Stand Your Ground: Public Commentary

Thirty-two people spoke about this issue during public commentary at the start of the meeting – 20 people supporting Stand Your Ground, and 12 people opposing the state law. Many others attended the meeting, filling the boardroom to capacity with overflow into the adjacent lobby. The county had brought in two sheriff’s deputy for extra security.

From left: Lefiest Galimore and Doug Smith at the Oct. 16 county board meeting. Galimore opposes Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law, which Smith supports.

Unlike speakers at the Oct. 2 meeting who were primarily from outside of Washtenaw County, most of the 20 people who supported Stand Your Ground on Oct. 16 – and who opposed the resolution urging its repeal – said they lived in Washtenaw County, including residents of Ann Arbor, Saline, Ypsilanti and several of the townships.

Many argued that law-abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves, and that Stand Your Ground prevented victims from being prosecuted as killers. Some stated that repealing Stand Your Ground would embolden predators and threaten the safety of residents. Others argued that this was a state issue that the county board was not in a position to address.

A couple of speakers – including Dennis Moore of the Willow Run Tea Party Caucus – pointed out that this resolution is energizing supporters of Stand Your Ground and creating common ground for people of different political parties.

Most of the 12 opponents of Stand Your Ground were from Ann Arbor, including Lefiest Galimore, who has advocated for this kind of resolution at previous Ann Arbor city council and county board meetings. He said he didn’t oppose gun ownership, but he supported the repeal of Act 309. It’s not an anti-gun movement, but it’s about protecting every citizen in the community, he said. Others who spoke in support of the resolution included two pastors, at least two members of the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice, and two physicians – Jerry Walden and Andrew Zweifler, representing Physicians for the Prevention of Gun Violence. The majority of those speakers stated they supported non-violence, criticized the increasing prevalence of guns and America’s high murder rate compared to other countries, and argued that the law is applied in discriminatory ways against minorities.

During a second opportunity for public commentary – which occurred around midnight – six people spoke in support of the Stand Your Ground law, including some who had addressed the board earlier in the meeting.

Stand Your Ground: Initial Board Discussion

After about 90 minutes of the initial public commentary at the start of the meeting, several commissioners responded. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked everyone for coming. It was heartening to see such engagement and active democracy, he said, adding that he’d like it to extend to other issues as well.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he appreciated that people had shown up and he noted that there would be another opportunity for public commentary later in the evening. He said there seemed to be some misunderstanding about what the resolution will do. “It does absolutely nothing,” D. Smith said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) also thanked people for coming out and sharing their thoughts. It’s gratifying that people have spent time to understand the issue deeply. Regarding whether this resolution is within the purview of the county board, C. Smith stated that the county funds the sheriff’s department, as well as the criminal justice system – including the prosecuting attorney’s office. “So state laws that impact the operations of those functions within the county are of concern to this board,” he said. The board might not have control over the legislation, but informing state legislators “about what motivates the folks here in Washtenaw County” is important, C. Smith said, and the way that the board does that is through resolutions. The resolutions don’t have the force of law, he added, but they do communicate the board’s interests.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) agreed with Dan Smith that the resolution does nothing, and she reminded other commissioners that “we are not a lobbying organization. We are a legislative body.” This isn’t an issue in Lansing now, she said. Residents are welcome to lobby state legislators directly, she added. “We are not an intermediary.” Her statement resulted in applause from residents in the boardroom.

Stand Your Ground: Final Board Action

The agenda item for the Stand Your Ground resolution was taken up at about 12:30 a.m. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she’d spent time reading and reflecting on the law, but her main concern is that the application of the law doesn’t meet its intent.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the board’s ways & means committee.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that there are six state legislators representing the residents of Washtenaw County – including one who had attended the meeting earlier in the evening. [He was referring to state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), who is married to county commissioner Conan Smith.] “We even have the First Constituent in Lansing, so we have a bonus in this county,” he joked. [The reference was to Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican who lives in the Ann Arbor area.] This is not county business, D. Smith said. The process is to take concerns to Lansing, and not bring them to the county board.

D. Smith noted that the county board has a lot of local business to conduct, and he observed that the board postponed discussion of the proposed budget that evening. “We need to stick to Washtenaw County business, and let Lansing do Lansing’s business.”

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) thanked residents for attending and for their patience, saying it was the longest meeting he could recall in all his years on the board. [It adjourned at about 12:45 a.m.] “It shows that government is working,” he said. The Stand Your Ground resolution is not an easy vote for him, Peterson said, and he’s talked with a lot of constituents about it. He thought the discussion had been healthy.

Everyone knows what brought this issue to the forefront, Petersen said, adding that he didn’t want to politicize it. [The reference was to the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida.] Peterson said that he hadn’t been contacted by any national organization, as some people had implied.

Peterson stated that he believes in the right to own guns, and most gun owners are decent, law-abiding citizens. He said he knows what it means to be a victim of crime. But America needs a more peaceful environment. The country is far too violent, he said, and that topic deserves more discussion.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 5-4 vote. The five commissioners who voted in favor of the resolution were Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Voting against it were Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Stand Your Ground: Legal Action

The following week, David Raaflaub filed a lawsuit against the Washtenaw County board of commissioners over its Stand Your Ground resolution. [.pdf of board resolution] [.pdf of Raaflaub complaint]

Ian Reed Twiss, an Ann Arbor resident, talks with commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Twiss is pastor at Holy Faith Church in Saline, which is located in Ping’s district. He spoke during public commentary on Oct. 16 to support the board’s resolution about repealing Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law. Ping voted against that resolution.

The complaint, filed on Oct. 21 in the 22nd Circuit Court of Washtenaw County, asks the court to determine two issues: (1) what authority the board has that enables it to “draw conclusions of law,” and (2) what authority the board has to represent the county in seeking changes to state law.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, stated in an Oct. 24 email to The Chronicle that the county is in the process of retaining counsel who will respond to the lawsuit on the board’s behalf.

