Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber attended the May 16 meeting and discussed Ypsilanti’s desire to join the AATA, citing several signs of  Ypsilanti’s support for transit – including the request to join AATA and the dedicated transit millage approved by Ypsilanti voters in 2010.

At the Ypsilanti city council’s April 23 meeting, councilmembers had made a formal request to join the AATA under the transit authority’s existing enabling legislation – Act 55 of 1963. For the city of Ypsilanti, joining the AATA represents a new way to generate more funding for transportation. Because the city already levies at the state constitutional limit of 20 mills, the city itself can’t add an additional tax burden.

But the AATA could ask voters of all member jurisdictions to approve a levy of its own – something that it currently does not do. And that would not count against the 20-mill state constitutional limit that Ypsilanti already levies. The city of Ypsilanti and the city of Ann Arbor each have a millage dedicated to transit, which is not levied by the AATA itself.

Adding Ypsilanti to the AATA would also require the cooperation of the Ann Arbor city council – to amend the AATA’s articles of incorporation. At a meeting of the urban core communities held on April 25, 2013, Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje indicated his support for the idea, suggesting that the seven-member AATA board could be expanded to nine seats, one of which would be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.

Meetings among nearby surrounding jurisdictions – including the cities of Ypsilanti and Saline, and the townships of Ypsilanti and Pittsfield – have continued after the demise of an effort in 2012 to expand the AATA’s service and governance area to the entire county. The smaller group of government units has been presented with a set of increased services and various funding and governance options. Among those options is the possibility of Ypsilanti and other nearby jurisdictions joining the AATA.

While there had been some speculation the AATA might act immediately to approve admission of Ypsilanti as a member, the AATA is taking a somewhat more deliberative approach. That’s due in part to the fact that the board has a natural opportunity to discuss the issue in the context of broader planning issues at an upcoming annual retreat that had already been set for this general timeframe. That retreat will take place at 12:30 p.m. on May 22 at the Holiday Inn Express (Gresham Room), 600 Briarwood Circle.

At the May 7, 2013 meeting of the AATA board’s planning and development committee, a rough outline of possible steps toward Ypsilanti’s membership was discussed. From the committee minutes:

• Ypsilanti Mayor Paul Schreiber would meet with the Ann Arbor City Council to discuss the request to join the Authority;
• AATA would then adopt a resolution supporting Ypsilanti’s request and send it to the Ann Arbor City Council;
• The Articles of Incorporation would need to be modified to include Ypsilanti, and then be sent to City Council;
• AATA would then ask the City Council to approve and file the Articles of Incorporation.

The next meeting of the urban core group is June 27 at the Pittsfield Township hall starting at 4 p.m.

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

The modification to the agreement allows for adding other entities into the agreement in a more streamlined way. It gives each founding member the ability to add new participants administratively, without modifying the agreement itself. The original IACTS was approved in May of 2011. [.pdf of IACTS amendment]

The Ann Arbor city council approved the amendment at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting.

Washtenaw County already provides certain IT services to other local entities – like the city of Ypsilanti, Dexter’s fire department, and the 14B District Court – although they aren’t yet parties to the IACTS agreement. Another entity that might participate in the IACTS is the Washtenaw Intermediate School District.

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

The history of this partnership dates back to 2010. The county board voted initially to join the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office (SEMREO) – a separate entity from the SEMREO Community Alliance – at its March 17, 2010 meeting. At the time, SEMREO was a division of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, a Ferndale-based nonprofit that’s led by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith abstained from the March 17, 2010 vote, following conflict-of-interest concerns raised by other commissioners. SEMREO later split off from the Michigan Suburbs Alliance as a separate organization, but Smith serves on its board of directors.

Washtenaw County became involved in the SEMREO Community Alliance in 2011. On Aug. 3, 2011, the county board voted to join the SEMREO Community Alliance and approved the original interlocal agreement. According to Sam Offen – SEMREO director and co-director of the SEMREO Community Alliance – the alliance was created in order to pursue certain grant funding that’s not available to municipalities directly. It includes six partners: Washtenaw County, and the cities of Lathrup Village (in Oakland County); Sterling Heights and Roseville (in Macomb County); and Lincoln Park and Southgate (in Wayne County). [.pdf of original interlocal agreement] Smith was absent from the Aug. 3, 2011 meeting when the Washtenaw County board voted to join the alliance.

On Feb. 6, Smith was also absent for the vote to amend the SEMREO Community Alliance interlocal agreeement, arriving at the meeting after the vote had been taken. However, he asked the board if he could record affirmative votes for all items that he had missed – which included the SEMREO Community Alliance item. None of the other commissioners objected.

According to a staff memo, the amended interlocal agreement includes 13 changes, summarized in the county board’s resolution. [.pdf of interlocal agreement resolution] Changes include: (1) clarifying local government appointment and removal powers; (2) allowing video conferencing for quorum and voting; (3) allowing teleconferencing for participation, but not voting or quorum; (4) adding forms and rules for additional parties to join the alliance; and (5) clarifying the entity that determines how costs and expenses are to be distributed. A full copy of the amended interlocal agreement was not provided in the board’s Feb. 6 meeting packet. Offen emailed it to The Chronicle following the meeting. [.pdf of amended interlocal agreement]

Washtenaw County is the last of the six partners to authorize the amendments. The amended agreement has been reviewed by the state attorney general’s office and will now be sent to Gov. Rick Snyder for his approval.

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

The modification to the agreement allows for adding other entities into the agreement in a more streamlined way. It gives each founding member the ability to add new participants administratively, without modifying the agreement itself. The original IACTS was approved in May of 2011. [.pdf of IACTS amendment]

The Ann Arbor city council approved the amendment at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting. According to city of Ann Arbor IT director Dan Rainey, responding to an emailed query, one of the entities interested in participating in the IACTS is the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. Also responding to an emailed query, Washtenaw County IT manager Andy Brush explained that certain IT services are already provided by Washtenaw County to various entities – like the city of Ypsilanti, Dexter’s fire department, and the 14B District Court – although they aren’t yet parties to the IACTS agreement.

A final vote on this item is expected at the board’s Feb. 20 meeting.

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

The three-way accord had been approved by the council on May 2, 2011. The agreement – an interagency agreement for collaborative technology and services (IACTS) – is meant to provide a way to procure and maintain common technology platforms and services centrally.

The modification to the agreement, approved by the city council on Feb. 4, allows for adding other entities into the agreement in a more streamlined way, by “giving each founding member the ability to approve a process to enable an administrative individual to sign on behalf of that founding member for purposes of this adding new participants.” Other members could thus be added without modifying the agreement itself. With the amendment, Ann Arbor’s process for adding a new participant would include simply the approval of the city administrator on recommendation of the IT director and chief financial officer.

According to city of Ann Arbor IT director Dan Rainey, responding to an emailed query, one of the entities interested in participating in the IACTS is the Washtenaw Intermediate School District.

In May 2011 – when the Ann Arbor city council approved the IACTS with AATA and Washtenaw County – the council was also asked to consider the approval of an agreement with Washtenaw County for data storage services and for backup services. At the May 2011 council meeting, Rainey explained the nature of the shared storage and shared backup – there will be one machine at city hall and one at the city’s Wheeler Center.

The topic of backup and disaster data recovery issues was identified as one area of minor concern in the city’s most recent audit in late 2012. In chief financial officer Tom Crawford’s response to the auditor’s note on that topic, he outlines how the city uses a “separation of risks” approach and has always been able to backup and recover data in individual computing environments. Crawford’s written response also describes the city’s current work to improve its disaster recovery plan in terms of the IACTS: “Because of the nature of our interdependences, the information technology departments of the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and the AATA are collaborating on developing a common disaster recovery plan. The current state of the plan is that all parties know what is being backed up, where it is stored and that there is the ability to recover backed up data on a small number of servers.” [.pdf of revised auditor's letter] [.pdf of Crawford's Jan. 24, 2013 response]

Responding to an emailed query, Washtenaw County IT manager Andy Brush explained that certain IT services are already provided by Washtenaw County to various entities – like the city of Ypsilanti, Dexter’s fire department, and the 14B District Court – although they aren’t yet parties to the IACTS agreement.

The agreement between Ann Arbor and the city of Chelsea, also approved by the council on Feb. 4, dates back to 2011. The council agreed to extend the agreement, under which Chelsea will pay the city of Ann Arbor up to $55,614 for the following services: helpdesk, management of the city’s website, server hosting, data backup and recovery, overseeing IT contractors, project management, and representing the city of Chelsea in regional technology efforts and meetings.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

State law requires that changes to a community’s master plan must be communicated to adjacent jurisdications and other stakeholders to allow the opportunity for feedback. The sustainability framework will be distributed to these entities: the planning commissions of Ann Arbor Township, Scio Township, Lodi Township and Pittsfield Township; the Barton Hills Village long-range planning committee; the Washtenaw County board of commissioners; the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG); DTE Energy; Norfolk-Southern Railroad; the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; the University of Michigan; and the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education.

The planning commission will hold a public hearing – likely at one of its December 2012 meetings – for additional feedback. Entities more typically provide their input in written form.

Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,“ and “Final Forum: What Sustains Community?”

This brief was filed from the second floor council chambers at city hall, where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

That’s right, I’d like to “kick the can down the road.” I suppose it’s a pretty big can. But it’s a short road – only one week.

When kicking the can down the road, be sure it’s a short road and does not contain worms. (Incredible self-portrait action shot by the writer.)

Letting that meeting continue past Monday will be a benefit to the council and Ann Arbor residents, as well as to other public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA).

The city charter requires that by the end of that meeting, the council must approve the city budget for fiscal year 2013 – which begins on July 1, 2012. If the council does not act on the budget before the end of the meeting, then according to the city charter, the budget proposed by the city administrator on April 16, 2012 will automatically take effect. Last year, the “second meeting in May” was conducted over the course of sessions on three separate days, and did not end until May 31, 2011.

Last year’s extension of that second meeting in May – achieved  by recessing and reconvening on subsequent days – stemmed from the council’s desire to achieve clarity about issues related to the DDA. The issue centered around tax increment finance (TIF) capture, as well as the contract under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system.

This year, one of the amendments that’s almost certain to be proposed on Monday – by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – revisits the issue of the DDA’s TIF capture, and provides a recurring revenue source for the city to fund two firefighter positions this year, and perhaps more in subsequent years. Kunselman’s amendment calls for the kind of interpretation of the city’s ordinance on DDA TIF capture for which I’ve previously advocated. [See "Column: Tax Capture is a Varsity Sport"]

So this year, I’d like to suggest that city councilmembers plan now to take advantage of the parliamentary option of recessing their May 21 meeting until May 28 – so that they and the public can give thorough consideration to at least nine other budget amendments (in addition to Kunselman’s DDA/firefighter amendment) that could be brought forward on Monday.

The formal public hearing on the budget was already held and closed on May 7, 2012. It enjoyed the participation of just three Ann Arbor residents. By establishing the May 21 session as an occasion to sketch out the intent and the mechanics of proposed budget amendments, the council would better serve the public’s interest in being able to advocate for or against the various proposed amendments to the budget.

I’d also like to use the occasion of this column to lay out the content of some of the fire protection amendments, and to single out Kunselman’s amendment as one that I think especially deserves the entire council’s support.  

Budget Principle: Recurring versus Non-Recurring

When the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, talks about the city budget he doesn’t talk only about expenses and revenues. He always bases the conversation on this notion: Are these expenses and revenues recurring or non-recurring?

A simple example of recurring revenue is money from taxes – the city levies taxes every year in a recurrent way. The exact amount might vary based on the economy, but the city’s tax levy will reliably generate money in a way that can be reasonably estimated each year into the future. A simple example of a recurring expense is an employee’s salary. When the city hires someone to do a job – like arrest criminals, or put out fires, or review proposed new buildings – our basic expectation is that we’ll have a recurring need to pay that person’s salary each year.

A simple example of  non-recurring revenue is proceeds from the sale of land. When the city receives a $90,000 payment from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority for a strip of land in downtown Ann Arbor, the city cannot reliably expect every year in the future that it will have an available strip of land it can sell and that someone actually wants to buy for $90,000. On the expense side, an example of a non-recurring item would be a payment made to induce a police officer to retire earlier than that officer would have otherwise retired. The following year, that payment would not need to recur – because the employee has already retired.

If asked on Monday night to comment during deliberations, one basic principle that Crawford will likely apply to any proposed budget amendment is this: Pay for additional recurring expenses only out of additional recurring revenues.

By way of example, suppose a councilmember were to propose a budget amendment that funds an extra firefighter position (which would cost roughly $80,000) from the proceeds of the land sale to the AATA ($90,000). One way to phrase an argument against that proposed amendment would be simply to say: That’s an attempt to fund a recurring expense from non-recurring revenue.

To be clear, no one on the Ann Arbor city council has proposed funding a firefighter position from the land sale to the AATA. However, at least three different councilmembers have drafted modifications to the FY 2013 budget that would add firefighter positions: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Fire Protection – Use of Fund Balance

The two budget amendments drafted by Lumm and Teall are similar, in that they would bring the budgeted number of firefighters from 82 to 88 – for an addition of six, compared to the city administrator’s proposed budgeted levels.  They’re also similar in their approach to paying for the additional firefighter positions. Teall’s resolution stipulates the combination of a federal grant – for which the city has applied through a FEMA program called Staffing For Adequate Fire & Emergency Response Grants (SAFER) – and possible increases in the state of Michigan’s fire protection allocation to municipalities that are home to state-owned institutions.

The state fire protection grant program is based on the fact that state-owned institutions do not generate property tax revenues to the municipalities that must provide those state-owned institutions with fire protection. In Ann Arbor’s case, it’s the University of Michigan that generates no direct property taxes; but Ann Arbor provides fire protection for UM.

However, Teall’s resolution essentially provides direction to the city administration to tap the city’s fund balance reserve –  if a SAFER grant or additional funding from the state is not available or is insufficient. From a draft of Teall’s resolved clause:

RESOLVED, the City increase the General Fund Fire Services Unit FTEs by six, and funding for the positions totaling $477,594 ($79,599 per FTE) be added to the adopted budget, funded from the receipt of additional Fire Protection monies from the State, potential Grant Funds and the use of fund balance, as needed, from the General Fund.

Lumm’s resolution is similar:

RESOLVED, the Administrator’s proposed budget be amended to add six FTEs to the fire department FTE budget (88 FTE total) and $477,594 be added to the fire department GF expenditure budget to fund the expected cost of the six additional FTEs

RESOLVED,  the additional $477,594 in FY 13 GF expenditures be funded in the following priority order: (1) Revenues from the SAFER Grant (2) Revenues from the increase over the Administrator’s budgeted amount in the State Fire Protection Grant  …

Lumm’s draft amendment continues with contingencies for this year based on reducing funds from a possible High Speed Rail Local Match allocation; but it also includes the possibility of drawing on the general fund reserve.

It’s fair, I think, to describe the strategies of Lumm and Teall for funding additional firefighter positions (SAFER grant and increased fire protection grants from the state) as depending on revenues that might be recurring, but that are not yet in hand, and that currently have some uncertainty attached. Their amendments have in common a willingness to backstop that hoped-for revenue with use of the fund balance.