Reached via email on Oct. 24, Dan Smith indicated that he would bring forward a resolution to rescind the board’s previous action, if it’s determined that the county will incur additional costs – such as fees for outside legal counsel – to defend the lawsuit.

Raaflaub is a member of the Washtenaw County Republican executive committee. He was the Republican candidate for county commissioner in District 6 in the November 2012 election, running against incumbent Democrat Ronnie Peterson, who won that election.

Raaflaub’s filing indicates that the filing is “pro se” – that is, he’s representing himself. He is currently suspended by the state bar from the practice of law.

Veterans Relief, Act 88 Tax Hikes

Increases to two taxes for the upcoming 2014 budget – one for veterans relief services, and another for agricultural and economic development – were on the Oct. 16 agenda.

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services, following an initial vote on Oct. 2. The new rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 this year.

According to a staff memo, the additional revenue is needed to address rising claims, the anticipated release of current active duty soldiers, the increased cost of living reflected in claims, continued increases to demand, and an increased workload due to the Washtenaw County Veterans Treatment Court.

The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs. The county had held a public hearing on this tax proposal at its Sept. 18 meeting, but no one spoke.

A public hearing and initial vote were held on Oct. 16 for the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The proposed increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills. The millage would be levied in December 2013 and would raise an estimated $972,635.

According to a staff memo, the funds would be allocated to the following groups:

• $423,135: Washtenaw County office of community & economic development
• $200,000: Ann Arbor SPARK
• $100,000: Eastern Leaders Group
• $52,000: Promotion of Heritage Tourism in Washtenaw County
• $50,000: SPARK East
• $50,000: Detroit Region Aerotropolis
• $82,500: Washtenaw County 4-H
• $15,000: Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show

The enabling legislation for this tax is also pre-Headlee, and the county board levies the tax without voter approval.

Veterans Relief, Act 88: Public Commentary & Public Hearing

Two executives from Ann Arbor SPARK – Donna Doleman, vice president of marketing and communications, and Luke Bonner, vice president of business development – spoke in support of the Act 88 funding during public commentary at the start of the Oct. 16 meeting. Doleman thanked commissioners for partnering to create jobs for this region through investment in economic development.

Donna Doleman, Ann Arbor Spark vice president of marketing and communications.

Doleman highlighted SPARK’s work in business retention, expansion and attraction, saying it’s become a model for the country. She listed several accomplishments that the agency has achieved. Some of those items were included in handouts provided to the board. SPARK’s national and international prestige gives it an edge in marketing this region, Doleman said. Thirty percent of the views on a business attraction video have been international, she noted. [.pdf of SPARK handout 1] [.pdf of SPARK handout 2] [.pdf of SPARK handout 3]

Bonner echoed Doleman’s comments, saying that without the county’s support, SPARK wouldn’t be able to accomplish what it has. This year alone, he said, SPARK has helped secured $100 million in new investment and 1,200 jobs. He highlighted two examples: American Broach & Machine in Ypsilanti, and Universal Marketing Group, which is expanding its call center operation from Toledo. Bonner also described SPARK’s help in marketing the former GM property in Ypsilanti Township.

Leigh Greden introduced himself as vice president of government and community relations at Eastern Michigan University, and a resident of the district in Ann Arbor that’s represented by county commissioner Yousef Rabhi. He urged the board to approve the increase in the Act 88 millage. The low cost of just 73 cents per month for the average homeowner allows the county to support a variety of tangible projects, he said, including Ann Arbor SPARK’s initiatives, heritage tourism, and the Eastern Leaders Group. Greden noted that he serves as co-chair of the ELG along with Bob Tetens, director of the county’s parks and recreation commission. He described the ELG’s efforts, including the Live Ypsi program that encourages EMU staff and faculty to buy homes in the city, which results in more people paying taxes there. Act 88 funding also helped Michigan Ladder Co. in Ypsilanti, he said. “None of these programs would have been possible without the Act 88 millage,” Greden said. When something works, he concluded, “keep doing it.”

Doug Smith began by saying he wouldn’t give his address, contending that requiring someone to give their address violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The two tax increases that the board will be voting on will push the county above the constitutional limit of 18 mills, he said. He asked the board to refrain from voting until the county has made public its legal justification for exceeding the limit. Until 2008, activities that are now funded through the veterans relief and Act 88 millages were paid for out of the county’s general fund. He read a section from the Headlee Amendment, which the state enacted in 1978:

Units of Local Government are hereby prohibited from levying any tax not authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified electors of that unit of Local Government voting thereon.

It seems the county’s corporation counsel is saying that since the veterans relief and Act 88 laws allowed the levying of millages prior to 1978, that these can be levied in excess of the 18-mill cap without a vote by the county’s citizens, Smith said. He called the levies “legally dubious” and said he’s trying to do legal research to verify that. He hasn’t been able to find anything published by the county that gives a legal justification for these millages. Are any other counties using these levies above the 18-mill cap? Have the levies ever been tested in court, and is there published case law? Does it matter that the veterans relief law states “shall” and the Act 88 law states “may” levy a tax?

Doug Smith pointed out that the Headlee Amendment states that any taxpayer in Michigan shall have standing for a lawsuit in Michigan’s Court of Appeals to enforce it, so all it would take is one taxpayer willing to challenge this tax, and the county would find itself in court. He again asked that the board hold off on voting until the corporation counsel has published an opinion on the taxes for all citizens to see.

Smith also spoke during the Act 88 public hearing later in the meeting, which occurred around midnight. He pointed out that Act 88 allows for the spending of proceeds for specific purposes. From Act 88:

… for the purpose of advertising the agricultural advantages of the state or for displaying the products and industries of any county in the state at domestic or foreign expositions, for the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing trade in the products of the state, and advertising the state and any portion thereof for tourists and resorters, and to permit the boards of supervisors out of any sum so raised, or out of the general fund, to contribute all or any portion of the same to any development board or bureau to be by said board or bureau expended for the purposes herein named.