Otherwise put, their amendments have a backstop that would use non-recurring revenue to pay for recurring expenses. In contrast, Kunselman’s fire protection amendment does not depend on the general fund reserve as a backstop.

Fire Protection – Use of Recurring Revenue

In terms of the number of firefighters, Kunselman’s fire protection amendment is less ambitious. It seeks to add just two firefighter positions. However, his amendment identifies a recurring revenue source – the additional revenue that would be distributed to the city of Ann Arbor, if the city’s ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF capture were interpreted in a particular way.

By way of background, in broad simple strokes, the DDA “captures” taxes that are levied in its downtown district by other taxing jurisdictions. But the DDA does not capture all the taxes levied. It captures only the taxes on the increment between the baseline value of a property and the value of built improvements on a property. And the Ann Arbor DDA captures taxes only on the initial increment – the difference between the property’s initial value, and the value after a site is developed – not on its later appreciation. In this way, it captures taxes that would otherwise go to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the city of Ann Arbor.

The city’s ordinance on DDA tax capture appears to limit how much tax can be captured, based on the actual increase in value of property in the district, compared with the projected value in the DDA’s official TIF plan. From the relevant clause from Chapter 7 of the city code [emphasis and extra emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed. [.pdf of Ann Arbor city ordinance establishing the DDA]

Last year, the impact of Chapter 7 was pointed out for the first time by city financial staff. It resulted in a combined refund of roughly $473,000 from the DDA to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College and Washtenaw County. The city of Ann Arbor chose to waive its $712,000 share of the calculated excess. I argued in a column last year that the method of calculation for the excess was wrong, and that the amount returned should have been even greater. [See "Column: Tax Capture is a Varsity Sport"]

Subsequently, the DDA reversed its legal position and contended that no money should have been returned at all. The DDA’s position is based on the following clause of Chapter 7:

Tax funds that are paid to the downtown development authority due to the captured assessed value shall first be used to pay the required amounts into the bond and interest redemption funds and the required reserves thereto. Thereafter, the funds shall be distributed as set forth above or shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies.

Without delving into the details of how these TIF calculations work, Kunselman’s budget amendment calls for a Chapter 7 interpretation that is essentially consistent with the one I’ve argued for in the past. It results this year in roughly $200,000 more for the city’s general fund, which Kunselman proposes to use to fund two firefighter positions. From Kunselman’s draft resolution:

RESOLVED, That City Council directs the DDA to interpret and apply Chapter 7 of City Code using:

• both real and personal property,
• the “realistic” capture projection from the 2003 DDA Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan,
• a cumulative comparison of projected capture to actual capture; and
• consideration of only debt service payments for TIF related projects (i.e. exclude all debt service for the construction, maintenance, and management of the City’s parking system).

RESOLVED, That City Council directs the City Treasurer to distribute future TIF revenue to the DDA only up to the amount that would be realized in the plan plus any increases that are permissible in Chapter 7;

RESOLVED, That City Council directs the City Treasurer to distribute the excess amounts of future TIF revenue to the taxing authorities from which they were captured; and

RESOLVED, That the increased revenue to the General Fund in the amount of $199,360 be utilized to increase the Fire Department expenditure authorization in FY 2013 and to increase the authorized number of Fire FTEs by 2 positions.

Based on this “cumulative” approach to Chapter 7, the amount of additional revenue will recur.

So it’s fair to think of Kunselman’s proposed Chapter 7 interpretation as roughly approximating the following: From this point forward, new development in the DDA district will directly benefit the district’s taxing jurisdictions – by an amount equal to half the TIF that the DDA would otherwise capture on that new development. Considering all jurisdictions that have their taxes captured by the DDA, the city of Ann Arbor’s rough proportional share (across all funds) is about 60%. So the city of Ann Arbor’s rough benefit from the future new development would be about 30% of the TIF that the DDA would otherwise capture.

Four major projects in downtown will be completed in the next year or two, resulting in additional recurring revenue that the city of Ann Arbor could budget. Those four projects are: the Landmark Building, The Varsity, City Apartments, and Zaragon West.

If Ann Arbor’s proportional share of captured taxes is 60%, what about that other 40% of the TIF?

Inter-Governmental Cooperation

Other than the city of Ann Arbor’s share, the other 40% of the taxes captured by the Ann Arbor DDA are levied by the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, and Washtenaw Community College.

The way that the Chapter 7 interpretation played out last year did not serve the city of Ann Arbor’s long-term interests for collaboration and cooperation, in the context of the city’s natural regional partners. Last year, when the Chapter 7 issue arose, the issue should have been identified for all parties who had a stake in the issue. Then, a mutual understanding could have been reached – by the  Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College, the city of Ann Arbor, and the Ann Arbor DDA – about the interpretation and method of calculation for excess TIF capture.

Instead, when the Chapter 7 issue was first identified, the method of calculating excess TIF was unilaterally decided by the DDA, with the implicit endorsement of the city of Ann Arbor. Also decided unilaterally was the subsequent interpretation of Chapter 7 by the DDA as not requiring any TIF to be returned – last year or in the future. At the time, Larry Whitworth, who was then president of Washtenaw Community College, told The Chronicle that he was disturbed by the DDA’s decision. As recently as March 19, 2012, Josie Parker – director of the Ann Arbor District Library – has expressed a willingness to have a conversation with the DDA about the issue, because she sees the TIF capture issue differently from the DDA.

If the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor DDA don’t want to invite the other taxing jurisdictions to the table to work out a mutually agreeable interpretation and method of calculating excess TIF capture, then Ann Arbor’s wisest long-term choice is to defend the interests of those not at the table.

What Kunselman’s amendment says to other taxing jurisdictions is this: You can trust Ann Arbor to defend your interests, when your interests depend on the city doing the right thing. Otherwise put: Ann Arbor knows how to be a good neighbor.

Recess, Reconvene

Of course, if the city council were simply to approve Kunselman’s amendment Monday night, they’d be doing that without giving the DDA a seat at the table. That’s partly why I think it’s reasonable for the council to allow the DDA sufficient time to present the city council with a revised 10-year budget plan (a tool the DDA uses for long-range planning) that factors in Kunselman’s proposed Chapter 7 interpretation and method of calculation.

That additional window of time could be achieved by recessing Monday’s council meeting and reconvening it a week later. The additional time would also allow the city council enough time to absorb the substance of Kunselman’s proposed amendment, and to satisfy itself that the DDA would still be able to meet all its financial obligations.

For some councilmembers, it will be difficult to see anything more in Kunselman’s amendment than a continued pattern on Kunselman’s part to use the DDA as a political punching bag, or as yet another way for the council to use the DDA as an ATM machine. As I’ve outlined in this column, I think the substance of Kunselman’s amendment deserves more than that kind of knee-jerk reaction.

In fact, it would not be unreasonable to hope that Teall, Kunselman and Lumm could use the additional time to sit down together and hammer out a fire protection budget amendment they could jointly present to the full council. Kunselman’s amendment could be a starting point for their conversation.

The council could also use the additional time to allow themselves and the public to get more familiar with the substance of at least nine other amendments that might eventually be voted on. [.pdf of set 1 of amendments] [.pdf of set 2 of amendments]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city of Ann Arbor. 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!

Ann Arbor planning commissioners and staff on a late April bus tour along Washtenaw Avenue, focusing on a project to improve that corridor between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. The iconic Ypsi-Arbor Bowl sign has since been removed. (Photos by the writer.)

The board got an update on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement project, an effort to revitalize the county’s most congested – and, in many sections, blighted – commercial stretch. The project is focused on the roughly five miles between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which also crosses land within Pittsfield and Ypsilanti townships. All four communities are involved in the project and several government leaders from those jurisdictions attended the working session, including Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock, Ann Arbor councilmember Tony Derezinski, Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo and clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe, Ypsilanti Township planning commissioner Larry Krieg, and Craig Lyon, director of Pittsfield Township utilities and municipal services.

Anya Dale, the Washtenaw County planner who’s been coordinating the project, briefed commissioners on both the history and the current status of efforts along the corridor. One of the main questions – how the four communities will formally partner on the project – remains undecided. One option would be to form a corridor improvement authority (CIA), a tax increment finance (TIF) district that would provide revenues to fund improvements. Though governing boards and councils for each jurisdiction have passed resolutions of intent to form a CIA, Dale said they’re waiting on possible state legislative changes that would allow for one CIA to be formed along the entire corridor.

Another uncertainty relates to staff: Commissioners learned that Dale is leaving the county to take a job at the University of Michigan’s Office of Campus Sustainability. She’s been spending about a third of her time on the Washtenaw Avenue project, and it’s unclear who will pick up that work.

The same meeting also included an update from Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, on a possible countywide transit system. That presentation will be included in an upcoming Chronicle report.

Washtenaw Corridor Improvement Project: Overview

Anya Dale’s presentation covered familiar ground for anyone who’s attended other public forums on this project. [See Chronicle coverage: "What Does Washtenaw Corridor Need?"]

She began by describing the project’s genesis three years ago as an outgrowth of the planning effort called Ann Arbor Region Success, which involved about 70 community leaders. [The group was formed in response to news that Pfizer was pulling out of Ann Arbor and closing its large drug research complex here.]

Out of that effort, recommendations were made to focus on six major areas: (1) business acceleration and attraction; (2) secondary school options; (3) regional transit; (4) workforce housing; (5) workforce/talent development; and (6) revitalizing the eastern side of the county.

One major deficit identified was a lack of affordable housing options that are connected to vibrant parts of the county via high quality public transit. It’s especially difficult for young people who are starting their careers – they can’t find affordable housing that’s close to where they work and to the services and amenities they need, or that provides high quality public transit options.

With these things in mind, Dale said, the four communities along Washtenaw Avenue decided to focus on redeveloping that corridor. The goal is to use “smart growth” principles to enhance the quality of place for current residents, encourage efficient transportation, and accommodate the needs of the creative economy – which generally includes professions like architecture, graphic design, software development, film and music, among other fields.

In addition to the local governments of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township, the project involves other public and private sector partners too, Dale said, including the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT), the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA), the University of Michigan, and the real estate developer and property manager McKinley, among others.

Dale said public outreach has engaged many others, and has included multiple community forums, presentations to local government boards and councils, landowner and business meetings, and an online survey.

Washtenaw County planner Anya Dale, prepping for a presentation to the county board of commissioners on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement project. At the June 2 working session, commissioners learned that Dale is leaving the county to take a job with the University of Michigan.

Dale described several challenges found along the five-mile stretch. In many places, there are no sidewalks for pedestrians, and no safe way for people to get to bus stops or to cross the busy five-lane road. It’s the most congested corridor in the county, with high crash rates – both car-to-car, and car-to-pedestrian. Vacancy rates in buildings along Washtenaw Avenue are also high, Dale noted.

There are also opportunities, she said. It’s located close to major employment centers, residential neighborhoods, retail and service businesses, and provides access to a major highway: US-23, with a nearby connection to I-94. There’s already high public transit use along the corridor, and ample land for redevelopment – more than 100 acres that’s either vacant or severely under-utilized, Dale said, including some that’s eligible for brownfield redevelopment.

So the four communities along the corridor realized they had common goals, she said. Among them:

• Creating a mixed use corridor, with housing, retail and office space all accessible via high-quality transit.
• Connecting vibrant neighborhoods to commercial areas via pleasant, safe walking and biking options.
• Modernizing plans and regulations to encourage infill and development.
• Removing barriers and creating incentives for development.
• Increasing the local tax base.
• Coordinating efforts to fund improvements for pedestrian, bike and vehicle uses, and enhanced transit service.

The vision is to attract people to the corridor – these goals aim to enhance the quality of life for residents and workers, Dale said. It includes providing more choices for transit, and making housing more affordable. One way to increase affordability is through improved public transit, she said – it’s not cheaper to live somewhere if you’re forced to use a car.

The corridor project also aims to reduce sprawl and pollution, Dale said, cut infrastructure costs and increase property values. From an economic development perspective, it could enhance the county’s competitiveness to attract businesses and workers, provide investment stability, and connect low- and moderate-income people to jobs through improved transit access.

The corridor hasn’t realized its potential for business investment, and it’s currently dragging down the taxable values for some of the communities there, Dale said.

Partners in the project spent much of 2009 doing public outreach and developing a vision, Dale said. In 2010, they developed recommendations for land use, transportation, and governance models, such as a corridor improvement authority (CIA). She pointed commissioners to the Reimagine Washtenaw website for more details on these recommendations.

Some University of Michigan graduate students did a redevelopment feasibility study of the corridor – their market analysis found that there’s demand for compact, mixed-use development near transit, Dale said, and that Washtenaw Avenue is an appropriate location for workforce housing.

Dale outlined several transportation improvements suggested for Washtenaw Avenue. For public transit, those include extended service hours, faster and more frequent service, Park-and-Ride options, and improved infrastructure including bus stops and pull-offs, signs and sidewalks. Improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians include  pedestrian refuge islands, intersection improvements, and connections to existing bicycle pathways. And traffic congestion could be addressed by improving access to sites, reducing curb-cuts and coordinating traffic signals.

Several improvements are already underway, Dale said. They include:

• Pedestrian improvements at the US-23 interchange – part of a broader MDOT project there that will likely start construction next year.
• Sidewalks built in the Pittsfield Township section.
• Construction of a multi-use path up to Tuomy Road in Ann Arbor.
• New developments proposed at Golfside in Ypsilanti Township, and at Platt in Ann Arbor.
• A conversion from four to three lanes on Golfside Road from Packard to Clark, with bike lanes and sidewalks.
• Improvements at the Oakwood intersection.
• AATA transit improvements to Route #4.
• Improved Night Ride service.
• A Glencoe Crossings park-and-ride lot.

Washtenaw Corridor Improvement: Governance

Dale described steps that have been taken regarding the governance piece of the project, much of it related to a corridor improvement authority (CIA). She noted that the four communities have all passed resolutions of intent to form a CIA, but they’ll continue to look at whether a CIA is the best approach.

A pedestrian crossing heavy traffic on Washtenaw Avenue, south of Arborland. She eventually made it safely to the opposite side, where an AATA bus stop is located.

A CIA is a financing mechanism that would provide a way for the four communities to fund improvements to the corridor. CIAs would allow for tax-increment financing, similar to a downtown development authorities but specifically designed for commercial corridors. A tax-increment finance (TIF) district is a mechanism for “capturing” certain property taxes to be used in a specific geographic district – taxes that would otherwise be used by the entity with the authority to levy the taxes.

The benefits to a CIA are that it creates a formal partnership that allows the entity to pursue more funding options, Dale said. In addition to TIF revenues, those funding options could include federal grants, donations, special assessments, and the ability to issue bonds. Working via a CIA would bring regional consistency to development standards. It would also coordinate public investment, as well as marketing, promotion and incentives that might be offered, Dale said.

Like a downtown development authority, the CIA would be governed by a board with representatives from each community, as well as local property owners, residents, and business owners.

There are 16 CIAs in Michigan, Dale said. The Washtenaw Avenue group is using the CIA formed by Lansing, East Lansing and Lansing Township as a model, because of the multiple jurisdictions involved.