Smith wondered whether anyone checks with Ann Arbor SPARK to ensure that those requirements are met. Referring to the example that SPARK vice president Luke Bonner had given about American Broach, Smith described it as a wholly-owned Chinese company that does all of its manufacturing in China. The local operation is for research and development, he noted. “So what exactly is the Washtenaw County product that is being advertised and promoted?” He also objected to holding public hearings after midnight, saying that it doesn’t promote participation by the public.

In response to the public commentary, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed his support for Act 88, especially for the funding it provides to the Detroit Aerotropolis, Ann Arbor SPARK, and the Eastern Leaders Group.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase to 0.09 mills)

When commissioners reached the Act 88 agenda item, Conan Smith (D-District 9) began by proposing a policy and process for allocating Act 88 funds. However, he was told by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, that it would need to be considered later in the agenda, as an item for current or future discussion.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

C. Smith then referred to a handout that had been provided at the Oct. 3 working session, which outlined Act 88 investment options. The handout listed items that could be funded if the millage remained at the current 0.06 mills ($819,714), or if it were increased to 0.07 mills, 0.08 mills or 0.09 mills. [.pdf of Act 88 options]

C. Smith noted that each of the options was backed by a strategic or business plan, and was built off of work that the county has been doing for several years. For example, a levy of 0.07 mills would allow for $50,000 to fund a commercial kitchen incubator for youth skills development. However, he said, that program doesn’t really thrive unless there’s also funding for a local food manufacturing project – which would require more funding and a higher millage rate.

He also expressed support for a “community capital acceleration” program, which at 0.07 mills would be funded for $10,000. But if it’s not launched with sufficient funding, he said, “we’re sort of undermining our own efforts.”

At that, C. Smith made a motion to amend the proposed 0.07 mills and raise the allocation to 0.09 mills.

Outcome: The motion died for lack of a second.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase Allocations + Millage Rate)

C. Smith then moved to increase the millage rate in order to fund an increase for the community capital acceleration program  – from $10,000 to $35,000. Dan Smith (R-District 2) supported the motion, noting that his support was in order to move the item forward for debate. It didn’t necessarily mean that he supported the amendment itself.

But C. Smith decided to withdraw that motion. He indicated that there were actually three items that he felt needed an increase in funding – beyond the amounts that would be funded with an 0.07 mill tax. So he moved to increase the millage rate in order to fund increases for those specific items: the community capital acceleration program (from $10,000 to $35,000); a local business employment cooperative (from $15,000 to $50,000); and market analysis for a local food manufacturing, processing and distribution system ($50,000 – this was not funded at 0.07 mills).

He estimated these programs could be funded at his proposed level – a total of $110,000 – by increasing the millage rate to 0.0725 mills.

Outcome: That motion also died for lack of a second.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase Allocations Only)

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked Mary Jo Callan – director of the office of community and economic development, which administers several Act 88-funded programs – to come forward and explain the itemized funding list that C. Smith was referencing. She explained that the list was intended to indicate various funding levels for several programs, based on potential increases to the millage rate.

Callan pointed out that the resolution on the board’s agenda that night did not increase the earmarks for specific projects or organizations, compared to the current funding levels. Rather, the resolution would increase the millage rate from 0.06 mills this year to 0.07 mills in 2014. The extra funding would be allocated to the office of community and economic development as a placeholder, to be subsequently allocated to specific programs in the future. She hoped that the board would eventually allocate the extra funds using the process and policy that C. Smith had drafted and shared at the Oct. 3 working session. That’s up to the board, she said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) then proposed an amendment that would increase funding in the three line items that C. Smith had mentioned, but without increasing the overall millage rate beyond 0.07 mills.

Rabhi said he couldn’t support Ping’s amendment. The Act 88 resolution needed to move forward, he said, but the board should use C. Smith’s policy to determine priorities for allocating the excess revenues, rather than allocating some of those revenues now. There needs to be more discussion about that, he said.

C. Smith said he appreciated Ping’s effort, but he wouldn’t support it because it would shift funding away from other projects, rather than increase the overall funds. If the overall millage rate isn’t being increased beyond 0.07 mills, then he wanted to go through the process of prioritizing all the possible additional projects.

Outcome: Ping’s amendment was defeated on a 3-6 vote, with support only from Ping, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Act 88: Board Discussion – Partnerships

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed concern that some of the programs supported by Act 88 funds were duplicating efforts that other entities in the county are already pursuing. He noted that Washtenaw Community College, for example, already has a food service program, which might duplicate the proposed commercial kitchen incubator. He also wondered why hotels aren’t helping to pay for it.

Mary Jo Callan replied that OCED can explore more partnerships, in addition to those that are already in place. She said the county did an analysis of what’s available, because they don’t want to duplicate programs. Tony VanDerworp of OCED described the work that’s been done to develop the kitchen incubator proposal, including discussions with local schools. The county doesn’t want to operate it, he said, but would help facilitate the program.

Sizemore also objected to allocating $10,000 for developing the community capital acceleration program, saying there are educational institutions that have expertise that the county might be able to tap without spending money.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Exemptions from TIF)

Dan Smith put forward an amendment calling for the Act 88 levy to be exempt from capture by tax increment financing (TIF) districts or authorities in the county to the greatest extent allowed by law.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he’d support the amendment, but he wondered why it was appropriate for this millage more than any other one.

D. Smith explained that this is a millage that the board votes on every year. He planned to offer a similar amendment for the veterans relief millage. These millages are levied for very specific purposes, and he thought that the millages should be exempt from as much tax capture as possible so that the revenues will be used solely for the purpose that was intended.

Outcome: The amendment was passed 8-1 over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Later in the meeting, D. Smith made a similar amendment for the veterans relief millage. It was also passed on an 8-1 vote over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz. The board also gave final approval to the increase in the veterans relief millage.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Legal Opinion

Referring to issues raised during public commentary, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) indicated that he’d like to see a legal opinion by the board’s next meeting about whether the veterans relief and Act 88 millages are overstepping the county’s constitutional authority.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the staff memo accompanying the Act 88 resolution provides some detail about the history of the Act 88 legislation, in that it predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. [.pdf of Act 88 staff memo]

But he said that despite his repeated requests to the county administrator and corporation counsel, there’s no mention in the staff memo about how the millage is allowed under Article 9, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, or the 18-mill levy limit, or the 5.5 mill county operating millage.

D. Smith expressed concern that the Act 88 levy might be unconstitutional. Very few counties are levying Act 88, and Washtenaw County might be the only county that’s levying the veterans relief millage, he said.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that he and D. Smith had discussed this issue, and that Hedger had provided the legal rationale. However, Hedger said he would never put a legal opinion in a cover memo unless he’s directed by the board to do so. The board is his client – not individual commissioners, he said – and he writes legal opinions under the board’s direction. If the board directs him to write a legal opinion, he’d do that and provide it to commissioners, Hedger said. Once they receive it, he added, they can do with it whatever they want. But he felt uncomfortable putting that kind of detailed legal analysis in a cover memo.

D. Smith noted that the memo points to another state statute as justification for the levy. “I’ve told corporate counsel repeatedly: ‘Convince me that this is indeed a legal levy,’” D. Smith said. If it’s legal, then there would be opportunities to consider a levy under Act 283, and it would give townships the opportunity to consider levies under Act 51. [Act 283 of 1909 and Act 51 of 1951 both address tax levies for road construction and repair.] If those are legal statewide, he added, then there would be over three-quarters of a billion dollars available for roads that could be levied and managed locally. “So I am more than willing to be convinced about these levies and how we are allowed to exceed the very clear constitutional limits,” D. Smith said.

However, he added, Hedger seems to be taking bits and pieces from different statutes “to suit the outcome that’s desired, and I completely disagree with it.” He said he wasn’t asking for a formal legal opinion, but rather for “casual discussion” similar to what’s already in the staff memo, which mentions the Headlee Amendment. There are already specific references to state legislation in the memo, he noted, and he was asking for additional commentary of that nature.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Policy

Later in the meeting, C. Smith put forward a draft policy and process for allocating Act 88 revenues. [.pdf of Act 88 policy] [.pdf of Act 88 process]

Ronnie Peterson supported it, saying he’d like to see something similar for the coordinated funding program, which allocates dollars for human services. He said the Act 88 policy is essential to move forward along with the resolution on setting the Act 88 millage.

Yousef Rabhi said it was up to the board to decide whether to adopt the policy, but he supported it. Andy LaBarre didn’t think the board could come up with a better process than the one C. Smith put forward. He thanked C. Smith for developing it.

Outcome: The Act 88 policy and process was given initial approval with little discussion, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). A final vote on that policy will likely occur on Nov. 6.

Veterans Relief, Act 88: Board Votes

Outcome on Act 88: An initial vote on levying Act 88 at 0.07 mills passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from D. Smith. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Outcome on Veterans Relief: A final vote on levying 0.0333 mills for indigent veterans services passed unanimously.

Pittsfield State Street CIA

On the agenda was a resolution to approve participation in Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA).

David Sarns, a member of the State Street corridor improvement authority board in Pittsfield Township, attended the Oct. 16 county board meeting. He did not formally address the board.

The resolution would authorize the county administrator to sign a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] The agreement would allow the CIA to capture 50% of any county taxes levied on new development within the corridor boundaries, not to exceed $3,850,464 over a 20-year period, through 2033. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for improvements to the State Street corridor roughly between the I-94 interchange and Michigan Avenue, as outlined in the CIA development and tax increment financing plan. [.pdf of TIF plan]

The Pittsfield Township board of trustees held a public hearing on the CIA at its Oct. 9, 2013 meeting. That started the clock on a 60-day period during which any taxing entities within the corridor can “opt out” of participation. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission voted at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting to participate . Other local taxing entities in the corridor are Washtenaw Community College, the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, and the Saline and Ann Arbor district libraries. The Ann Arbor District Library board discussed the issue at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

In total over the CIA’s 20-year period, the plan anticipates capturing about $14 million in local tax dollars. That amount would provide about a local match to be used to secure federal funding for the bulk of the estimated $30 million project.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Postponement

Dan Smith (R-District 2) began deliberations by noting that in 2011 and 2012, the board spent considerable time discussing the county’s involvement in an authority “that wasn’t going to cost us anything.” [He was referring to a countywide transit initiative, spearheaded by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, that ultimately failed to garner support throughout the county. It attempted to create a new transit authority under Act 196, but did not involve TIF financing.]

D. Smith recalled that the first public discussion of the transit authority was in April 2011, with the first vote on it over a year later – on July 17, 2012.

In contrast, the county’s participation in the State Street CIA will cost about $3.85 million over 20 years, he noted. The board was first presented with this proposal at a working session 13 days prior to the Oct. 16 meeting, D. Smith said, and commissioners need more time to sort through concerns.

D. Smith then moved to postpone the item until Nov. 20.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said this is an issue where time is of the essence, and the board should discuss it that night.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered why D. Smith hadn’t tried to get his questions answered before proposing to postpone. Sizemore also pointed out that there will be two weeks before the board takes its final vote, on Nov. 6. There will be plenty of time to get questions answered. Sizemore noted that several Pittsfield Township officials were attending the meeting and could answer questions.