If the four communities decide to pursue a CIA, Dale said, they’d need to act within 60 days of the last public hearing focused on it. A public hearing was held earlier this year, but more than 60 days ago – and no action was taken. That means another public hearing would need to be held, if the CIA approach is pursued.

If tax increment financing is sought for this corridor, they’d need to draft a TIF plan and have it approved by the governing bodies for each of the four communities.

They’d also need to hold public hearings on the TIF plan. Taxing entities would have 60 days from those public hearings to decide whether to opt out of their revenue being captured for the district.

Aside from the decision about a CIA and TIF, next steps in 2011 and 2012 include: (1) incorporating a corridor strategy into the master plans for each jurisdiction; (2) updating zoning, parking and design standards in each jurisdiction; (3) selecting a method for an expedited permitting/review process for developments; (4) developing a project list; and (5) making a joint application for a transportation enhancement grant.

Washtenaw Corridor Improvement: Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners asked a range of questions about the project, and generally seemed supportive of it.

Barbara Bergman asked Dale how much the county was paying to support the project – what’s the funding source? It’s mostly a contribution of staff time, Dale said, adding that about a third of her time is spent on the corridor. They’ve also received small grants, she said, which were either spent internally or paid for contract work.

In response to a query from Bergman about what kind of additional support is needed, Dale said it would be good for the county to continue to provide staff time. It’s helpful to have an outside entity like the county involved in moving the conversation forward, she said, as well as to make grant applications. The project has great momentum, which Dale hoped would continue.

Leah Gunn asked about the tax increment finance (TIF) district that’s one possible funding option. Would it capture taxes from only the four jurisdictions involved in the project? Or would the TIF capture include other taxing units, like the county, the Ann Arbor District Library and Washtenaw Community College?

Washtenaw County commissioner Leah Gunn, whose district covers part of Ann Arbor, talks with Ann Arbor city councilmember Tony Derezinski at the county board's June 2 working session.

Dale said it would be possible for taxing entities like the county to opt out. The percent of tax increment capture could also be negotiated, she said – it wouldn’t have to be 100%.

Yousef Rabhi noted that when the county board had held a working session on intergovernmental cooperation earlier this year, the turnout hadn’t been great. By comparison, the turnout for this corridor working session is huge, he said, and that’s a testament to how concrete the project is, and the value that multiple communities see in it.

Noting that the board had been discussing the issue of brownfields recently, Dan Smith asked Dale to identify the location of brownfields along the corridor. Dale didn’t have an exact number, but said that many of the sites have underground storage tanks at gas stations. In addition, there are many buildings along the corridor that have been vacant for more than five years, and are functionally obsolete.

D. Smith said the brownfield component would be one obvious place where the county might be involved in the corridor project – brownfield plans submitted through the county’s brownfield redevelopment program require board approval. Would the county be asked to join a corridor improvement authority?

Dale said she thought that anyone could join a CIA, but so far, the 16 authorities in Michigan all have fewer than four members. They’re working on state legislation to broaden the language in Public Act 280 so that there could be greater representation in the CIA, she said.

County commissioners understand the complexities of tax increment financing, D. Smith said. TIF districts have benefits, but also short-term downsides. They divert tax revenues at a time when revenues are declining anyway – the county is facing a $17.5 million two-year deficit in 2012-2013, he noted. “It’s a difficult trade-off to make sometimes,” he said, and one they should be aware of.

Ronnie Peterson observed that this is one of the few times he can remember when people from Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township “came in peace.” That reflects their commitment to work together on this project, he said, and he hoped they would come back again.

Peterson asked Dale whether they would have to wait until legislation was passed in Lansing. Dale replied that the CIA was only one of the tools they’re considering. It would be possible right now for each of the four jurisdictions to form their own CIA, she said, but they’d rather form just one – and that requires changing the CIA enabling legislation. State legislators aren’t likely to act on it until the fall at the earliest, however. Until then, there’s work on master plans and grants that can be done, Dale said.

Peterson said he’d hate for Dale’s departure to cause the project to lose momentum. Tony VanDerworp – director of the economic development & energy department, and Dale’s boss – told commissioners that they’re still working out details of staff assignments as part of a proposed merger of three county departments: economic development & energy, the office of community development, and the employment training and community services (ETCS) department. [For background on this reorganization, see Chronicle coverage: "Three County Departments to Merge"]

The county has applied for a grant that would cover administrative costs to manage the corridor project, VanDerworp said. If they don’t get the grant, they’d likely need to talk to partners in the four Washtenaw Avenue jurisdictions to find other ways to move the project forward.

Brenda Stumbo, Ypsilanti Township supervisor, spoke to Ann Arbor planning commissioners on a bus tour of Washtenaw Avenue in late April.

Peterson complained about how the reorganization and merging of departments would bury economic development efforts within a human services department – he’s not in favor of that approach, given that the county invests significantly in economic development. He felt like the government leaders who attended that night’s working session were looking for the county to make a clear commitment – they weren’t there for just a pat on the back, he said. He asked Rabhi, who chairs the working sessions, to schedule one on the status of state legislation affecting this project, and to make sure the board gets updates on work in the corridor as it progresses. ”I don’t want us to be the dragging link to this chain,” Peterson said.

Wes Prater asked about the project’s timeline. Dale said there are several things in the works. Most communities are updating their master plans to include language related to the corridor improvement – Pittsfield Township is the farthest along in that. There are monthly meetings with a large group that includes elected officials, as well as monthly meetings of just the planners from each jurisdiction. [.pdf of tentative timeline through 2012]

If the grant doesn’t get approved, Prater wondered if the communities involved in this project would be asked for funding. Dale said the project would likely move along at a slower pace, as funding allowed. Having a staff person who could coordinate efforts of the four communities, as well as with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, would move things along more quickly, she said.

Washtenaw Corridor Improvement: Local Communities Weigh In

Several people from other municipalities who attended the working session spoke to commissioners about the project.

Tony Derezinski, an Ann Arbor city councilmember who also serves on the city’s planning commission, reported that the city council had passed a resolution of intent to work with Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township and the city of Ypsilanti to explore establishing a corridor improvement authority (CIA) along Washtenaw Avenue. [The council acted on this resolution at its Dec. 20, 2010 meeting.]

Derezinski pointed out that the city’s planning commission has put a priority on transportation corridors. Included in the planning staff’s work plan is a focus first on Washtenaw Avenue, then South State Street, Plymouth Road and North Main.

At the planning commission’s retreat in late April, the group combined its interest in corridors with an emphasis on regional planning, Derezinski said, which they see as crucial to the area’s future. That resulted in the group doing a “corridor crawl” on an AATA bus along Washtenaw Avenue, with stops along the way in each of the jurisdictions: Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township, and the city of Ypsilanti. [The Chronicle attended the five-hour retreat, and rode along with planning commissioners and staff during the bus tour.]

Ann Arbor city planner Matt Kowalski, right, shakes hands with Al Berriz, CEO of McKinley, during a stop at Glencoe Hills as part of the planning commission's April 26 retreat. In the foreground is Mandy Grewal, Pittsfield Township supervisor. Glencoe Hills is an apartment complex owned by McKinley that's along a stretch of Washtenaw Avenue in Pittsfield Township.

At many of those stops, the planning commissioners talked with staff, elected officials and others who have a vested interest in that stretch of Washtenaw Avenue. One of the longer stops was at Glencoe Hills, a McKinley-owned apartment complex east of Carpenter Road in Pittsfield Township. There, the group heard from McKinley CEO Al Berriz and Mandy Grewal, Pittsfield Township supervisor, who each spoke about the importance of the corridor project.