Outcome: The motion to postpone failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Substitute Resolution

D. Smith then moved a substitute resolution stating that the county would not participate in the CIA. [.pdf of D. Smith's substitute resolution] He said he supported the road improvement project, but objected to the TIF funding mechanism. He noted that the county had the ability to invest directly in the project using general fund money – which is allowed by Act 119 of 2011.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

He also pointed out that if the county participates in the CIA, the county board would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. For example, if certain aspects of the project turn out to be more expensive than anticipated, the CIA board might decide to cut back on items in the plan, such as non-motorized pathways.

The CIA mechanism also only addresses a specific problem in Pittsfield Township, D. Smith noted. There are many parts of the county that can’t use a CIA. For example, North Territorial Road in his district needs improvement, but there’s not enough development along that road to make a CIA viable, he said.

D. Smith also pointed out that the board has not developed any policies or procedures regarding TIFs, to help guide the board’s decisions. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) stated that he supported developing such a policy.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) observed that the board has been working to align its general fund investments with its strategic priorities. One way to make those strategic investments is through direct appropriations. Another way is through tax expenditures of DDAs, TIFAs and CIAs that capture dollars that would otherwise go to the general fund, but that are redirected to specific projects. In this particular case, there’s nothing wrong with the proposed State Street project, C. Smith said. But the board hasn’t been investing in road projects as a priority – as those are handled by the road commission. The CIA will capture dollars that won’t be used for investments that the board has set as priorities. Right now, C. Smith said, he’s not comfortable taking money that he thinks should go toward human services, and instead putting those funds into a road project.

C. Smith advocated for developing a rubric to help the board decide whether to invest in road projects, and if so, what specific road projects should be prioritized.

Another concern is that a lot of anticipated revenue for the State Street CIA is rooted in potential future development, C. Smith noted. Some projects would be built regardless of whether improvements are made to the corridor, he said, and those new tax dollars should be going toward priorities like human services. It’s also unclear how much future development will materialize.

These are complicated issues, and that’s why he supported postponement, C. Smith said. Short of that, he thought the county should not participate at this time.

D. Smith pointed out that the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point. Rescinding his resolution would trigger participation in the CIA.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) wondered if the county board could specify how its portion of the TIF capture is allocated within the CIA. That is, could the county earmark its TIF capture for non-motorized transportation elements? Dick Carlisle, the planning consultant who’s been hired by Pittsfield Township to work on this project, replied that in a sense the money is already earmarked. That’s because the non-motorized paths and bike paths are already in the CIA plan. The project wouldn’t be able to proceed without these elements being included, Carlisle said. Mandy Grewal, the township’s supervisor, pointed out that the township zoning requires that new roads be built using Complete Street principles.

Rabhi noted that the county board wouldn’t be adopting the CIA plan, but would be voting on the agreement with Pittsfield Township regarding the CIA, which doesn’t specifically address elements of the plan. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, confirmed that the CIA will decide how the money is spent. Rabhi floated the idea of amending the agreement to include more details about how the county’s money should be spent.

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

Saying that her patience was wearing thin because of the length of the meeting, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said there’s nothing that irritates her more than when Lansing tries to tell the county what to do. Now that’s what the county is trying to do to Pittsfield Township, she said. “I think that’s completely out of line.”

Anyone who’s driven through Pittsfield Township will know that it’s radically different now, she said, with better roads and non-motorized paths. These are competent people running the township, she said.

Ping said that the CIA is the best model for this project, because if there’s no growth, the county won’t lose any revenue. “I think we’d be foolish not to support this,” she said. Ping hoped the board would look at the bigger picture.

C. Smith replied, saying it was wrong of Ping to insinuate that his perspective on this is foolish or poorly thought out, or that he didn’t care about people in this community, or that it’s not worth it to talk about more than $3 million in county dollars. This isn’t similar to Lansing telling the locals what to do, he said. This is about what to do with county-generated revenue, he said – whether the board will put it toward priorities that commissioners have articulated over the years, like helping poor people, or whether it will fund a road. “That is an important conversation for us – that’s not foolish,” C. Smith said. “This is about our priorities. So I’m frustrated that it would be just dismissed.” To get brushed off like that is wrong – it’s rude, he said.

Later in the meeting, Ping indicated that she thought she’d said that Pittsfield Township wouldn’t bring a foolish plan to the board. If she’d said something differently, she hadn’t intended to. C. Smith replied by saying that he loved her.

D. Smith noted that this issue isn’t about trust or distrust of Pittsfield Township officials. It’s about a 20-year plan. It’s unlikely that county commissioners will be around in 20 years, and the same is true for members of the Pittsfield Township and CIA boards, he said. The issue is that the county board should properly look out for the $3.8 million in county revenues for the best interest of everyone in the county. “We only have one chance to get out of the CIA and out of TIF capture,” he said. The board would have the chance to join the CIA later, if that’s what commissioners decide after sorting out all these other issues. But once they join the CIA, the control is out of the county’s hands, he said.

Outcome: The vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Original Resolution

Discussion continued.

D. Smith pointed out that municipalities around the county have found other ways to pay for roads. Ypsilanti Township is using bonds. Scio Township is in the process of levying $85 per parcel in a township-wide special assessment district to fund road repair. The city of Ann Arbor has a 2 mill tax for streets. Superior Township dedicates a significant portion of its general fund budget for roads. Salem Township took money out of its general fund reserves to invest in road repairs on North Territorial. His point was that municipalities have found ways to pay for roads without coming to the county for TIF funding, he said.

The Pittsfield Township board seems to be set on using this mechanism and no other, D. Smith said. He understood their rationale: If the township can get $3.8 million from the county, why should they levy an additional tax on Pittsfield Township residents or use a special assessment? He said that at the Oct. 9 public hearing of the Pittsfield Township board, supervisor Mandy Grewal had claimed that the CIA was the only tool that was available for State Street repair. However, there are other tools available, D. Smith noted.