The retreat also included a stop across from Arborland, and at the intersection of Golfside and Washtenaw, where planning commissioners talked with Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo and Pittsfield Township planner Paul Montagno. [Ann Arbor planner Jeff Kahan told the group that this intersection "is where the communities kiss."] The final stop was at the western edge of Ypsilanti, at Mansfield and Washtenaw, and included a discussion with Ypsilanti city planner Theresa Gillotti.

At the June 2 county board working session, Derezinski told county commissioners there’s an exciting air of collaboration regarding the Washtenaw Avenue project – it’s the first major project where regionalism has a chance to succeed, he said.

Stumbo also spoke briefly to commissioners, calling the corridor project a great opportunity for economic development and a chance to break down some of the barriers between the east and west sides of the county. [Carpenter Road is itself a major commercial corridor running north/south and intersecting with Washtenaw Avenue near the US-23 interchange. It is considered by many to be a de facto dividing line between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.]

She noted that some people are leery of TIF (tax increment finance) districts, but the township is looking at it as an opportunity to stabilize its tax base through economic development. She said her understanding is that while a 50% tax capture is typical, other amounts are possible. Stumbo noted that Ypsilanti Township’s board had passed a resolution of intent regarding the corridor. If there’s a positive side to the economic downturn, she said, it’s that barriers are coming down and people are starting to work together.

Also addressing the board was Larry Krieg, a member of the Ypsilanti Township planning commission and author of the blog Wake Up, Washtenaw, which focuses on transportation issues. Krieg told the county board that he has two grandchildren living in the city of Ypsilanti, and he’s interested in building a community in which they can grow and prosper. What encourages him is that local communities are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Everyone knows that Washtenaw Avenue needs help, he said. Often times, people take one of two attitudes – either seeking outside help, such as federal grants, or saying “Why bother?” and giving up. For this project, Krieg said, he sees communities coming together and saying that they can do it themselves – they can improve the corridor, attract jobs and retain young talent. He said he hoped every county commissioner would support it.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Kristin Judge, Alicia Ping, Conan Smith

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioner Ronnie Peterson, Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock, and Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran, at the county board's March 17 working session on intergovernmental collaboration. (Photos by the writer.)

Their discussion comes in the context of declining property values – property taxes are the primary source of revenue for local governments. In Michigan, constraints on how local governments can generate revenues add an additional layer of complexity. For the county, commissioners and staff are weighing how to overcome a projected two-year, $20.9 million deficit – some feel that collaborating with other local governments is part of the solution.

The talk among Washtenaw County leaders about collaboration also reflects a push at the state level to encourage more such efforts. It’s been a mantra of Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, an Ann Arbor area resident, who wants to use state revenue-sharing dollars as a carrot to get communities to work together. More dramatically, his administration is also advocating for legislation that would make it easier for cities and counties to merge.

Local government officials had been invited to the March 17 meeting to participate in the discussion and air their views on the possibilities for collaboration, as well as roadblocks they anticipate, like issues of cost or control. Many cited the need for better communication, and commissioners indicated a desire to get more involved in existing forums, such as the CEO Group – a monthly meeting of township supervisors led by Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly – and the Saline Area Sustainability Circle, which also meets monthly.

Representatives from Ann Arbor Township, Salem Township, Saline and Ypsilanti attended the working session. However, no one came from local governments of the county’s largest population centers – Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township or Ypsilanti Township – though those areas are also represented by county commissioners. Several people at the meeting expressed the hope that similar sessions would be held in the future, with the additional hope that more local officials would get involved.

Introductions, Framing the Discussion

Typically, working sessions for the county board entail presentations on one or two topics related to the county’s work, with the opportunity for commissioners to ask questions. But the March 17 session on intergovernmental collaboration had a different tone. Yousef Rabhi, chair of the working session, began by asking everyone in the room to introduce themselves, and he invited leaders from other local governments to sit at tables in the front with microphones, where they could participate directly in the discussion.

In addition to some county staff and a few members of the public, local officials at the meeting included Mike Moran, Ann Arbor Township supervisor; Todd Campbell, Saline city manager; Salem Township supervisor Robert Heyl; Salem Township treasurer Paul Uherek; Janis Bobrin, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner; and Gene DeRossett, 14-A District Court administrator. Pete Murdock, an Ypsilanti city councilmember, arrived about midway through the session.

Rabhi pointed out that one of the county’s guiding principles speaks directly to collaboration:

Provide leadership on intragovernmental, intergovernmental and intersectoral cooperation and collaboration aimed at improving services to County citizens.

He noted that at the March 16 board meeting, commissioners had approved a set of priorities and principles to guide the 2012-2013 budget. During that meeting, they’d talked a lot about intergovernmental collaboration, he said. One of the guiding principles that they’d approved dealt directly with that issue:

Guidance Four: Integrate efforts across agencies to meet strategic priorities. The Board seeks to substantively elevate the County’s role in providing leadership on intragovernmental, intergovernmental and intersectoral cooperation and collaboration aimed at improving services to County citizens. Partnership and collaboration are essential components of every County program. [.pdf file of 2012-13 strategic priorities and budget decision principles]

“This is part of that process,” Rabhi said. The county is already collaborating in a variety of ways, he noted, which they are documenting. [.pdf file listing current county collaborations] Examples include the sheriff’s office combining its dispatch operations with the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; the county morgue contracting with the University of Michigan Health System to use UM facilities for autopsies; and the county providing IT services for the Dexter fire department, Chelsea police and the city of Ypsilanti.

What followed was a wide-ranging discussion among commissioners and leaders of other local governments. For purposes of this report, the discussion is organized by topic.

Is Collaboration a Priority – And at What Cost?

Rabhi observed that at the March 16 board meeting, some commissioners had indicated they didn’t want to collaborate if it cost the county money. So he posed a question: Should collaboration be a priority, regardless of its expense?

Washtenaw County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, left, who chairs the board's working sessions, talks with Salem Township supervisor Robert Heyl prior to the March 17 working session on intergovernmental collaboration.

Conan Smith, the board’s chair, made some additional points to frame the conversation. They have an interesting opportunity, given the state’s economy, to re-examine how government services are provided, he said. One of the key questions is: At what level is a service optimally provided, and what entity should provide it? Issues that affect the character of a neighborhood probably aren’t a county government responsibility. But perhaps providing a payroll service to local governments is a service the county could offer.

He also pointed out that many issues cross jurisdictional boundaries – like the work of the county’s water resources commissioner, for example. Environmental issues should be looked at from a regional or metro area perspective, he said – or even on the scale of a watershed.

These aren’t necessarily clear-cut decisions, Smith said. And it’s complicated by the fact that different units of government have different authority. Police services and roads are examples where there’s overlapping entities involved. All of these factors should be part of the discussion, Smith said, and should help shape their legislative agenda.

Returning to Rabhi’s question, Barbara Bergman said that any collaboration they do should be cost neutral to the county. Though they should look for opportunities to collaborate, as a steward of public funds, she said, she felt strongly that they shouldn’t use general fund dollars to pursue collaborative projects.

No government wants to collaborate and end up paying more, Smith replied. But there’s recognition that kicking off a collaboration might cost money initially – the idea is that those upfront costs will yield a payoff down the road. The distinction is between one-time costs and longer-term costs, he said.

Bergman responded that if there are start-up costs that don’t result in savings within six to eight months, that would be hard to support.

At that point, Mike Moran – Ann Arbor Township supervisor – approached the podium to speak. He told Bergman that her view is very short-sighted. There are several examples of collaborations that have paid off, but that aren’t necessarily cost neutral, he said – pointing to the Washtenaw Metro Alliance and the Urban County, which both have relied on county staff. And some things didn’t save money, but were worth doing anyway, he noted. The Metro Alliance, for example, came up with a comprehensive open space plan – they didn’t start out with that as a project, but it became a valuable endeavor, he said.

Secondarily, Moran said, a lot of collaboration is happening that might not be officially considered as collaboration. He cited as examples the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) and the criminal justice collaborative council (CJCC), on which he serves – those aren’t included on the county’s list of collaborative projects, he noted, but they should be.

Moran also reported that Ann Arbor Township now requires that every development project be vetted by the staff of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. That’s not a county requirement, he noted, but another example of two local government entities working together.

Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran and Janis Bobrin, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

Finally, Moran expressed skepticism that any money will be forthcoming from the state for local governments. If there’s a funding pool, it’ll be more like a “baby swimming pool,” he quipped.

Bergman replied that she also serves on the CJCC – when it started, the county was able to fund its start-up costs. But they’re facing a different economic climate now. “I wish now was then,” she said. “But now is now.” Bergman also noted that Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, can manage her budget however she sees fit, “regardless of my comments regarding cost neutrality.” [The water resources commissioner is an independent, elected position. The budget for that office is set by the county board.]

Later in the meeting, commissioner Dan Smith observed that cost savings are the main reason driving collaboration. Over the years, local governments have developed the attitude that they want to deliver the best service possible, and the best way to do that was to do it themselves. But they don’t have the luxury of doing that anymore, he added, and they’re looking to collaborate to save money.

That might be true, commissioner Wes Prater said – the need to save money might have brought collaboration to the forefront. But there’s other value to collaboration, beyond savings. They also need to take into account that each of the local governments have different responsibilities, he said – the trick is to find collaborations that bring value to all involved.

Commissioner Kristin Judge said it was important to remember that the county is a member of SEMCOG (the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments). They pay dues for that membership, she said, and should take advantage of SEMCOG staff who could support collaborative projects – SEMCOG staff is providing that kind of support to a regional IT collaboration that Judge participates in.

Peter Murdock, an Ypsilanti city councilmember, observed that Ypsilanti has been involved in collaborations for decades – he cited the Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority (YCUA) and the Ypsilanti District Library as examples. The city, which has its own police department, is also talking with Ypsilanti Township about providing police services for the township, he said. Ypsilanti Township currently contracts with the county sheriff’s department for police services.

They’ve already done a lot of cost cutting, Murdock said, and the next few years will be difficult. Collaboration and consolidation might be part of the solution, but Murdock indicated that strategy alone likely wouldn’t be enough to solve their problems.

Collaboration: Communication Is Key

Prater urged local leaders to think of Washtenaw County as one community. Each district is a little different, he said, but everyone is concerned about quality of life and public safety – they know those are crucial for economic development. There are other things, like transportation and good roads, he said, but fundamentally, public safety is the most critical thing for a good economy.

Commissioner Rob Turner said he comes to the discussion from the perspective of public schools – before being elected to the county board, he was a school board member for the Chelsea public schools. School boards throughout the county have a collegial relationship, he said, and collaborate via the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. Many service-sharing initiatives emerge from their discussions, he said, including collaborations related to food services and transportation. He said he didn’t see anything similar among township supervisors or other local government leaders – people just coming together and talking, as they were that night. He wondered if there were meetings taking place that he just wasn’t aware of.

County commissioners Wes Prater and Kristin Judge.

Judge mentioned the CEO Group, a monthly meeting of township supervisors and other local government officials – it’s led by Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly. Former county commissioner Mark Ouimet previously served as an informal liaison between the county board and the CEO Group, she said. So the mechanism exists, Judge said – they just need to figure out a better way to take advantage of it. She suggested that perhaps the work of the CEO Group could be better publicized.

Prater noted that former Ann Arbor mayor Liz Brater had started the CEO Group in the early 1990s, when Prater served as supervisor of Ypsilanti Township. Initially, only a few people attended, he said, but now it’s a strong group and provides a forum for local governments to communicate.

Turner observed that county commissioners or staff would benefit from being more than just an occasional guest at those meetings. Judge recalled that when she was first elected to the county board, taking office in late 2008, she was invited to the group. At that time, there was distrust against the county related to a dispute over how townships and other municipalities were charged for sheriff deputy patrols, she said. A lot of work has been done to heal those relationships, she added, and now it seems that members of the CEO Group are more open to working with the county.

Those kinds of animosities generally stem from a lack of communication, Turner said. Moran agreed that the CEO Group meetings have been helpful in leading to more understanding among the different entities, which he said has benefited everyone. At one point he had suggested that each head of the county departments come to the CEO Group meetings to explain to the group what they do, and what their concerns are. A few department heads did that, he said, but it would be helpful to hear from more of them.

Moran also identified the county board’s public commentary rules as a constraint against better communication. During the two opportunities for public commentary at each of their meetings, speakers are limited in time – five minutes at the regular board meetings and working sessions, and three minutes during the Ways & Means Committee meeting.

It’s hard to have a dialogue when you’re limited to speaking for five minutes, Moran said. Also, given the way the county operates, by the time a resolution has reached the board for a vote, the decision about it has already been made, he said. Moran suggested more meetings like this working session would be valuable.

Rabhi noted that there seems to be interest in coming together like this. When he sent out an email invitation to local government leaders, he’d received a lot of responses from people who couldn’t come, but who told him they were “overjoyed” that the county was holding this kind of meeting.

Ronnie Peterson asked other local government leaders to weigh in – what did they want from the county? What are their feelings about how the county currently interacts with them? How can the county enhance existing collaborations? It might be as simple as sharing a dump truck or an office that’s unused. He said the county needs to look for partners to help deliver services to its residents, but some communities want to be isolated – they don’t want to be bothered with collaborative efforts.

Todd Campbell, Saline’s city manager, thanked the board for holding the working session, and said he hoped there’d be more of these meetings in the future, and that more people would attend. For his community, it’s all about providing quality services – and collaboration is key for the future success of all communities, Campbell said. He mentioned ways that Saline is already doing that, citing the work that the Saline police department does with the county sheriff’s office.

Todd Campbell, city manager for Saline, and county commissioner Alicia Ping. Prior to her election to the county board, Ping served on the Saline city council.

Campbell noted that there are 62 employees in Saline city government – 10 fewer than there were eight years ago. At some point, you can’t do more with less – you do less with less. And generally, of the ways to cut costs, they’d already picked the low-hanging fruit.

But there are times when other factors come into play, he added. For example, he said that Saline has a strong city assessor who’s fair and helps educate the public. [Saline's assessor is Catherine Scull.] It doesn’t make sense for them to outsource that job, he said, because she provides such a quality service.

Campbell also stressed the importance of communication. He pointed out that the Saline Area Sustainability Circle has been very helpful – its discussions tend to focus on land-use issues, but other topics are addressed as well. [The group, which Campbell chairs, includes Saline, the Saline Area Chamber of Commerce, Saline Area Schools, Lodi Township, Saline Township, York Township, and Pittsfield Township. Its meetings, held at different locations on the third Tuesday of each month, are open to the public.]

Addressing the topic of barriers to collaboration, Campbell noted that in the town where he previously worked, they talked about those barriers as turf, taxes and tradition. Efforts to collaborate can result in issues of local control, of revenue and of the loss of identify – he cited an example of two school districts that were asked to consolidate, after their sports teams had been bitter rivals for decades. These are some of the challenges.

Alicia Ping, a former Saline city councilmember who now serves on the county board, suggested that the county needs to communicate better with other local governments about the services it already provides. She noted that several years ago, Saline was looking to outsource inspection services. Now, they contract with the county’s water resources commissioner for some of those services – it’s fee-based, she said.

Turner said he’d like to see the county board continue the kind of forum they were having at this working session, perhaps holding them on a quarterly basis. They needed a time when they could just come together and talk with leaders of other local governments.