Pittsfield Township clerk Alan Israel and treasurer Patricia Scribner were among the township officials who attended the Oct. 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

D. Smith again stated that he had no problem with this project, but objected to the funding mechanism. There are other ways that the county can participate, which would allow the board to have more control. If the county joins the CIA, then dollars that the taxpayers approved for natural areas preservation would be used for roads. He wasn’t sure how many people would be willing to renew that millage when they find out that the dollars are being used for a different purpose. The same is true for the parks millage, he said.

D. Smith reported that the people who spoke against the CIA at the Oct. 9 public hearing outnumbered supporters. He said Grewal had later characterized opponents of the CIA as her political opponents. He pointed out that in the 2012 election, the entire township board had been unopposed. He said he had serious concerns about the proposal, though he’d like to support the project with a different funding mechanism.

Several other commissioners expressed support for the project, calling State Street an important transportation artery. Yousef Rabhi said that all the concerns he raised at the board’s Oct. 3 working session had been addressed in the agreement that Pittsfield Township brought forward.

Rabhi said it would have been good if commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) had been appointed to the CIA board, because her district covers Pittsfield Township. Jim Fink, an attorney representing the township, noted that the CIA board is appointed by the township supervisor and the state statute doesn’t prohibit appointing a county commissioner. Rabhi said he wouldn’t push the issue of a board appointment, but he hoped it would be considered in the future.

D. Smith clarified with consultant Dick Carlisle that the county’s EECS tax (enhanced emergency communication system) would be exempt from capture, based on the agreement that the county board would be voting on that night. Carlisle also confirmed for Smith that the tax capture would apply to increases due to inflation as well as increases resulting from new development.

In total, the board debated the issue and asked questions of Pittsfield Township representatives for about 90 minutes. Questions were fielded by supervisor Mandy Grewal, consultant Dick Carlisle, attorney Jim Fink, and Craig Lyon, the township’s director of utilities and municipal services.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 8-1 to give initial approval to participate in the CIA, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: TIF Policy

Near the end of the meeting, Yousef Rabhi brought forward a resolution directing county administrator Verna McDaniel to develop a policy for evaluating future tax increment financing (TIF) proposals. The resolution stated that the policy would be developed with input from staff of the office of community and economic development, the equalization department, and the brownfield redevelopment authority.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) indicated she would not support this, because each TIF proposal is unique.

Outcome: The item passed on a 7-2 vote with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Washtenaw County Court Budget

On the Oct. 16 agenda was an item giving final notice to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system.

Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw Trial Court.

The issue had arisen this summer, when commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) had brought forward a resolution to give notice to the courts. She did that at the board’s June 5, 2013 meeting in a move that caught some commissioners by surprise, although for several weeks during earlier budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal initially were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Then at the county board’s July 10, 2013 meeting, when the item was on the agenda for final approval, the board had voted to postpone a final vote until Oct. 16. The rationale was that it should be coordinated with approval of the 2014 budget.

Ping had stated that her goal wasn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. Giving a notice to terminate the agreement would have given the board the option to end it.

The courts have historically been in favor of a lump-sum approach, rather than the line-item budget provided by most other units of county government. The courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047.

On July 10, Ping reported that chief judge Donald Shelton had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget, and that he had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund. County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff presented a four-year budget proposal for 2014-2017 at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting.

Washtenaw County Court Budget: Board Discussion

The board reached this item on the agenda after midnight. Dan Smith (R-District 2) began deliberations by noting that on Oct. 15, a state Senate committee had voted on HB 4704, which would change the law about who can bring lawsuits against the county. The bill has already passed the House and will be taken up soon by the Senate. Given that, he moved to postpone the county board resolution until Dec. 4.

The legislation was described in an email sent to the board from the Michigan Association of Counties:

The bill will encourage countywide elected officials to work budget issues out with the county board of commissioners, rather than threaten or file a lawsuit. In addition to requiring the parties to talk, there are three main changes to current law. The bill provides an assumption that the appropriated amount is at a “serviceable level,” so the burden of proof is on the countywide elected official who chooses to sue. In addition, the bill requires the court to take into account the county board’s “ability to pay” in deciding the lawsuit. Finally, the bill requires that the countywide elected NOT spend over the budgeted amount prior to a decision in the case. These changes will help make sure that when a case occurs it is warranted, and it will help cut down on threats and frivolous filings.

Previous discussions about the court system’s budget have been tempered by the fear that the court might sue the county, if the board of commissioners didn’t provide adequate funding.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) noted that chief judge Donald Shelton and court administrator Dan Dwyer had been waiting all night. He wanted to show them respect, he said. He noted that the bill would still require further action in the state legislature – noting that it may or may not be signed into law.

Shelton spoke briefly to commissioners, saying he welcomed an opportunity to continue the collegial relationship between the board and the courts, and he didn’t think a postponement would help with that relationship.

Outcome on postponement: It was defeated on a 1-8 vote, with support only from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Outcome on main item: The final vote to eliminate lump-sum budgeting failed on a 3-6 vote, with support from only Dan Smith (R-District 2), Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to an extension of the coordinated funding approach for human services, as well as to some changes in that funding model.

No dollar amounts were allocated, but the resolution authorized the allocation of children’s well-being and human services funding for 2014 through 2016. It authorized the continued management of those funds through the county’s office of community & economic development, using the coordinated funding approach – with some modifications.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended.

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

Last year, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended. Those recommendations would also be authorized as part of the county board’s overall coordinated funding resolution, as described in a staff memo:

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

1) Under this proposal, the application pre-screening process will be broadened to better accommodate smaller non-profit organizations. New types of financial documentation will allow smaller agencies to illustrate their viability in the absence of an independent audit. 2) Capacity-building grants would be available to target smaller agencies that need to improve their governance or financial structure to be eligible for the application process, with the goal of expanding the opportunities for all agencies providing human services in the County in an equitable fashion.