Moran pointed out that there are a lot of local governments that don’t want to engage with the county, but they should – more people need to attend these meetings, he said.

Campbell also said future forums like this were critical. Often at the state and national level, directives are handed down to local communities, he said – local governments are told what to do and how to do it. A better approach would be to invite local leaders to tell the county what their needs are, he said. That would be crucial – to find out what the ailment is first.

Barriers to Collaboration

Prater said he wanted to talk about why local governments don’t collaborate. All too often, it’s because people have always done things a certain way, he said – change isn’t easy, and it requires people to go outside their comfort level. A lot of people in government don’t want to think about new ideas, but they must, Prater said.

Collaboration also requires good, productive management, Prater said. They need to set performance measures, gather data, and look for efficiencies – it’s not easy, he said.

Moran asked how they would measure a collaborative project, with regards to cost neutrality. Would they measure it at the first dollar that’s spent? Ventures like the Metro Alliance might take a couple of years to pay off, he noted. Judging whether something is cost neutral is meaningless unless there’s a timeframe attached, Moran said.

Planning is key, Prater replied. If initial planning reveals issues that might result in a collaboration not working, then you stop it. These days, he said, it’s all about the revenues – or lack thereof.

Leah Gunn said it’s not just about the county’s revenues – declining property tax revenues are an issue for all local governments. Foreclosures are happening in all districts, including hers, she noted. [Gunn represents District 9, which covers a portion of Ann Arbor.]

In the end, collaboration will pay off, Gunn said. She called the list of current collaborations “amazing,” noting there are others – like the Metro Alliance – that aren’t listed. Her understanding is that the Metro Alliance, which has been inactive recently, is being reconstituted, which she said is a good thing. Recent collaborations among some of the county’s fire departments stemmed in part from the Metro Alliance’s request that fire chiefs to attend one of their meetings, she said.

From left: Salem Township treasurer Paul Uherek, Salem Township supervisor Robert Heyl, and county commissioner Conan Smith of Ann Arbor.

Later in the meeting, Salem Township treasurer Paul Uherek told commissioners that after the last snowfall, it took the county road commission three days before the road was plowed in front of his house. It would be useful for commissioners to ask why some local governments didn’t want to engage in collaborations, he said.

Judge later clarified that the county board isn’t responsible for clearing the roads – the road commission is a separate entity, although the county board is responsible for appointing the three road commissioners who oversee that operation.

Peterson noted that sometimes, people feel their concerns get lost. To say that the road commission is a separate entity ignores the role that the county board plays in appointing road commissioners, he said. Other local governments need to feel they are members of the team, he said, and at the end of the day, people want to be able to pick up the phone and get something done. And at the end of the day, he said, the county board is responsible for the road commission. It’s all about trust, he said – unless the county government has the trust of all municipalities throughout the county, they’ll never get to where they need to be in streamlining operations and cutting costs.

Turner noted that he served as a board liaison to the road commission, and he offered to follow up on the Salem Township issue. He asked them to contact him if there are any problems in the future. Referring to a statement made earlier in the meeting – that most communities have already picked the low-hanging fruit of cost savings – Turner said they’ll need to stand on each others’ shoulders to get at the higher-hanging fruit. “We’re here to help you,” he said, “and that’s what we want to do.”

Moran said he now knows who to call at the road commission, and how to get results – but 10 years ago, when he was new to office, he didn’t. He suggested coming up with a list of important contact information that could be distributed to all local governments.

Dan Smith said it’s true that most communities have already picked the low-hanging fruit. Now, as they brainstorm ideas for collaboration, they’ll face some serious roadblocks.

For example, consider the idea of a countywide fire department – though Smith stressed he wasn’t advocating for this. Residents don’t care where firefighters get trained or how many fire chiefs there are. They just want firefighters to respond when there’s a fire – they care about how quickly firefighters respond. It’s possible for this service to be delivered by a countywide entity, with lots of substations. But working through the details of that would be very difficult, he noted, given that there are currently multiple fire departments across the county.

Potential Areas of Collaboration, Next Steps

In looking at specific areas of possible collaboration, Conan Smith noted that the budget priority document the board approved on March 16 includes two outcomes that were relevant to the current discussion:

• Reductions in cost or duplication of the provision of “invisible” services; and
• Increased support for discretionary services that are board priorities.

Invisible services would include things that aren’t directly seen by residents, such as payroll or human resources. Smith asked if opportunities for collaboration existed in that area.

Campbell reported that from Saline’s perspective, they already contract out for their payroll services – they no longer do that in-house. He said that he heads up the city’s HR, because everyone wears many hats.

Murdock said that Ypsilanti had previously looked at the possibility of outsourcing some of those services, like HR and payroll. At the time, it didn’t make sense – or cents – to pursue, he said. Those aren’t big-ticket items like police or fire, where they could see significant savings from changes.

Conan Smith observed that one consistent theme had emerged that evening – the importance of dialogue and conversation. He said they needed to enter a process of discovery, cataloging all the existing opportunities and reviewing how the county board might participate in them. For example, they haven’t been active in the CEO Group – they could increase their engagement in that. They could also have a representative attend the Saline Area Sustainability Circle, and the Eastern Leaders Group.

Bergman added the community health collaborative to that list, saying they could put more muscle into its activities.

Judge suggested creating a menu of services that local governments could provide to other entities. For example, if there are services that one community provides particularly well – like Saline’s assessor – then perhaps other local governments could contract with them for those services.

Peterson said that for their next meeting on collaboration, they should solicit input from a broader range of elected and appointed officials throughout the county. How do they think the county can work better with their communities?

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel, left, and county commissioner Leah Gunn. The working session was held on St. Patrick's Day – thus the high percentage of green clothing on display.

Picking up on an idea mentioned earlier in the meeting by Moran, Gunn suggested creating a list of contact information for county services. When you’re new to office, there’s a steep learning curve, she said. Bergman proposed posting this information on the county’s website. She also said it was important to get more input from other local governments about how to continue this dialogue.

Peterson felt it should be more than just a list of numbers. New county commissioners get an extensive orientation regarding county services, which includes the opportunity to meet with heads of departments and programs. Something like that might be helpful for leaders of other local governments.

Conan Smith cautioned that it seemed they were on the verge of creating a new project, and he was sensitive to the constraints on their budget and staff time. He asked for some commissioners to look into how much it might involve, and to bring back a report to the board. Rabhi, Bergman and Peterson volunteered for that task.

Peterson then noted that they’ve invited members of other local governments to the table, and that long-term relationships like this might bring some costs. “Let’s not ask for a date if we can’t afford to take them out,” he said.

Judge also expressed concern over creating a new project, noting that other forums already exist, including the CEO Group and the Metro Alliance. In addition, the board’s budget priorities, which they had approved at their March 16 meeting, include a priority to market the county’s services to other entities – that’s something they’ve already asked the county administration to do. She’d rather see them simply add to whatever already exists, not develop something new.

Turner said he understood Judge’s position, and if they can work with existing forums, that’s fine. However, he noted that so far, that hasn’t seemed to work very well – there are still significant communication gaps. They might need a different venue to do that, with a more comfortable atmosphere.

Robert Heyl, Salem Township’s supervisor, said he liked what he heard that night. He noted that each commissioner represented different parts of the county, and they could reach out to other local government leaders within their districts. Meeting one-on-one with other elected officials in their districts would be helpful, he said. The forum that night had been a good start, he said, and he hoped it would continue.

Rabhi wrapped up the working session by saying the discussion had opened a lot of doors, and that they’d hold more meetings like this in the future. The county is eager to work with everyone to best serve the residents, he concluded, “because that’s what we’re all here for.”

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.