Recommendations for specific funding allocations will be made to the county board in April 2014, for funding to start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process. One of the goals of coordinated funding is to attract more partners, such as private foundations.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Tom Partridge introduced himself as a write-in candidate for Ward 5 Ann Arbor city council. He called for the county to go beyond the coordinated funding proposal and provide more extensive affordable housing, public transportation, and health care, and to end homelessness. He objected to the coordinated funding approach of giving money to multiple nonprofits, each with an executive director. He urged commissioners to put a countywide millage on the ballot for human services.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked how needs are being determined, and when applications for funding would be coming to the board for approval.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, reminded commissioners that this vote would authorize continuation of the coordinated funding process. This wasn’t a vote to allocate specific dollars. She reviewed the history and approach that’s being used, as well as the review that was funded by the RNR Foundation.

Peterson said he was concerned about the direction that the county was taking, in terms of delivering services to those most in need. The board needed to make sure that its issues are addressed, and other entities should do the same, he said.

Callan explained that the request for proposals (RFP) is released in January, and the staff will bring back recommendations in April or May. Peterson said he hoped the board would have a discussion about priorities before the RFP is issued.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he agreed with Peterson, in that the board needs to set clear priorities for funding. What are the outcomes that the board expects from its funding? He thought the board should vote on metrics that the staff recommends – but that’s not happening, he said.

Callan disagreed, though she acknowledged that there seems to be a feeling that the board wasn’t consulted. She noted that during the last funding cycle, the staff brought to the board specific priorities and funding amounts for approval, before any dollars were distributed.

Callan said this next cycle will include further developing of community outcomes, much like the county board is doing for its budget priorities. It’s important to know whether investments are making a difference in the community, she noted. So there will be specific community outcomes developed for each of the six priority areas in the coordinated funding model. The outcomes will be developed using data and best practices, working with people who are out in the community doing this work.

C. Smith confirmed with Callan that she’ll be bringing back these outcomes and metrics to the board before the RFP is issued.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 8-1 to give initial approval to the coordinated funding program. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

2014-2017 Budget

No one spoke at a public hearing on the proposed 2014-2017 Washtenaw County general fund budget, which took place after midnight.

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

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

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

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

An item on the Oct. 16 agenda called for continued discussion of the 2014-2017 budget. However, by the time the board reached that point in the agenda, it was about 11:30 p.m. Dan Smith (R-District 2) moved to postpone discussion until Nov. 6.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone discussion of the 2014-2017 budget until Nov. 6.

Apportionment Report

On the Oct. 16 agenda was a resolution to approve the 2013 apportionment report – giving details of the 2013 taxable valuations for property in the county, broken down by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. December tax bills will be mailed out to property owners based on these calculations. [.pdf of 2013 apportionment report]

In April, the county’s equalization department produces an annual report describing Washtenaw County’s total equalized (assessed) value of property. The report is part of a state-mandated equalization process, and gives an indication of how much revenue the county will receive from property taxes in the coming year. [See Chronicle coverage: "Equalization: Washtenaw Property Values Rise."]

From left: Equalization director Raman Patel and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Later in the year – in October or November – the equalization and property description department presents an apportionment report, which gives details of the taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. Like the equalization report, the board is required by state law to vote on adopting the apportionment report.

This year, all the taxing entities in Washtenaw County will be levying in total an estimated $629.608 million in property taxes – an increase from $621.687 million in 2012. It’s also an increase from $622 million in 2011, but has not yet regained ground to the level of $639 million in 2010.

The county alone will levy an estimated $80.669 million, including millages for the general fund, parks & recreation, and Huron Clinton Metroparks.

Apportionment Report: Board Discussion

Raman Patel – who retired from his position as the county’s equalization director in late 2011 but remains in that job on a contract basis – presented the report and fielded questions from commissioners. He noted that an outstanding item needed to complete the report was the board’s decision to set the rate for the veterans relief and Act 88 millages. He also suggested that the board indicate whether those millages are subject to capture by local tax increment financing (TIF) districts, like downtown development authorities.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked whether Patel could forecast the tax revenue out three or four years. Patel replied that it’s much more difficult to predict tax revenues now, recalling how several years ago the property values tanked within a six-month period. “So you don’t know what the market is going to do,” Patel said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that Patel’s cover memo indicated that the equalization staff had reviewed all the millages levied in the county to make sure that they’ve complied with Article 9, Section 31 of the state constitution. Smith wondered if a similar evaluation was done with Article 9, Section 6 regarding the millage limits that are specified. That section states, in part:

Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, the total amount of general ad valorem taxes imposed upon real and tangible personal property for all purposes in any one year shall not exceed 15 mills on each dollar of the assessed valuation of property as finally equalized. Under procedures provided by law, which shall guarantee the right of initiative, separate tax limitations for any county and for the townships and for school districts therein, the aggregate of which shall not exceed 18 mills on each dollar of such valuation, may be adopted and thereafter altered by the vote of a majority of the qualified electors of such county voting thereon, in lieu of the limitation hereinbefore established. These limitations may be increased to an aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills on each dollar of valuation, for a period of not to exceed 20 years at any one time, if approved by a majority of the electors, qualified under Section 6 of Article II of this constitution, voting on the question.

Yes, Patel said – that’s the responsibility of his department too. There are about 75-80 different millages levied in Washtenaw County, he explained, and his staff has to make sure that each millage complies with the state law. “It’s not a small task,” he noted. Patel reviewed some of the history related to this issue. Of all the municipalities in Washtenaw County, only three cities don’t levy at the maximum rate allowed without voter approval: Saline, Milan and Chelsea.

In response to another query from D. Smith, Patel said he didn’t think any municipality would reach the 50 mill aggregate limit in his lifetime. He noted that after Proposal A, school millages are no longer calculated as part of that total.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the 2013 apportionment report.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a proposed brownfield plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix. [.pdf of brownfield plan] A public hearing was also scheduled for the Oct. 16 meeting.

The plan relates to a renovation of an abandoned 77,700-square-foot warehouse at 140 Buchanan in the city of Chelsea. The company plans to invest more than $4 million in the project, according to a staff memo that accompanied the Oct. 16 resolution.

If the project is given brownfield status, it would allow the company to be reimbursed for up to $376,805 in eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). The total amount to be captured through TIF over 16 years is $580,677, which includes fees paid to the county brownfield program administration and the county’s local site revolving remediation fund.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield: Public Hearing

The public hearing took place after midnight and only one person – Lara Treemore Spears of ASTI Environmental, a representative from the project – spoke briefly. She indicated that two company officials had been at the meeting but left around 11:30 p.m. She thanked the board for considering the plan, and briefly described the investment planned by the company.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that the plan lists several previous owners, including the city of Chelsea. None of those entities are responsible for cleanup, so he wanted to know how Washtenaw County got “stuck with the bill.”

Nathan Voght, the county’s brownfield program coordinator, explained that in general, the state’s previous approach of going after the original polluters to get them to pay for cleanup didn’t work. So in 1996 the state enacted Act 381 – the brownfield redevelopment financing act. The act provides a funding mechanism to help new entities redevelop a contaminated site. Voght said the idea is that since society allowed this to happen, communities should pitch in to help clean it up.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Responding to another question from D. Smith, Voght noted that environmental laws are stronger now than decades ago, and that will help prevent similar contamination in the future.

D. Smith then pointed to a table in the brownfield report that listed eligible activities totaling $376,805. Most of those activities relate clearly to cleanup, he noted. But it also includes demolition – at $221,550. That seems to be in a different category, D. Smith said, and he asked Voght to explain why it was also eligible for funding. Voght said a brownfield site doesn’t just include contaminated ground. It includes everything that’s an impediment to development, and oftentimes that includes old buildings or factories, which might include asbestos.

D. Smith then highlighted a table that listed out the amount of taxes that would be captured from each taxing entity, as part of the brownfield plan. [.pdf of tax capture table] He noted that another item on the agenda – a proposal from Pittsfield Township for a State Street corridor improvement authority – would exempt some taxes from capture. He asked if similar exceptions were possible for the brownfield project. Voght replied that there are no exemptions for brownfield projects, nor are there opt-out provisions, as there are for the CIA.

Responding to a question from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Voght reported that in general, tax capture in Washtenaw County comes from about 24 mills in state taxes, and from local millages ranging from 25 to 35 mills. Depending on where a project is located, about 40% of the tax capture is from state taxes, and 60% from local taxes.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the brownfield plan. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Road Commission Appointment

The appointment of Barb Fuller to the Washtenaw County road commission was on the Oct. 16 agenda. She was nominated by board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) to fill a seat vacated by Ken Schwartz when he took over as supervisor for Superior Township on Oct. 1. The position is for the remainder of a six-year term, through Dec. 31, 2016.

The appointment had originally been on Oct. 2 agenda, but Dan Smith (R-District 2) raised the question of whether Schwartz had officially resigned. So on Oct. 2 the board voted 6-3 to postpone her appointment, over dissent from Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

This item was considered after midnight at the Oct. 16 meeting. There was minimal discussion. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the process for soliciting applications. Rabhi and Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office both described ways in which the vacancy had been publicized, including ads in print publications and in media reports. Rabhi indicated that another person who had applied had missed the deadline.

Fuller, who lives in Manchester, previously served as deputy supervisor in Pittsfield Township from 2008-2012. She provides organizational management and consulting services, and has served in a variety of leadership roles for groups including the Washtenaw Community College Foundation Women’s Council and the Montessori School Board. She is the first woman to serve on the road commission since Pam Byrnes was appointed in 2000. Byrnes had been the first woman ever to serve on the road commission, but resigned before the end of her six-year term, when she was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2004.

Other current road commissioners are Doug Fuller (no relation to Barb Fuller) and Fred Veigel, who also is a member of the county’s parks & recreation commission. The salary for road commissioners, which is set by the county board, is $10,500 annually.

Barb Fuller takes the position as the county board explores possible changes to the road commission. At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the board created a new seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” Members include four county commissioners – Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Conan Smith (D-District 9), Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) – and three township supervisors: Mandy Grewal of Pittsfield Township, Ken Schwartz of Superior Township and Pat Kelly of Dexter Township.

Outcome: Barb Fuller’s nomination was confirmed on an 8-1 vote. Dan Smith (R-District 2) cast the only dissenting vote.

Dog License Civil Infraction

Commissioners held a public hearing at their Oct. 16 meeting on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees.

No one spoke on the hearing, which was held after midnight.

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

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

However, the county board hasn’t yet taken the additional step of authorizing the issuance of a civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. There was no agenda item put forward for a vote on this issue at the Oct. 16 meeting, nor was there any resolution on the agenda regarding a new fee structure for dog licenses.

The county treasurer’s office is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. More information about current dog licenses are on the county website.

After the Oct. 16 meeting, county staff emailed a copy of the draft ordinance to The Chronicle. [.pdf of dog license ordinance] [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

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

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

The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 this year. The new proposed rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues.

According to a staff memo, the additional revenue is needed to address rising claims, the anticipated release of current active duty soldiers, the increased cost of living reflected in claims, continued increases to demand, and an increased workload due to the Washtenaw County Veterans Treatment Court.

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

The county held a public hearing on this tax proposal at its Sept. 18 meeting, but no one spoke.

Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a nearly $4 million projected budget deficit in 2014. See Chronicle coverage: “County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options.”

During deliberations on Oct. 2, commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) expressed concern about the number of hours that the department of veterans affairs was open – it operates on a four-day work week, with extended hours on those days. He indicated interest in looking at whether more funding should be provided to keep the office open five days, while keeping the extended hours. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he’d be willing to increase the millage even more, if additional funding is needed.

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

The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. The new proposed rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues.

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

Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a nearly $4 million projected budget deficit in 2014. See Chronicle coverage: “County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options.”

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main. 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 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.

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]